4 ms·

I don't really understand the point of this article. For one thing, it conflates open source and free software, a difference which can be unimportant to many pe

I don't really understand the point of this article. For one thing, it conflates open source and free software, a difference which can be unimportant to many people, but is definitely important to the FSF, the GPL owners. And although they both result in freely available source code, they do have very different aims. The article is pushing open source aims, while the FSF pushes free software aims. The article also shows a poor understanding of the GPL itself. For example, when talking about dynamically linked software, it is stated that since SMB was under the GPL, Apple was "afraid that someone might ... force Apple to share the entire source code of OS X." No! The GPL can never force you to share your source code. What it can do is stop you distributing software that isn't yours and that you were using under the GPL. In this example, the worse that could happen to Apple is that they would lose their rights to distribute SMB if they were found to have broken the GPL terms.

ZenoArrow 10y ago
The dynamic linking issue is not as clear as you make out. To give an example, let's say a company decides to make a proprietary fork of a GPL software application. They keep all of their proprietary code in a separate library to the GPL code and dynamically link to it. Does the GPLv3 licence permit this?
- tspiteri 10y ago
  I'm not talking specifically on the dynamic linking issue. My point is that the GPL cannot force you to publish your source code, but if you break the terms you can lose the license to distribute GPL code that isn't yours. As regards your example, I don't think the GPLv3 permits that, so if a company tries to circumvent the GPL using that approach, it would probably lose the rights to distribute the GPL software application.
- belorn 10y ago
  The moment someone mention dynamic linking and GPL is the point where one need to think about the law rather than computer technology. Dynamic linking does not exist in the definition of derivative work, and the legal concept is only used by the FSF as a public guideline on where to draw the line (and thus when they will enforce the license). What you will have to ask is, what will a non-technical judge think is one work with different labeled parts, or two separated works that are interacting. Questions like "If I remove one, do I still have a something that make sense to call a work?", "how was it created and what was the intention of the creator", "how would a end-user perceive the result", and in many jurisdictions, "what is the industry standard" (judges has shown a tendency to avoid decision which would cause disruption in the market). > let's say a company decides to make a proprietary fork of a GPL software application If they intentionally trying to go against the wishes of the author, its likely infringing the license regardless if you use technology X or technology Y.
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    The 'wishes of the author' are not spelled out in clear terms in the GPL, that's the issue. For example, if I create a music production application, and use SoX to create audio spectrograms, what level of integration with SoX is permitted for a proprietary application? Stealing the code and putting it in your own codebase would obviously be a big no-no, but what if you used Sox in the form of a .dll/.so? The GPL code wouldn't be compiled alongside proprietary code, but it would be required for a non-core feature of the application to function. This is the type of vagueness that a future GPL revision should seek to address, by refining what is meant by 'dynamic linking'.
    - belorn 10y ago
      Going through the questions above, the first answer seems clearly on the side of being a separate work, but the second one brings us to a big question: Is the SoX integration the only method for creating audio spectrograms, and is it a feature being presented as a part of the application? Is there maybe emails by the developers that talk about the feature as part of the application, or is there emails showing that the application is only being made compatible with SoX? What is included in advertisements, and are customers of the proprietary application perceiving the application as one work being compatible with SoX? Law is never certain, but I suspect the answer to the thought experiment is that the application is creating a derivative work. It could however be that the application is only providing compatibility with SoX, among many other similar programs installed on customers machine, in which case it might be fair use or maybe not a derivative work at all. It depends on the details. A similar thought experiment is to ask why no large company has tried to challenge the guideline of dynamic linking as line in the sand regarding derivative work. How rare would it be that a company want to include non-core optional features in their proprietary products that need to be dynamically linked rather than using inter-process communication, and they want to go to court about it?
