I thought companies could bribe through the legal system, so why not licenses?

  • @Ghast@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    52 years ago

    Legal questions would have to be answered on a per-country basis, since different high courts can make different rulings.

    I’m not sure people ‘bribe their way through’ a legal system by simply paying money, then wandering off with a good ruling. Vague laws might be swayed, but having public courts mean people can’t just aske for a murder charge to be dropped.

    I don’t know of any unambiguous GPL violation which has been left alone. Trump’s social media (truth-social or something) was found to have violataed the GPL, so they’ll have to release that code.

    • AmiceseOP
      link
      fedilink
      02 years ago

      Isn’t that a corp just buying a license

      No. What I mean is bribing courts to bypass the requirement to follow the license.

      or donating money to a foundation?

      No.

  • @OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    42 years ago

    Copyleft licenses have largely remained untested in courts. It’s surprising that Oracle hasn’t made a shell company, violated its own GPL license, then thrown the court case to create precedent that GPL is unenforceable.

    • Ora
      link
      fedilink
      42 years ago

      IANAL but I think that in itself would get thrown out. I remember from my media law class that after so many jokes about Fox News on the Simpsons, they sued Fox Entertainment and the rolling in the case was essentially “You can’t sue yourself”

    • AmiceseOP
      link
      fedilink
      -22 years ago

      Yep. I thought they would have done it too.

      It’s very depressing though; copyleft licenses could easily be overthrown. :(

  • @ganymede@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    22 years ago

    when they need to they probably will.

    right now who is even going to put them in the position they even need to worry about that kind of expense?

  • @electrodynamica@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    12 years ago

    The thing I don’t like about copyleft is the implication that a license is even a valid thing. I get it, in the Church of Satan kind of beat them at their own game thing… But… Shouldn’t we just obsolete scarcity and publish everything public domain if we really believe in free ideas?

    • @southerntofu@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      22 years ago

      Yes and no. On a raw principle, yes. But what are the practical consequences of non-copyleft licenses? It’s just more corporate exploitation of volunteer maintainers, as we see in the open-source ecosystem.

  • @LLVMcompile@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    12 years ago

    If a company had money to “bribe” why wouldn’t they just pay off the original creators for a license change? Or make their own version of the gpl codebase?

    It’s not the 90s anymore, the majority of new software is released under permissive licensing. And companies are more willing to upstream their code, regardless of license.

    • AmiceseOP
      link
      fedilink
      02 years ago

      If a company had money to “bribe” why wouldn’t they just pay off the original creators for a license change?

      That can get expensive. If the companies could systematically subvert copyleft licenses; then they wouldn’t have to bribe each creator for a license change.

      It’s not the 90s anymore

      OK. It’s the 2020s and it’s still relevant.

      the majority of new software is released under permissive licensing.

      1. Source?
      2. And? Popularity doesn’t reduce the relevancy of permissive or copyleft licensing.

      Permissive licensing is still flawed; because it allows companies to remove the freedoms set by the license and not contribute to the original project. The Amazon-Elastisearch scandal is a modern example of abusing permissive licenses.[1][2]

      If you want a time-relevant example, Microsoft’s ‘Embrace, Extend, Extinguish’ tactic preyed on noncopyleft programs by copying the standard and then adding proprietary features to lock people out of it.[3] Copyleft is designed to prevent this tactic from working.

      And companies are more willing to upstream their code,

      Open-source is an irrelevant topic here. I am debating about copyleft licenses, not open-source licenses.


      1. Amazon: NOT OK - why we had to change Elastic licensing ↩︎

      2. Amazon responds to Elastic changing its open-source software license, SDTimes ↩︎

      3. The Microsoft Monopoly, The Science Elf ↩︎