6 ms·

I'm sorry, I'm not seeing it. One person involved with the Linux Foundation wrote an article that used some terms this author and some others didn't like, and

I'm sorry, I'm not seeing it. One person involved with the Linux Foundation wrote an article that used some terms this author and some others didn't like, and after some outcry the Linux Foundation removed it. Somehow this makes the entire organization a non-friend of Desktop Linux and the GPL? It's just such a massive leap of logic. The GPL is in the most restrictive class of open-source licenses for companies, and it is viral by nature. Should those terms be sugar-coated? I didn't read an ounce of contempt in the quoted section.

Jonnax 10y ago
Well to be fair to the author the writer of the article has the job title: Sr. Director Open Source Consulting Services And they're posting on the Linux Foundation's site so that's a bit more than just some random person writing an article for the site. Also the term "viral" comes off as an insult to the licence, I think the term GNU Public Virus used to be a common descriptor. I think that's why the term Copyleft was introduced.
- AnkhMorporkian 10y ago
  I don't see 'viral' as an insult, I see it as a feature. I'm certainly pro-GPL, but I don't use it in too many of my projects. When I do use it, it's because I want that viral nature. When I don't, it's because I want people to have the freedom to modify it on their terms. However, pretending that every project should be licensed under copyleft licenses or that there's no room for criticism of the GPL smacks of zealotry. As for the author, I don't have the full article, but he isn't listed on the 'Board Member', 'Leadership', or 'Technical Advisory Board' sections on the Linux Foundation webpage. Everyone there seems to have pretty damn fancy titles. I have no idea of his actual position in the hierarchy.
  - iso-8859-1 10y ago
    It has a history of being used pejoratively. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_license
    - AnkhMorporkian 10y ago
      Many terms do. Socialists and communists still call themselves those terms despite McCarthyism and the red scare, the term queer is still used despite the fact that it was used as an insult for a very long time, the n-word's reappropriation despite its horrible history, and too many other examples for me to list. Perhaps it's time for the FSF and its ilk to wear 'viral' as a badge of honor, instead of playing the semantics game.
belorn 10y ago
If you want to combine viral open-source code with toxic proprietary code, sure. Proprietary code is toxic by nature, so why should we not use that term? > I didn't read an ounce of contempt I disagree. Calling a grant of permissions "restrictive", or calling it "viral" has as much contempt as calling a offering of proprietary licensed software toxic. Its insult flinging, plain and simple.
- mrunkel 10y ago
  I'm not sure I want to wade into this religious war, but you can surely agree that the GPL is more restrictive (as in, it adds restrictions) than say the BSD or MIT licenses.
  - belorn 10y ago
    When you rent a hotel room you get permission to enter and sleep there, but are also restricted to not destroy the room. However the restriction already existed before you paid, so the change between the owner and you only exist in added permission. No one is allowed to destroy property of someone else so those restrictions are not additional part of the transaction. GPL do not add restrictions. It is purely permissions given over what already exist. In theory one could rewrite the GPL license text to be lines of "I grant you permission to do X", and it would still have the same effect.
    - E6300 10y ago
      So, to bridge the analogy, what would be the "before paying" state of a GPL'd work? The GPL does not, to my knowledge, clearly define this, and there's disagreement among the experts.
      - TuringTest 10y ago
        > what would be the "before paying" state of a GPL'd work Whatever the law is for copyrighted but unlicensed code.
notalaser 10y ago
> One person involved with the Linux Foundation ...there are a lot of people involved with the Linux Foundation, what didn't help in this case is that the one person involved with the Linux Foundation who came up with this piece of Ballmer-era nostalgia is the Linux Foundation's Senior Director of Open Source Consulting. It's a pretty major PR blunder. It rubs people the wrong way because it basically repeats the anti-Linux arguments which used to be promoted by a lot of companies that were heavily-invested in proprietary software -- some of which are Linux Foundation members today. The terms aren't exactly innovative. 20 years ago or so they were used liberally (and, I think, coined) by a particularly disliked company from Redmond, and their marketing material (thinly-veiled as whitepapers, sometimes from partner companies) read pretty much like this guy's piece. This is basically a blast from the past, except 20 years ago we'd see it on Microsoft's website under some Get the Facts stamp, not on the Linux Foundation's website.