- mikegerwitz 10y ago
  No; that's the purpose of the LGPL. See this link and the section below it: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#SystemLibraryException https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#SystemLibraryEx...
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    Yes, LGPL makes this clearer, but that doesn't address the broad range of interpretation in the GPL.
    - ratboy666 10y ago
      Consider that the purpose of using the GPL is to ensure that the users of software have the right to examine and change the software. It also ensures that those rights cannot be removed. That would be the "broad range of interpretation". If that is NOT compatible with your goals, do not use the GPL. Also, do not include any software using the GPL. For example, embedded systems using BusyBox. However, adopting the GPL (and those user rights) should give you an advantage -- code that works and provides a time to market advantage.
      - ZenoArrow 10y ago
        > "If that is NOT compatible with your goals, do not use the GPL. Also, do not include any software using the GPL. For example, embedded systems using BusyBox. However, adopting the GPL (and those user rights) should give you an advantage -- code that works and provides a time to market advantage." In its current state, I have no intention to use the GPL for anything, even though I agree with the principals behind it (of ensuring that the code for free/libre software stays accessible to the public). If you'd be happy to see GPL-style licences become less popular/relevant, by all means ignore the issues people have with them, but if you'd rather see their popularity grow then perhaps it's worth discussing further, especially as the main complaint is over the licence clarity, not something that has to undermine the goals of the FSF.
        Spivak 10y ago
oliwarner 10y ago
> The GPL can never force you to share your source code. If you distributed something with illicit GPL code in it, could the recipient not sue you for the full source? We talk about what the GPL can and can't do but it's just a civil agreement between two parties. It's what a lawyer can convince a judge to order that matters.
- tspiteri 10y ago
  I'm not a GPL expert or lawyer, so I'm unable to answer with certainty. However my reading of the GPL is that the recipient does not have a right to sue you at all, it is the copyright holder of the GPL code who has a right to sue you for license infringement. The GPL states that your license to distribute is terminated immediately on infringement (there is some grace window in version 3). I think there could be some damages for the unlawful distribution that would have already happened, but I cannot see how the court can force you to pay for the damages using your proprietary code. I don't know, maybe the original owner is ready to waive damages if you agree to distribute your own code, but that's something you would have to agree to yourself.
  - belorn 10y ago
    If the recipient was sold property that the seller did not have a right to, I could imagine that the buyer can sue for fraud. I sometimes see reference in news article where police encourage buyers of stolen goods to sue the seller, since the property will always be returned to the rightful owner without any compensation to the person who thought they bought it.
  - oliwarner 10y ago
    Right to sue? This is civil contract law. Anybody has the right to try to sue anyone. If the claimant can convince a judge the software should be considered under the contract of the original GPL license, they could order it be complied with. Why? Because the GPL assigns rights to the recipient and user of the software. To not comply puts users at demonstrable loss. And I don't see what's so strange about a court ordering the disclosure of source code. Loads of civil court rulings reassign property.

