Why GPL violations are bad – Gary explains

Read more: http://andauth.co/WCtJZF | The thing about open source software is that it is equally a social contract as well as a legal agreement. That is why companies that break the open source “contract” are immoral and unjust.

Download the Android Authority App: https://andauth.co/aa-app

Subscribe to our YouTube channel: https://andauth.co/subscribe
—————————————————-
Stay connected to Android Authority:
– http://www.androidauthority.com
– http://facebook.com/androidauthority/
– http://twitter.com/androidauth/
– http://instagram.com/androidauthority/
– https://snapchat.com/add/androidauth
– http://google.com/+androidauthority

Follow the Team:
Josh Vergara: https://twitter.com/jvtechtea
Joe Hindy: https://twitter.com/ThatJoeHindy
Lanh Nguyen: https://twitter.com/LanhNguyenFilms
Jayce Broda: https://twitter.com/jaycebroda
Gary Sims: https://twitter.com/garysims
Kris Carlon: https://twitter.com/kriscarlon
Nirave Gondhia: https://twitter.com/nirave
David Imel: https://twitter.com/durvidimel
Bailey Stein: https://twitter.com/baileystein1

source

Author: Rafael

ANGELHOUSE © 2009 - 2022 | HOSTING BY PHILLYFINEST369 SERVER STATS| & THE IDIOTS ROBOT AND CONTROL INC. |(RSS FEED MODULE)| ALL YOUTUBE VIDEOS IS A REGISTERED TRADEMARK OF GOOGLE INC. THE YOUTUBE CHANNELS AND BLOG FEEDS IS MANAGED BY THERE RIGHTFUL OWNERS (AVNBLOGFEED.COM)

26 thoughts on “Why GPL violations are bad – Gary explains

  1. Does GPL ONLY means that the changes need to be published? What about the rest of the code that relied on it? Like you said. If the Linux Kernel is GPL, doesn't that mean that ALL of Android should be GPL too? Or just the changes that Google made to the kernel? Why is this so confusing?

  2. So they don’t have to publish the changes of android, but have to publish the changes in Linux kernel , am I understanding correctly?

  3. Business Opportunity in Ruvol

    I have invented a Board Game [still unpublished and not yet out in the market] that I believe is guaranteed to be as challenging and exciting as CHESS. I called it “RUVOL.”

    It is my hope that one day Ruvol may surpass chess as the “Number One Board Game in the World.”

    The weakness of chess is it always starts in fixed positions that the opening moves become “memorizable.” In fact, not a few have so mastered the moves that they can play against their opponents “blindfolded.” It is for this very reason that the great Bobby Fischer introduced his so-called “Fischer Random Chess,” where the starting position of the pieces is “randomized” to make the memorization of openings impracticable. Fortunately, it is also for this reason that I invented Ruvol where “every game” has been calculated to be a challenging one to play.

    HOW IS RUVOL PLAYED and HOW YOU CAN MONETIZE IT?

    I detailed everything in my YouTube video. Here is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcqth0m3-R0

    BIG MONEY POTENTIAL IN RUVOL!

    It is worthwhile to note that the people who play chess will be the same people who will play Ruvol. In my Google search, I learned there are around 800 million chess players in the world. Even just a small percentage of these 800 million is good enough to earn big money from Ruvol either as an ONLINE GAME BUSINESS or as a PHYSICAL PRODUCT DISTRIBUTOR.

    You may contact me at: rodolfovitangcol@gmail.com.

    Thanks and God bless!

    RODOLFO MARTIN VITANGCOL

    The Ruvol Inventor

  4. GPL violations happen alot in China. Kernels often are forked to work on particular hardware on Android devices they make. Huawei does not care about releasing source of forked kernels or drivers. They do not even want you rooting any of their products.

  5. Confusing. Why does an Android app have to modify the Linux kernel? Can a developer write and sell an android app, release the source but stipulate that users of the app have to pay a license fee?

  6. Seems like there is a flaw. When people rewrite the code in order to avoid mixing GPL and the people who wrote the original open source code don't get original code back with whatever updates the person made. That means people are taking the open source code, using it, and not giving anything back to the open source community. There's nothing to stop company's from just taking the open source code and designing something that works exactly the same and then making it closed source. I feel like if they are using open source code and saving money on hiring developers to write the code from scratch they should give code back to whoever they originally got it from.

  7. Sorry, but these strong copyleft licenses are not much better than any proprietary license, and the belief that they enforce software freedom has largely gone alongside Richard Stallman's recent exit from the OSS and Free Software scene. A restriction is a restriction, and to prevent proprietary software companies from making derivative works under their own terms is by no means a way of freeing your software. People contribute to the OSS scene for the good of everyone, out of either a passion for technology, or because they're developing a software subsystem of a proprietary product that they don't mind open sourcing (and in fact doing so likely helps improve that subsystem). I strongly urge lovers of software freedom to use either the MIT or Apache 2.0 license.

  8. GPL is better at saving you money than at making you money. This is what most big companies understand and what the majority of normal people don't. Sometimes this is worth it way more than actually selling and profiting off of a product. GPL projects are community driven and not strictly company driven. Of course usually the biggest players in these communities that develop the GPL project are actual, real, massive, extremely wealthy companies that found out they can save/make money through this particular GPL product. In return they submit changes/contribute to this project making it even bigger, stronger and better. This is why currently open source projects are advancing faster and gaining more ground than proprietary projects. Of course there are certain types of programs that are not really worth making open source but they are specific cases. For the biggest and most widely used projects open source proved to be a more efficient, faster, stable and secure way to develop.

Comments are closed.