Re: No actual damage
You know that the case has NOTHING to do with the GPL, right?
One guy said "I'm gonna do this".
Another (world expert) said "I don't think you can do that".
The first guy then threatened to sue.
The expert then said "Please don't. I will fight it, it won't go your way. It's an opinion. I'm happy to just drop this now."
The first guy still sued.
Expert won the case. Filed counter-claim for, basically, being a frivolous lawsuit.
Guy appealed.
Expert won the appeal.
Guy now on the line for $250k for his own stupidity.
That the opinion was about the GPL is literally nothing to do with the case - the courts have literally said that the merits of that argument are nothing to do with the case at all, it's whether an expert was expressing his opinion or not. And they ruled it was just an opinion.
However, the GPL is quite literally the most popular open-source licence for a reason. If you want to benefit from code under the GPL, it says that have to give that benefit back to everyone else who uses that code. If you don't like it, don't contribute to GPL code. Hell, you can still use it, it doesn't change the way you use it - only the way you *distribute* it or the way you *contribute* it.
It's quite clear and obvious.
There's a reason that Linux is supported by the world's largest IT companies despite that "payback" clause, and not FreeBSD, etc. They don't like paying back any more than anyone else. But they use it for a reason. My IBM Bladecenter server officially supports Linux, on an equal par with Windows Server. It doesn't have *any* official support for any BSD whatsoever.
Don't like it? Don't use it. Or use it but don't distribute or contribute to it. Strangely, even with that restriction, THOUSANDS of times more people choose to contribute to Linux than to the "open" BSD.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
