Date: 2012-01-31 03:10 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
I'm with Matthew here: that's just scummy.

They're basically saying: "we know full well what the implications are of the GPL, but hey, that GPL code is so darn dandy. Let's just avoid this bit here, so it's less likely someone will force us to open up."

This tells me that companies have no intention to abide by the terms of the GPL in the first place. They only grudgingly do it if someone shows up and litigates.

Honestly, if I had embedded GPL code that was likely used (ie. kernel), I'd make it a point to a) proclaim on that wiki that anyone participating in such an endeavor would get extra close attention. And b) simply not reinstate their license, so they'd stuck with a lot of bricks they can't sell.

Maybe I'm a bit petty. But really - abide by the license. There's a lot of BSD/MIT/ISC code out there, there's nothing wrong with it, and as a developer there are sometimes good reasons to prefer one of these over the GPL. But that's up to the developer!
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

If you are unable to use this captcha for any reason, please contact us by email at support@dreamwidth.org

Profile

Matthew Garrett

About Matthew

Power management, mobile and firmware developer on Linux. Security developer at nvidia. Ex-biologist. Content here should not be interpreted as the opinion of my employer. Also on Mastodon and Bluesky.

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags