3 ms·

As someone who generally likes the GPL, it's frightening that the line is so blurry. I have written and distributed libraries under the GPL because I think it's

As someone who generally likes the GPL, it's frightening that the line is so blurry. I have written and distributed libraries under the GPL because I think it's reasonable for me to insist that people who find bugs or make improvements give them back to me. But I don't think it's reasonable for me to insist that any user of the library release the rest of their application to me. In my mind at least, an application doesn't seem like a derivative work of a library.

boucher 17y ago
You should learn more about the distinction between the GPL and the LGPL. Whether you make a library that is GPL and include it in a non GPL program, or you have a GPL program and want to include a non GPL library, both cases require all code to be released as GPL. The GPL does not care about "library" verus anything else. The GPL is somewhat oriented around the constructs of C, but there have been clarifying guidelines from the FSF and in general its not hard to see how everything fits in for another language. The LGPL, on the other hand, makes specific exceptions for libraries which are linked into an existing application. So long as a proprietary application is using the library in such a way that it could be removed and replaced for another compatible version, it is not considered a derivative work under the LGPL and is not subject to release.
sokoloff 17y ago
(See boucher's comment for the difference in LGPL and GPL.) The GPL also doesn't require them to "[fix] bugs or make improvements give them back to [you]". It merely requires that if they do give the binaries to someone, including you, they have to also make available the modified source to those recipients. I'm perfectly free to take your GPL code, modify it and run it in-house, including using it in a SaaS or web offering offering, and not give anyone access to the source modifications.
- pingswept 17y ago
  An excellent point. You are correct.

boucher 17y ago

You should learn more about the distinction between the GPL and the LGPL. Whether you make a library that is GPL and include it in a non GPL program, or you have a GPL program and want to include a non GPL library, both cases require all code to be released as GPL. The GPL does not care about "library" verus anything else. The GPL is somewhat oriented around the constructs of C, but there have been clarifying guidelines from the FSF and in general its not hard to see how everything fits in for another language. The LGPL, on the other hand, makes specific exceptions for libraries which are linked into an existing application. So long as a proprietary application is using the library in such a way that it could be removed and replaced for another compatible version, it is not considered a derivative work under the LGPL and is not subject to release.

sokoloff 17y ago

(See boucher's comment for the difference in LGPL and GPL.) The GPL also doesn't require them to "[fix] bugs or make improvements give them back to [you]". It merely requires that if they do give the binaries to someone, including you, they have to also make available the modified source to those recipients. I'm perfectly free to take your GPL code, modify it and run it in-house, including using it in a SaaS or web offering offering, and not give anyone access to the source modifications.

pingswept 17y ago
An excellent point. You are correct.