- AnkhMorporkian 10y ago
  I apologize for the late reply, I have been out of state making a pitch, and enjoying the scenery after it was accepted. I can see your viewpoint. I do remember the anti-linux Microsoft days, and I did not enjoy them as a company back then. However, I do think viral is an apt description of the license, despite the objections in this thread. As I mentioned before I left, I think viral is a good description of GPL. Viral is a feature, not a consequence. If you choose GPL, it's because you want that viral nature. If you're a company, you'll have to weigh that license against your business concerns. Zealots may say something like "every piece of code should be open source in all circumstances", but pragmatists will realize that some code just doesn't make sense as open source, and making all derivatives of that open source. So, long story short, someone who is in charge of open source consulting should understand better than anyone else that the GPL isn't appropriate for all companies. If the changed code is patented, GPL isn't appropriate in any circumstance, like it or not.
pekk 10y ago
If you're going to say that the GPL is viral because it applies to derivative works, then almost any license is viral because the license of any work follows it around. That is the nature of licenses. Anyone who expects to copy-paste other people's code into their own code and change the license is just fighting the legal system. You're still going to have to follow the terms of the license, whether that means sharing changes or including attributions.
- snovv_crash 10y ago
  The problem is that the GPL considers adding a single GPL method to a large non-GPL project as being a derivative work of the GPL method. Moreover, it considers the interactions between the method and other code a derivative of the GPL, even if only the implementation was under GPL but the header/API was provided under a more liberal licence.
  - mcguire 10y ago
    No. Copyright makes adding a single method to a large project a derivative work of the method.
davexunit 10y ago
Using the term "viral" is a pejorative term used explicitly to make the GPL seem dangerous. It's propaganda by the anti-copyleft crowd. Asking a representative of a foundation that represents the most important copylefted software project in history to stop using anti-copyleft propaganda terms isn't asking them to "sugar coat" their words.
- snovv_crash 10y ago
  Nonsense. It is an adjective that correctly describes the behaviour. If you want a non-viral GPL, then use the MPL2. It is exactly like the GPL, except it has a file-level firewall so that other files that it interacts with don't need to have the same licence, something the GPL is intolerant of. In every other sense the MPL2 provides all the protections the GPL does, it just doesn't consume the rest of the project you integrate it with.
  - davexunit 10y ago
    It DOESN'T "consume" the rest of your project. Your code does not have to use the GPL as its license!
    - snovv_crash 10y ago
      Unless the GPL code matches the Compiler or OS exceptions, yes, you do have to relicense as GPL. This is what GPL detractors refer to when they use the word "viral".
      - davexunit 10y ago
        You don't have to relicense your code as GPL. You are confusing the copyright applied to your own code vs. distribution of the whole program.
        snovv_crash 10y ago
        Technically you are correct, and I guess that's the best kind of correct. However the GPL does apply to non-GPL code in the case of distribution, which is what I was referring to. Perhaps with the advent of cloud computing and fast networks the more sticky problems of GPL code in proprietary systems become less of an issue. That said, I've already seen an uptick in AGPL code in some of the fields I'm interested in.

Jonnax 10y ago

Well to be fair to the author the writer of the article has the job title: Sr. Director Open Source Consulting Services And they're posting on the Linux Foundation's site so that's a bit more than just some random person writing an article for the site. Also the term "viral" comes off as an insult to the licence, I think the term GNU Public Virus used to be a common descriptor. I think that's why the term Copyleft was introduced.

