4 ms·

In the context of this project which is yet to have a finalized specification I think the GPL is an ideal format. As a project it is important to have access to

In the context of this project which is yet to have a finalized specification I think the GPL is an ideal format. As a project it is important to have access to all of the pieces and avoiding incompatible forks of different kinds in the early stages. So for the purpose of developing a 'golden standard' prototype for FLIF, I don't think a non-GPL license would have served them better. The author seems to have the same idea, and is considering re-licensing to MIT later on. I don't agree with corporate apologeticism which seems to be the norm here. If a company wants get something for free, expecting it to publish source code changes is not an actually high threshold. It might be in terms of corporate politics, but in actuality it is not hard.

jobigoud 11y ago
> If a company wants get something for free, expecting it to publish source code changes is not an actually high threshold. Obviously the issue is not about publishing changes to the library, it's about publishing the rest of the source which just uses the library as a building block.
- robert_foss 11y ago
  You're free to link to compiled GPL libraries. There is nothing forcing you to change the license of your product unless you intend to integrate the sourcecode.
  - kazinator 11y ago
    I also believe this, but it is not an established fact. The GPL does prohibit it, and so whether that is actually enforceable has to be tested in a court of law. So you are in fact not free to do this, if you have a boss above you who cares dearly about the company steering clear of hot water. I'd be willing to testify as a technical expert in a court of law that the GPL cannot reasonably rule out dynamic linking; that dynamic linking to a program is a form of use (like invoking a command line and passing it arguments) and not integration. The proof is that dynamically linked components can be replaced by clean-room substitutes which work exactly alike, or at least well enough so that the main software can function. For example, a program can be shipped with a stub library which behaves like GNU Readline (but perhaps doesn't have all its features). The users themselves can replace that with a GNU Readline library. Thus, the program's vendor isn't even redistributing the GPL'ed component. They can provide it as a separate download or whatever. However, if they were to include a GNU Readline binary for the convenience of the users, then the program supposedly infringes. This is clearly nonsense.
    - belorn 11y ago
      The problem with that line of thought is that the courts don't care if its use or integration, but if the resulting work depends on someone else work. The word used in copyright law is transform, adapt, recast, and such changes requires additional copyright permission. For example, if I buy a painting and cut it into pieces and rearrange them, I actually need an additional license beyond what I got from purchasing the copy. Components can not be cleanly viewed as separate when dealing with copyright. You can also turn this around and ask if its legal to use process call within a other program without invoking the need for additional permissions. FSF view that it should be legal, but it has never been tested. By now however an industry standard has formed around the FSF guidelines and most courts would just look at it when deciding. This is what commonly happen when no one go to court to find out what the rules actually should be.
      - kazinator 11y ago
