I’m glad there’s finally some cases setting precedent for the GPL.
I am personally not a fan of GPL family licenses BUT I am sick of fellow OSS developers who keep telling me not to worry about the minutiae of the license. (Usually some form of “Oh don’t worry because we aren’t litigious right now, as long as you stick with our incorrect interpretation of the license”)
My team is responsible for a lot of corporate contributions to open source (some GPL) and I have to pay extra attention to the license terms as a result.
There’s a lot of GPL software that operates in the grey (and many OSS devs who don’t understand their license choices), and I very much like my licenses to be as black and white as possible so I can avoid any risk.
Having legal precedence to point to will help make concerns concrete.
I am personally not a fan of GPL family licenses BUT I am sick of fellow OSS developers who keep telling me not to worry about the minutiae of the license. (Usually some form of “Oh don’t worry because we aren’t litigious right now, as long as you stick with our incorrect interpretation of the license”)
My team is responsible for a lot of corporate contributions to open source (some GPL) and I have to pay extra attention to the license terms as a result.
There’s a lot of GPL software that operates in the grey (and many OSS devs who don’t understand their license choices), and I very much like my licenses to be as black and white as possible so I can avoid any risk.
Having legal precedence to point to will help make concerns concrete.