

The economic incentive to violate the GPL - chalst
http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/9387.html

======
tbrownaw
So, what can be done about / learned from this?

 _Competitive advantage of secrets (standard anti-BSD argument)_

The standard response is that maintaining a patchset is expensive. Do devices
get frequent (and comprehensive) enough firmware updates for this to actually
matter? I would assume this varies with the type of device.

 _Manufacturer is using binaries that they don't have source for_

This could be recursive, or it could be that the binaries were obtained by
questionable means. Are there other reasons (if so, those would probably apply
to the final device manufacturer as well and so still be recursive)? I didn't
see anything about (perceived) patent liability in the article, maybe
companies fear that releasing source would invite suits from patent trolls?
Are there more reasons?

 _Non-repeatable build process_

If a proper process is actually cheaper, shouldn't companies that don't have
one die out? Is this happening or not? Why?

~~~
xenophanes
> If a proper process is actually cheaper, shouldn't companies that don't have
> one die out? Is this happening or not? Why?

Is a proper process cheaper? Maybe it is _directly_ , but requires hiring
better programmers who cost more. Which of course has all sorts of benefits,
but like the proper process itself, maybe that's only a win in the long term,
so some companies don't do it. (Also many companies would like to hire good
programmers, but don't know how to, and also don't know how to hire someone
who knows how...)

------
yummyfajitas
_So if one of your competitors paid for the SDK, you can just dump the
binaries off their machine, flash them onto your own boards and save yourself
a decent amount of money. You obviously don't get the source, and nor do you
have the standing to insist that the vendor whose binaries you misappropriated
give you the source._

I don't think this is correct. Since your competitor distributed the software
to you (I assume you purchased the board), they are legally obligated to give
you the source or stop distributing the product.

So legally, your competitor has only two choices: stop distributing the
product or enforce their GPL rights against the vendor and then share the
source with you.

~~~
mjg59
What GPL rights? The GPL is a license, not a contract. If someone fails to
grant you the rights it provides then your only recourse is a copyright
infringement suit, and if you're not a copyright holder then you have no
standing to enforce that.

~~~
Karunamon
How do you figure that? It's a license, which is a type of contract.

~~~
mjg59
It grants you permissions above and beyond what you'd otherwise have and
doesn't remove any existing rights, so my understanding is that you're
offering no consideration to the licensor and so it's not a contract.

~~~
Karunamon
Yes, but if someone offers GPL licensed software to you, they themselves are
in violation of the GPL if they don't cough up the source code. I don't see
how I as an end user couldn't bring an action against an entity for violating
the terms of the agreement.

~~~
mjg59
It's not a contract, so you can't use contract law against them. You're not a
copyright holder, so you can't use copyright law against them. What kind of
action are you expecting?

Edited to add: I guess if they sold it to you as a GPLed work then you might
have some recourse under advertising law, but even then I think you'd probably
be limited to getting your money back - there's no way you can compel them to
give you the source code.

~~~
dthunt
You do however have legal recourse to ensure compliance (in the sense that you
can demand they comply with their requirements under the license).

If you're out for blood, contact the copyright holder.

~~~
mjg59
You can demand, but there are no circumstances under which they're obliged to
comply. Even the copyright holder can't force that - the most they can do is
win damages for infringement and prevent any further distribution.

------
hiptobecubic
This "issue" with the GPL is ridiculous. "Complying with the law is annoying
and expensive, why would anyone bother?"

Replace "GPL" with "OSHA" or "child labor laws" and the stupidity of this
argument becomes readily apparent. You are licensed to use the software given
certain conditions are met. You meet the conditions or you do not use the
software. Gaining a competitive edge is no justification for breaking your
contract.

Start a media streaming service that just pirates everything; non-compliance
would be a huge advantage there.

~~~
mjg59
The world is full of businesses who ignore legal requirements because they
think the risk of prosecution is low and the benefits are worthwhile. Software
isn't a special case. What's unusual in this case is that Google's happily
making money off the companies breaking the law and doesn't seem to care.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Surely in this scenario, Google is actively hurt?

You argue that, in the short term at least, these individual companies that
are part of the Android Ecosystem can avoid costs but surely the ecosystem as
a whole would produce more, better and cheaper phones if they could be forced
to take the long term view.

I'm also not sure how many of the various reasons given are plausible given
that HTC can and do release the source, but simply delay it for whatever
reason.

Is compliance really not the norm amongst businesses that sign up with Google
to ship the market etc.?