        > but if the resulting work depends on someone else work. Yes, so obviously your argument cannot be that "in theory, we could replace this with a workalike". You better have the workalike, and that's what you should be shipping. A powerful argument that you aren't infringing is that your shipping media are completely devoid of the work. > don't care if its use or integration For the sake of the GPL, they must care in this case, because the GPL specifically abstains from dictating use; it governs redistribution! The only parts of the license relevant to use are the disclaimers; the only reason a pure user of a GPL-ed program might want to read the license at all is to be informed that if the program causes loss of data (or whatever), the authors are not liable. GPLed programs get used all the time. A proprietary app on a GNU/Linux system can use the C library function system() which might invoke /bin/sh that is GNU Bash, and even depend on that functionality. > For example, if I buy a painting and cut it into pieces and rearrange them, I actually need an additional license beyond what I got from purchasing the copy. But what if that cut-up never leaves my house? Or what if I only distribute instructions which describe the geometry of some cuts which can be made to a painting, and the relocation of the pieces?
        schoen 11y ago
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    The FSF takes the position that linking is derivative work; this may or may not be an accurate legal position, but it's a popular position from the licensed creator and an entity which owns a lot of software licenses under the GPL, and which is very influential with people who choose to use the GPL, so even if it is ultimately legally incorrect, the risk of litigation, whatever they outcome, from linking is going to be unacceptable to most significant users, so a GPL library is unlikely to see uptake in major software for which the creator had a significant reason for choosing a non-GPL license, whether it is permissive or proprietary.
pierrebai 11y ago
It's not about being apologetic or anti-freedom, it's all about the reality of software. If it gets reimplemented with a more libral license, then the more liberal version will dominate. If there is any incompatibility whatsoever, the more liberally licensed version will win. Look at gcc for an example: it has gcc-specific extensions and there are other compilers with more open license. These compilers are gaining the upper-hand. Making it GPL instead of LGPL is just a bad political choice. Especially for something which need wide adoption to even live. Image formats can only exist if they get adopted.
- robert_foss 11y ago
  GCC has been around for 30 years. Only in the past 5 years has LLVM been around, and LLVM really is the only compiler to ever have matched GCC. The value GCC has provided to the software community in large is immense. Do you think it would have survived this far if it had been MIT-licensed all along? To support this argument, I'd like you to think about all the other compilers that never had a 10th of the traction of GCC and how they were licensed. I do agree that the LGPL is a reasonable choice for prototype implementation of a specification. I don't think using the GPL is a huge loss compared to LGPL for a prototype. I'd like to ask a non-rhetorical question; On an individual basis is it not better if all software was available as sourcecode? And if so, does that not mean the choice of not-publishing sourcecode is done for other reasons than what's best for the individual(s)?
  - kazinator 11y ago
    Unfortunately, a sample of one isn't statistically significant. That a GPL-licensed compiler suite is overwhelmingly popular rather than an MIT- or BSD-licensed one could be little more than a historic accident. BSD Unixes are BSD-licensed and have "survived this far". The SBCL implementation of Common Lisp is licensed as a "a mixture of BSD-style .. and public domain" [source: http://www.sbcl.org/history.html http://www.sbcl.org/history.html] It is a popular CL implementation. GNU Common Lisp [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Common_Lisp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Common_Lisp], the GNU Project's Common Lisp implementation, is LGPL-ed and has been a floundering project. The choice of license cannot be the determiner of what propels a project to the forefront of popularity in its class, because ... there are many more projects than licenses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeonhole_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeonhole_principle

