Didn't Bricklink make the Studio software prior to Lego's 2019 acquisition? That doesn't completely justify Lego, but I think it is another bit of relevant nuance to the situation.
It would have been Lego's responsibility during due diligence to do a software inventory of Bricklink and determine if there were liabilities around software licenses.
It is a very common thing to do. Startups cut corners and don't get attention cause they don't have a lot of money. But get bought out by a multi-billion dollar company and it gets noticed.
I honestly have no idea. But the title suggests malice on the side of Lego, while it links to a forum discussion with an off the cuff remark that a library is GPL. Nothing about trying to get an unwilling company to comply or similar as I was expecting.
Folks here seem to be contacting the bricklink team already for clarification, it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Feels to me like open sourcing would be a win for them, provided they don't link to any other code containing proprietary licenses.
maybe you should find out, before spreading misinformation:
> require that programs distributed as pre-compiled binaries be accompanied by a copy of the source code, a written offer to distribute the source code via the same mechanism as the pre-compiled binary, or the written offer to obtain the source code that the user got when they received the pre-compiled binary under the GPL.
did you read what I quoted? It says the binary must be distributed with source code, or with an offer to distribute the source code. Lego did none of that.
I was responding to the comment on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35182511, which says that "GPL doesn't say you must provide source code once you get caught, it says you must publish it the moment you release a derivative work."
And, no. You don't have to publish the source code. You have to offer to distribute it. Which is different. (I am not a lawyer).
> It doesn't look like Lego has even been contacted and asked to remedy the situation.
Lego is giant international corporation with a small army of lawyers and dedicated compliance officers. They don't get the benefit of the doubt here nor if someone infringed on their IP would they 'delicately handle it' to preserve the reputation of the offender.
I didn't say they should get the benefit of the doubt. It's pretty clear cut, there's little doubt to be had.
But we have no idea how they'll remedy the situation, because the situation has, in all likelyhood, not been pointed out to them at this point in time.
And it's highly unlikely that their "small army of lawyers and dedicated compliance officers" would knowingly allow this. Therefore I doubt the situation is the result of actively malicious behavior.
I suggest being allowed to call them just Legos instead of "Lego™ style plastic building blocks" would be appropriate punishment.