https://twitter.com/jonoberheide/status/857243764800225280 … It will still be GPLv2 since customers are paying for sources licensed as GPLv2. Legally, they could publish it.
-
-
Attempting to circumvent the intent/spirit of the GPL is not going to be looked upon kindly by FOSS communities or by the courts.
-
There are no rights being waived. The GPL doesn't say anything about entitlement to future versions of the software. Would not make sense.
-
The spirit of the GPL is about user freedom, not publishing code or contributing back. They aren't what the FSF cares about or tried to do.
-
And all of those freedoms are intact. Future business relationship with the company producing the software is not one of the those freedoms.
-
Forget about future vers; it's a distraction. If they said "if you exercise your rights under GPL, we'll kill a kitten" it'd infringe too.
-
They aren't saying that, it's an assumption we're making: if a company published it, they likely wouldn't continue to do business with them.
-
As soon as that happens, or as soon as they in any way suggest that that might happen, there's grounds for litigation.
-
By Linux kernel developers, not the customer. There are no grounds for one of their customers to sue since it's not their software license.
- 10 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Suspect much of blame is with those who used and didn't comply.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.