Comment by zelcon
1 year ago
Corps don't want to have to release the source code for their internal forks. They could also potentially be sued for everything they link using it because the linked binaries could be "derivative works" according to a judge who doesn't know anything.
They don't have to release source for internal forks.
They do if they're AGPL licensed and the internal form software is used to provide a user facing service.
But then it isn’t “internal”…
2 replies →
I think you should get new lawyers if this is their understanding of how software licenses work.
See for example https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl...
> Code licensed under the GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL) MUST NOT be used at Google.
It’s their loss
6 replies →
I'm wondering if you've ever actually asked a real corporate lawyer for an opinion on anything relating to GPL licenses. The results are pretty consistent. I've made the trip on three occasions, and the response each time was: "this was not drafted by a lawyer, it's virtually ininterpretable, and it is wildly unpredictable what the consequences of using this software are."
Why do some companies engage with it then?
Eh, all the GNU family of licenses were drafted by lawyers.
Just using any Copyleft software has no legal consequences (copyleft licenses kick in when distributing, not using them).