←back to thread

931 points sohzm | 7 comments | | HN request time: 1.268s | source | bottom
Show context
tombert ◴[] No.44460923[source]
Things like this are why I have become disillusioned with Open Source, and why latest projects have been closed source. The GPL is a good enough idea but it is basically impossible for anyone to realistically enforce. If a corporation is selling an optimized binary, then it can be almost impossible to prove that there was any violation of the GPL without viewing the source.
replies(4): >>44460940 #>>44461080 #>>44461183 #>>44462047 #
TheChaplain ◴[] No.44461080[source]
> The GPL is a good enough idea but it is basically impossible for anyone to realistically enforce.

Really? If you find a piece of proprietary software does basically the same thing as yours, and the binaries contains the same strings/artwork, then it's reasonable to make a legal case of it. You can even contact FSF and they'll take it further.

replies(1): >>44461134 #
1. tombert ◴[] No.44461134[source]
If you can directly prove a violation dead to rights (or have enough cause for a discovery request) and you have money for legal defense, sure.

A lot of open source stuff is libraries and utilities though that is pretty entrenched in the code. It is hard to even find out about a violation, let alone prove anything.

Imagine I came up with a new algorithm to do Fourier Transforms 10% faster than FFTW (or whatever the current market leader is) and make a library and I release it as GPL. A company could fairly easily just import it to whatever project they’re doing, and it would be extremely difficult for me to prove anything, especially if I don’t have any obvious things like strings in there.

That’s not even taking into account that it would be relatively easy for a corporation to just pay a junior engineer to do a direct “port” of the library to another language and pretending it’s their own independent work.

replies(2): >>44461737 #>>44462102 #
2. bruce511 ◴[] No.44461737[source]
All completely true. And something you can clearly take into account when you decide what to do with your code.

You may decide its worth people using it, reading it, learning from it, exploiting it, or you may not. It's your choice.

Of course your work may be used outside of the license terms. That's pretty much impossible to enforce. That's true for most-all software, commercial or open or free. If that's your main objection to writing code then I recommend a different career. All good code is pirated. That's just how it is.

replies(1): >>44463767 #
3. bawolff ◴[] No.44462102[source]
> Imagine I came up with a new algorithm to do Fourier Transforms 10% faster than FFTW (or whatever the current market leader is) and make a library and I release it as GPL. A company could fairly easily just import it to whatever project they’re doing, and it would be extremely difficult for me to prove anything, especially if I don’t have any obvious things like strings in there.

If you're doing something algorithmically different and unique, presumably that would show up in the assembly.

> That’s not even taking into account that it would be relatively easy for a corporation to just pay a junior engineer to do a direct “port” of the library to another language and pretending it’s their own independent work.

Important to keep in mind that copyright is not patents. If they are just stealing the "idea" of your algorithmic improvement, that probably isn't even a GPL violation. (This isn't fully right as they would probably have to use a clean-room design to avoid copyright infringement. My point is more that such a situation is pretty muddy and might actually be allowed)

replies(1): >>44463728 #
4. tombert ◴[] No.44463728[source]
> If you're doing something algorithmically different and unique, presumably that would show up in the assembly.

I don’t think it is realistic to expect a developer to load every executable that might use their software into Ghidra or something and try and find a smoking gun about how their code might be used, and then hire an attorney to put together a case on that. In the case of my example, Fourier transforms are used everywhere in a wide variety of applications, and if my implementation is only like 10% faster it wouldn’t be very clear to an outside observer.

> Important to keep in mind that copyright is not patents. If they are just stealing the "idea" of your algorithmic improvement, that probably isn't even a GPL violation.

I am not saying it’s legal or not, I have no idea, just that that is why I have become disillusioned with the idea of open source, and I am not convinced that a well-meaning license like GPL is a realistic safeguard against corporate exploitation.

5. tombert ◴[] No.44463767[source]
Because I think people should be properly compensated for their labor instead of directly donating it to a mega corporation I should choose a “different career”? Do you realize how utterly insane that sounds?

You’re free to do what you want. I just find a lot of the entire FOSS process kind of exploitative and why I have become disillusioned with it.

ETA:

To be clear, I have a fair active GitHub and I still post stuff on there fairly often, and even a few non-trivial things. I just have stopped compulsively putting every line of code I write in public repositories.

replies(1): >>44464445 #
6. bruce511 ◴[] No.44464445{3}[source]
Oh, think people should be properly compensated for their labor. And I'm still programming.

But lots of programmers don't get properly compensated. Some by choice, some by external factors.

I'm saying that's a reality. How you feel about other programmers and the choices they make for themselves is up to you.

Clearly there's no obligation to post anything yo public repositories, send the vast majority of programmers never do.

replies(1): >>44464758 #
7. tombert ◴[] No.44464758{4}[source]
I can’t tell other programmers what to do, nor would I even if I could.

I am merely explaining why I choose not to partake in FOSS when I think it’s exploitive. People are free to disagree, or not care, and that’s obviously fine, but I choose to not directly contribute to it.