4 ms·

> Sharing code is no longer cool if people have to share back. Or at least so it seems. There are plenty of licenses which require/encourage that. The problem

by dtech 11y ago

> Sharing code is no longer cool if people have to share back. Or at least so it seems. There are plenty of licenses which require/encourage that. The problem with GPL is that everything that touches the GPL code has to become GPL or compatible. Adobe for example will never put this in Photoshop, or Microsoft in Internet Explorer, as they do not want to GPL their software. Net result is no wide support for this image format, which is a net loss compared to a e.g. LGPL/MPL scenario where companies could do that but still would have to contribute to the library if they made any changes/improvements.

guelo 11y ago
That's the whole point of GPL. To move people away from closed source by having a sperate ecosystem that cannot be contaminated. The problem is that the ecosystem hasn't been that compelling besides a few things such as Linux.
- bmm6o 11y ago
  That's fine as a long-term goal, but it's pretty directly in conflict with the short-term goal of getting support for this image format into all browsers. If you want this in e.g. IE, someone will have to re-implement it with a license compatible with IE. And there will be compatibility bugs, non feature-parity, etc. I mean, I get it if you'd like closed-source browsers to go away. You're entitled to that position. But that's not the effect that making this library GPL will have.
bloody_pretzels 11y ago
You're not quite right. Everything that touches the GPL code has to become GPL, period. GPL compatibility only exists in one direction. A license is compatible if it is relicensable as GPL, the GPL itself isn't compatible with anything. Rant: I really want to like the GPL, but this requirement is downright hostile towards other open source licenses. And in my opinion it's not even necessary for the GPL's mission. Surely, it would be enough to require that all other parts of the combined work must also be distributed under open source licenses, not necessarily the entire GPL. Some parts of the GPL, like the installation instruction requirement and the anti-tivoization clause, should apply anyway if only some parts are GPL'd, and the reduced protection would easily be outweighed by a strengthened open source community.
- belorn 11y ago
  What you are describing in the rant is how GPL works, so surely there must be some misunderstanding here. If you use a GPLv3 library, your own additions to it can be GPLv3 or any compatible license. It can be mit, apache, BSD, mpl, CC-anything so long it allow commercial use, and almost any of the free and open source licenses. The entire thing to do not need to be GPL and in large projects its commonly not.
  - bloody_pretzels 11y ago
    GPLv3 Section 5. Conveying Modified Source Versions. > You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: > c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged. This License gives no permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not invalidate such permission if you have separately received it. It really does not work like you would want it to. Technically, you only add the GPL, so the work will then be licensed under both licenses at once. But the GPL is so restrictive that this doesn't make much difference in practice beyond maybe retaining the original license text.
    - belorn 11y ago
      There is no form of maybe in it. People who don't retain the original license text are committing copyright infringement. The license talks about when the the entire work is being distributed. Individual parts licensed under a different license can be used in other works under completely different licenses and the GPL do not impact such use.
      - bloody_pretzels 11y ago
        I'm not clear on what you are trying to say. Naturally, the GPL only applies when distributing GPL'd code, not when it's used solely privately. The license clearly states that all parts of the "work based on the Program" (anything derived from GPL code) have to be licensed under GPL. The FSF has always asserted that a derived work includes anything that statically or dynamically links to GPL'd code, although the term was controversial and v3 now mentions linking explicitly. So, when the section above talks about "the whole of the work and all its parts", that includes files that are by themselves not GPL'd. These have to be distributed under GPL as well if you want to include them.

by dtech 11y ago

guelo 11y ago

That's the whole point of GPL. To move people away from closed source by having a sperate ecosystem that cannot be contaminated. The problem is that the ecosystem hasn't been that compelling besides a few things such as Linux.

bmm6o 11y ago
That's fine as a long-term goal, but it's pretty directly in conflict with the short-term goal of getting support for this image format into all browsers. If you want this in e.g. IE, someone will have to re-implement it with a license compatible with IE. And there will be compatibility bugs, non feature-parity, etc. I mean, I get it if you'd like closed-source browsers to go away. You're entitled to that position. But that's not the effect that making this library GPL will have.

bloody_pretzels 11y ago

You're not quite right. Everything that touches the GPL code has to become GPL, period. GPL compatibility only exists in one direction. A license is compatible if it is relicensable as GPL, the GPL itself isn't compatible with anything. Rant: I really want to like the GPL, but this requirement is downright hostile towards other open source licenses. And in my opinion it's not even necessary for the GPL's mission. Surely, it would be enough to require that all other parts of the combined work must also be distributed under open source licenses, not necessarily the entire GPL. Some parts of the GPL, like the installation instruction requirement and the anti-tivoization clause, should apply anyway if only some parts are GPL'd, and the reduced protection would easily be outweighed by a strengthened open source community.

belorn 11y ago
What you are describing in the rant is how GPL works, so surely there must be some misunderstanding here. If you use a GPLv3 library, your own additions to it can be GPLv3 or any compatible license. It can be mit, apache, BSD, mpl, CC-anything so long it allow commercial use, and almost any of the free and open source licenses. The entire thing to do not need to be GPL and in large projects its commonly not.
- bloody_pretzels 11y ago
  GPLv3 Section 5. Conveying Modified Source Versions. > You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: > c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged. This License gives no permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not invalidate such permission if you have separately received it. It really does not work like you would want it to. Technically, you only add the GPL, so the work will then be licensed under both licenses at once. But the GPL is so restrictive that this doesn't make much difference in practice beyond maybe retaining the original license text.
  - belorn 11y ago
    There is no form of maybe in it. People who don't retain the original license text are committing copyright infringement. The license talks about when the the entire work is being distributed. Individual parts licensed under a different license can be used in other works under completely different licenses and the GPL do not impact such use.
    - bloody_pretzels 11y ago
      I'm not clear on what you are trying to say. Naturally, the GPL only applies when distributing GPL'd code, not when it's used solely privately. The license clearly states that all parts of the "work based on the Program" (anything derived from GPL code) have to be licensed under GPL. The FSF has always asserted that a derived work includes anything that statically or dynamically links to GPL'd code, although the term was controversial and v3 now mentions linking explicitly. So, when the section above talks about "the whole of the work and all its parts", that includes files that are by themselves not GPL'd. These have to be distributed under GPL as well if you want to include them.