Hacker News Reader

Comment by gcp | Hacker News Reader

On one hand, if the license holders of the other infringing software don't care to enforce the license, why should anybody care? It makes no sense to me, but it's up to them.

Believe it or not, most free software developers aren't dying to spend their time and money to start a copyright lawsuit against Sony. That doesn't mean they're actually OK with their copyright and licenses being violated. Public shaming is often much more cost-effective. But if there's one company that doesn't give a rats ass, it's Sony.

Most free software developers also don't register their copyright (unlike Sony) and so aren't entitled to those fantastically high statutory damages. They have to prove actual damages. For free software.

Good luck.

View on HN

Here's a question: How is Sony's behavior on this so different from what MegaUpload is being accused of?

Basically, Sony is admitting that they are doing this so that they can avoid complying with the GPL, meaning that it is their intent to violate copyright law, knowing that they probably won't get sued over it. Isn't this a criminal act on the part of Sony?

I realize that it isn't as cut and dry, but I do see some strong parallels.

Further, why are these companies so stupid as to not release the source for their BusyBox implementation without being sued? It seems like it would be much, much simpler than trying to hold onto it and then be forced into a situation of releasing the source for everything that's covered.

Indeed - Pragmatically, why should sony care? They will care when they end up in court because the rightsholders go after them. if the rightsholders are not willing or able to do so, then sony doesnt have much to worry about. thats business.

Sony aside, I wondr if it is legally feasible for there to beaclass action suit against a large serial gpl violator, the class being developers only related by the license they chose to use.... copyright violation is illegal, after all, right?

If there are GPL software developers who are having their licenses infringed and want to enforce, they can grant SFC the authority to enforce. I really don't see the problem here.

On the other hand, more software that is not infected with a proprietary or copyleft license is always good.

And that is exactly what this post is requesting that they do. It is making it clear that this is an option and asking that they do it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com