←back to thread

931 points sohzm | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
fargle ◴[] No.44460848[source]
looks like they fixed it: https://github.com/pickle-com/glass/commit/5c462179acface889...

let's not freak out - you can't "steal" open-source code, they used an incompatible license. that was accidentally too free.

people monetizing something you open-source isn't stealing.

replies(10): >>44460882 #>>44460896 #>>44460900 #>>44460918 #>>44460936 #>>44460990 #>>44461518 #>>44461793 #>>44461816 #>>44461885 #
tareqak ◴[] No.44460896[source]
From what I understand, it would be a breach of contract at minimum (based on what I remember from past discussions of this sort of activity involving different participants).

If someone else has a better idea of what “forking GPL 3 source code and using a different licence” would be, then please let me and others know.

replies(4): >>44460974 #>>44461565 #>>44461642 #>>44462085 #
1. rwmj ◴[] No.44461642[source]
If you don't follow the license, then you don't have a license to use, distribute or modify the code. So then you get into copyright violation territory, up to $150,000 per infringement in the US if it's intentional.
replies(1): >>44461672 #
2. anilakar ◴[] No.44461672[source]
Sadly in my experience various courts have taken a stance that violating GPL does not cause monetary damages, because the software in question is free.
replies(1): >>44461724 #
3. rwmj ◴[] No.44461724[source]
Can you cite some actual cases?
replies(1): >>44461866 #
4. seanhunter ◴[] No.44461866{3}[source]
I somewhat doubt they can since in the US the BusyBox lawsuits pretty much all ended with the infringers settling and paying out, and those that didn’t settle, busybox won[1]. I would think that, and the original artistic license lawsuits (which were decided on by the US court of appeals) established that infringing open source softwaree licenses is a copyright infringement.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BusyBox#GPL_lawsuits