jobigoud 11y ago

> If a company wants get something for free, expecting it to publish source code changes is not an actually high threshold. Obviously the issue is not about publishing changes to the library, it's about publishing the rest of the source which just uses the library as a building block.

robert_foss 11y ago
You're free to link to compiled GPL libraries. There is nothing forcing you to change the license of your product unless you intend to integrate the sourcecode.
- kazinator 11y ago
  I also believe this, but it is not an established fact. The GPL does prohibit it, and so whether that is actually enforceable has to be tested in a court of law. So you are in fact not free to do this, if you have a boss above you who cares dearly about the company steering clear of hot water. I'd be willing to testify as a technical expert in a court of law that the GPL cannot reasonably rule out dynamic linking; that dynamic linking to a program is a form of use (like invoking a command line and passing it arguments) and not integration. The proof is that dynamically linked components can be replaced by clean-room substitutes which work exactly alike, or at least well enough so that the main software can function. For example, a program can be shipped with a stub library which behaves like GNU Readline (but perhaps doesn't have all its features). The users themselves can replace that with a GNU Readline library. Thus, the program's vendor isn't even redistributing the GPL'ed component. They can provide it as a separate download or whatever. However, if they were to include a GNU Readline binary for the convenience of the users, then the program supposedly infringes. This is clearly nonsense.
  - belorn 11y ago
    The problem with that line of thought is that the courts don't care if its use or integration, but if the resulting work depends on someone else work. The word used in copyright law is transform, adapt, recast, and such changes requires additional copyright permission. For example, if I buy a painting and cut it into pieces and rearrange them, I actually need an additional license beyond what I got from purchasing the copy. Components can not be cleanly viewed as separate when dealing with copyright. You can also turn this around and ask if its legal to use process call within a other program without invoking the need for additional permissions. FSF view that it should be legal, but it has never been tested. By now however an industry standard has formed around the FSF guidelines and most courts would just look at it when deciding. This is what commonly happen when no one go to court to find out what the rules actually should be.
    - kazinator 11y ago
      > but if the resulting work depends on someone else work. Yes, so obviously your argument cannot be that "in theory, we could replace this with a workalike". You better have the workalike, and that's what you should be shipping. A powerful argument that you aren't infringing is that your shipping media are completely devoid of the work. > don't care if its use or integration For the sake of the GPL, they must care in this case, because the GPL specifically abstains from dictating use; it governs redistribution! The only parts of the license relevant to use are the disclaimers; the only reason a pure user of a GPL-ed program might want to read the license at all is to be informed that if the program causes loss of data (or whatever), the authors are not liable. GPLed programs get used all the time. A proprietary app on a GNU/Linux system can use the C library function system() which might invoke /bin/sh that is GNU Bash, and even depend on that functionality. > For example, if I buy a painting and cut it into pieces and rearrange them, I actually need an additional license beyond what I got from purchasing the copy. But what if that cut-up never leaves my house? Or what if I only distribute instructions which describe the geometry of some cuts which can be made to a painting, and the relocation of the pieces?
      - schoen 11y ago
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  The FSF takes the position that linking is derivative work; this may or may not be an accurate legal position, but it's a popular position from the licensed creator and an entity which owns a lot of software licenses under the GPL, and which is very influential with people who choose to use the GPL, so even if it is ultimately legally incorrect, the risk of litigation, whatever they outcome, from linking is going to be unacceptable to most significant users, so a GPL library is unlikely to see uptake in major software for which the creator had a significant reason for choosing a non-GPL license, whether it is permissive or proprietary.

pierrebai 11y ago

It's not about being apologetic or anti-freedom, it's all about the reality of software. If it gets reimplemented with a more libral license, then the more liberal version will dominate. If there is any incompatibility whatsoever, the more liberally licensed version will win. Look at gcc for an example: it has gcc-specific extensions and there are other compilers with more open license. These compilers are gaining the upper-hand. Making it GPL instead of LGPL is just a bad political choice. Especially for something which need wide adoption to even live. Image formats can only exist if they get adopted.

robert_foss 11y ago
GCC has been around for 30 years. Only in the past 5 years has LLVM been around, and LLVM really is the only compiler to ever have matched GCC. The value GCC has provided to the software community in large is immense. Do you think it would have survived this far if it had been MIT-licensed all along? To support this argument, I'd like you to think about all the other compilers that never had a 10th of the traction of GCC and how they were licensed. I do agree that the LGPL is a reasonable choice for prototype implementation of a specification. I don't think using the GPL is a huge loss compared to LGPL for a prototype. I'd like to ask a non-rhetorical question; On an individual basis is it not better if all software was available as sourcecode? And if so, does that not mean the choice of not-publishing sourcecode is done for other reasons than what's best for the individual(s)?
- kazinator 11y ago
  Unfortunately, a sample of one isn't statistically significant. That a GPL-licensed compiler suite is overwhelmingly popular rather than an MIT- or BSD-licensed one could be little more than a historic accident. BSD Unixes are BSD-licensed and have "survived this far". The SBCL implementation of Common Lisp is licensed as a "a mixture of BSD-style .. and public domain" [source: http://www.sbcl.org/history.html http://www.sbcl.org/history.html] It is a popular CL implementation. GNU Common Lisp [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Common_Lisp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Common_Lisp], the GNU Project's Common Lisp implementation, is LGPL-ed and has been a floundering project. The choice of license cannot be the determiner of what propels a project to the forefront of popularity in its class, because ... there are many more projects than licenses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeonhole_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeonhole_principle