ZenoArrow 10y ago

The dynamic linking issue is not as clear as you make out. To give an example, let's say a company decides to make a proprietary fork of a GPL software application. They keep all of their proprietary code in a separate library to the GPL code and dynamically link to it. Does the GPLv3 licence permit this?

tspiteri 10y ago
I'm not talking specifically on the dynamic linking issue. My point is that the GPL cannot force you to publish your source code, but if you break the terms you can lose the license to distribute GPL code that isn't yours. As regards your example, I don't think the GPLv3 permits that, so if a company tries to circumvent the GPL using that approach, it would probably lose the rights to distribute the GPL software application.
belorn 10y ago
The moment someone mention dynamic linking and GPL is the point where one need to think about the law rather than computer technology. Dynamic linking does not exist in the definition of derivative work, and the legal concept is only used by the FSF as a public guideline on where to draw the line (and thus when they will enforce the license). What you will have to ask is, what will a non-technical judge think is one work with different labeled parts, or two separated works that are interacting. Questions like "If I remove one, do I still have a something that make sense to call a work?", "how was it created and what was the intention of the creator", "how would a end-user perceive the result", and in many jurisdictions, "what is the industry standard" (judges has shown a tendency to avoid decision which would cause disruption in the market). > let's say a company decides to make a proprietary fork of a GPL software application If they intentionally trying to go against the wishes of the author, its likely infringing the license regardless if you use technology X or technology Y.
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  The 'wishes of the author' are not spelled out in clear terms in the GPL, that's the issue. For example, if I create a music production application, and use SoX to create audio spectrograms, what level of integration with SoX is permitted for a proprietary application? Stealing the code and putting it in your own codebase would obviously be a big no-no, but what if you used Sox in the form of a .dll/.so? The GPL code wouldn't be compiled alongside proprietary code, but it would be required for a non-core feature of the application to function. This is the type of vagueness that a future GPL revision should seek to address, by refining what is meant by 'dynamic linking'.
  - belorn 10y ago
    Going through the questions above, the first answer seems clearly on the side of being a separate work, but the second one brings us to a big question: Is the SoX integration the only method for creating audio spectrograms, and is it a feature being presented as a part of the application? Is there maybe emails by the developers that talk about the feature as part of the application, or is there emails showing that the application is only being made compatible with SoX? What is included in advertisements, and are customers of the proprietary application perceiving the application as one work being compatible with SoX? Law is never certain, but I suspect the answer to the thought experiment is that the application is creating a derivative work. It could however be that the application is only providing compatibility with SoX, among many other similar programs installed on customers machine, in which case it might be fair use or maybe not a derivative work at all. It depends on the details. A similar thought experiment is to ask why no large company has tried to challenge the guideline of dynamic linking as line in the sand regarding derivative work. How rare would it be that a company want to include non-core optional features in their proprietary products that need to be dynamically linked rather than using inter-process communication, and they want to go to court about it?
mikegerwitz 10y ago
No; that's the purpose of the LGPL. See this link and the section below it: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#SystemLibraryException https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#SystemLibraryEx...
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  Yes, LGPL makes this clearer, but that doesn't address the broad range of interpretation in the GPL.
  - ratboy666 10y ago
    Consider that the purpose of using the GPL is to ensure that the users of software have the right to examine and change the software. It also ensures that those rights cannot be removed. That would be the "broad range of interpretation". If that is NOT compatible with your goals, do not use the GPL. Also, do not include any software using the GPL. For example, embedded systems using BusyBox. However, adopting the GPL (and those user rights) should give you an advantage -- code that works and provides a time to market advantage.
    - ZenoArrow 10y ago
      > "If that is NOT compatible with your goals, do not use the GPL. Also, do not include any software using the GPL. For example, embedded systems using BusyBox. However, adopting the GPL (and those user rights) should give you an advantage -- code that works and provides a time to market advantage." In its current state, I have no intention to use the GPL for anything, even though I agree with the principals behind it (of ensuring that the code for free/libre software stays accessible to the public). If you'd be happy to see GPL-style licences become less popular/relevant, by all means ignore the issues people have with them, but if you'd rather see their popularity grow then perhaps it's worth discussing further, especially as the main complaint is over the licence clarity, not something that has to undermine the goals of the FSF.
      - Spivak 10y ago

oliwarner 10y ago

> The GPL can never force you to share your source code. If you distributed something with illicit GPL code in it, could the recipient not sue you for the full source? We talk about what the GPL can and can't do but it's just a civil agreement between two parties. It's what a lawyer can convince a judge to order that matters.

tspiteri 10y ago
I'm not a GPL expert or lawyer, so I'm unable to answer with certainty. However my reading of the GPL is that the recipient does not have a right to sue you at all, it is the copyright holder of the GPL code who has a right to sue you for license infringement. The GPL states that your license to distribute is terminated immediately on infringement (there is some grace window in version 3). I think there could be some damages for the unlawful distribution that would have already happened, but I cannot see how the court can force you to pay for the damages using your proprietary code. I don't know, maybe the original owner is ready to waive damages if you agree to distribute your own code, but that's something you would have to agree to yourself.
- belorn 10y ago
  If the recipient was sold property that the seller did not have a right to, I could imagine that the buyer can sue for fraud. I sometimes see reference in news article where police encourage buyers of stolen goods to sue the seller, since the property will always be returned to the rightful owner without any compensation to the person who thought they bought it.
- oliwarner 10y ago
  Right to sue? This is civil contract law. Anybody has the right to try to sue anyone. If the claimant can convince a judge the software should be considered under the contract of the original GPL license, they could order it be complied with. Why? Because the GPL assigns rights to the recipient and user of the software. To not comply puts users at demonstrable loss. And I don't see what's so strange about a court ordering the disclosure of source code. Loads of civil court rulings reassign property.