![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/-BhGJz2yPt4/maxresdefault.jpg)
Why GPL violations are bad — Gary explains
AndroidAuthority,Android,linux,open source,gpl,fsf,gary explains
Read more: | 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:
Subscribe to our YouTube channel:
—————————————————-
Stay connected to Android Authority:
-
-
-
-
-
—
Follow the Team:
Josh Vergara:
Joe Hindy:
Lanh Nguyen:
Jayce Broda:
Gary Sims:
Kris Carlon:
Nirave Gondhia:
David Imel:
Bailey Stein:
#GPL #violations #bad #Gary #explains
Great video!
I agree with you in general, but your use of some words is a bit off, in my opinion.
I think that spreading the philosophical message of free software is better than saying “open-source”, as this does not touch on a very important issue; freedom.
Please read this article, if you wish.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html
MIT > GPL
These companies should face the wrath of Stallman and burn in hell.
Disappointed you didn’t mention LGPL
Would like to see Undoomed rek this SJW.
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.
Thanks so much This actually helped me understand a lot
So do I do MIT or GPL3 for my dinky snake game?
At the end, I thought he was going to say “take a long walk off a short pier” LOL, would have been funny
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.
Best Video on Software Licensing that I watched so far!
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?
I personally am a fan of the BSD 2‑clause license. But, GPL v2, the only GPL, in my opinion, is amazing for the original writer(s.)
@AndroidAuthority I wanted to know how will a person know if GPL code is used if only the exe is published by the company. thanks.
Gary could you please explain GPL 2 vs 3 and what exactly Linus meant when he ragged on v3? I don’t understand
utmost respect for you gary!
THANK YOU FOR THIS VIDEO ❤️👍👍👍
Wonderfully explained! Thank you!!
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.
great video
As much as I agree, money doesn’t care about injustice.
TMOBILE AND TARGET!
3:22 it’s unfortunate that he used any terms… ever
7:05 that chairman and shareholders are worse than leeches and other parasites🤮
Very nice explanation ! Idid not know about Social Contract. This information MUST be passed around. Thanks !
So they don’t have to publish the changes of android, but have to publish the changes in Linux kernel , am I understanding correctly?
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?
But what if I just use the libs whitout modifying them ?
“Social contract”
It is not, it’s a legally binding license. In the United States, if you are violating a software license, you are committing software infringement and can be sued as sucu
Apple’s MacOS after keeping their linux code private for 25 years: 👀
How such violations are detected? Let’s say I build an application on top some GPL licensed repo and make it closed source. How can the author of repo find out that I am using it?
Hey Gary, that last comment was stolen almost 100% from Jesus. And you gave no attribution. Luckily Jesus’ words aren’t GPL.
This is similar to WordPress plugins, right? Or they should not publish the changes?
One clarification I’m seeking about GPL, especially as a weak-copyleft is whether we need to acknowledge or make the source code available if we are using the existing source code as it is without any modifications. For example, I download and use the Linux kernel source for a commercial embedded product. However, I do not make any changes to the kernel but just add some of my proprietary applications to it. What am I supposed to do in this scenario?
Wow! That came straight from the heart!!
So if you don’t modify the linux kernel you can use it to create a proprietary software? And if a company violates GPL what happens? They get sued? Who sues them?
Yeah, but can it still be considered free with that limitation? I think not.
Gpl makes technology improve faster two heads better than one
GPL2, Best one to use in my eyes, ensures you get any improvements back.
please say “free”, not “open source“
open source is an entirely different thing and you’re using the wrong term
free software (or libre) is the correct term when talking about licenses like the gpl
Thanks a lot great explanation!
I have a question about GPL tho. What about a say a composer or a node package under GPL? Can it be installed in a project without forcing them to give me their entire project source?
I would like to receive any changes/fixes made to MY source code, but I don’t expect to get everything they do just because some small part of it depends on my library. Eg. Say a Shoe company builds a web app to create custom shoes in a 3d interface and paint them etc and they are using my API Router I build. I dont expect them to share their 3d engine and product management system etc. But if they create a FORK of my library so they can fix/improve something for their purposes then Id like to receive that.
Is there any licence that asks for contributions without the creep? Guess there is no way to enforce any of this anyway. I mean if its closed source how can you know if they are using your code at all in the first place.
gary simps
If you are using an open source firmware GPL on an embedded board but you have a custom android code that communicates with it are you obligated to release your android code?
Excellent video and you have explained the significance of GPL very well and easy to understand. Thanks !
Chatgpt, Openai’s LLM told me that I would be violating mturks policy by making an extension for Chrome that automatically accepts HITs. This is ironic, because the makers of Chatgpt didn’t seem to mind stepping on a lot of programmers toes by including their code while training Chatgpt. Many programmers were up in arms because even though their code may have had a GPL or GNU license they still were not asked permission for their code to be in the training of Chatgpt. The problem is that while Chatgpt may reap billions of dollars, we can’t even make a small profit on something that didn’t nearly come close to the violations that Chatgpt comitted. But in the end life is indeed like the Alanis Moriset song “Ironic.” While the rich do exactly the same thing as the poor people do, we get in trouble because somehow we are less empowered.
Two additions (I am sure they are somewhere in one of your large back catalog I am yet to watch, but here they are, anyway):
One, users of GPL licensed software are free to sell it, as long as they respect the license. Why would anyone pay for GPL’ed SW? A frequent reason is that they get support bundled with it. Often, free “community editions” of open source software differ from commercial version only in support.
Second, Free Software Foundation recognized that people who sell their software would often like to use some open source components, without making all of their software open source. And thus LPGP (Lesser (or Library) General Public License) was born. It typically covers libraries or other well defined components. Usual GPL rules apply to that component by itself — if you modify it for your use, you must release modifications under the same license. However, you are free to link it with your other, closed source code to make closed source executables.
Similarly, you are generally free to keep your source code closed even it you user open source tools (e.g. compilers) to make it.
GPL Violations are piracy in the same way as copying copyrighted content is