AnkhMorporkian 10y ago
I don't see 'viral' as an insult, I see it as a feature. I'm certainly pro-GPL, but I don't use it in too many of my projects. When I do use it, it's because I want that viral nature. When I don't, it's because I want people to have the freedom to modify it on their terms. However, pretending that every project should be licensed under copyleft licenses or that there's no room for criticism of the GPL smacks of zealotry. As for the author, I don't have the full article, but he isn't listed on the 'Board Member', 'Leadership', or 'Technical Advisory Board' sections on the Linux Foundation webpage. Everyone there seems to have pretty damn fancy titles. I have no idea of his actual position in the hierarchy.
- iso-8859-1 10y ago
  It has a history of being used pejoratively. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_license
  - AnkhMorporkian 10y ago
    Many terms do. Socialists and communists still call themselves those terms despite McCarthyism and the red scare, the term queer is still used despite the fact that it was used as an insult for a very long time, the n-word's reappropriation despite its horrible history, and too many other examples for me to list. Perhaps it's time for the FSF and its ilk to wear 'viral' as a badge of honor, instead of playing the semantics game.

belorn 10y ago

If you want to combine viral open-source code with toxic proprietary code, sure. Proprietary code is toxic by nature, so why should we not use that term? > I didn't read an ounce of contempt I disagree. Calling a grant of permissions "restrictive", or calling it "viral" has as much contempt as calling a offering of proprietary licensed software toxic. Its insult flinging, plain and simple.

mrunkel 10y ago
I'm not sure I want to wade into this religious war, but you can surely agree that the GPL is more restrictive (as in, it adds restrictions) than say the BSD or MIT licenses.
- belorn 10y ago
  When you rent a hotel room you get permission to enter and sleep there, but are also restricted to not destroy the room. However the restriction already existed before you paid, so the change between the owner and you only exist in added permission. No one is allowed to destroy property of someone else so those restrictions are not additional part of the transaction. GPL do not add restrictions. It is purely permissions given over what already exist. In theory one could rewrite the GPL license text to be lines of "I grant you permission to do X", and it would still have the same effect.
  - E6300 10y ago
    So, to bridge the analogy, what would be the "before paying" state of a GPL'd work? The GPL does not, to my knowledge, clearly define this, and there's disagreement among the experts.
    - TuringTest 10y ago
      > what would be the "before paying" state of a GPL'd work Whatever the law is for copyrighted but unlicensed code.

notalaser 10y ago

> One person involved with the Linux Foundation ...there are a lot of people involved with the Linux Foundation, what didn't help in this case is that the one person involved with the Linux Foundation who came up with this piece of Ballmer-era nostalgia is the Linux Foundation's Senior Director of Open Source Consulting. It's a pretty major PR blunder. It rubs people the wrong way because it basically repeats the anti-Linux arguments which used to be promoted by a lot of companies that were heavily-invested in proprietary software -- some of which are Linux Foundation members today. The terms aren't exactly innovative. 20 years ago or so they were used liberally (and, I think, coined) by a particularly disliked company from Redmond, and their marketing material (thinly-veiled as whitepapers, sometimes from partner companies) read pretty much like this guy's piece. This is basically a blast from the past, except 20 years ago we'd see it on Microsoft's website under some Get the Facts stamp, not on the Linux Foundation's website.

AnkhMorporkian 10y ago
I apologize for the late reply, I have been out of state making a pitch, and enjoying the scenery after it was accepted. I can see your viewpoint. I do remember the anti-linux Microsoft days, and I did not enjoy them as a company back then. However, I do think viral is an apt description of the license, despite the objections in this thread. As I mentioned before I left, I think viral is a good description of GPL. Viral is a feature, not a consequence. If you choose GPL, it's because you want that viral nature. If you're a company, you'll have to weigh that license against your business concerns. Zealots may say something like "every piece of code should be open source in all circumstances", but pragmatists will realize that some code just doesn't make sense as open source, and making all derivatives of that open source. So, long story short, someone who is in charge of open source consulting should understand better than anyone else that the GPL isn't appropriate for all companies. If the changed code is patented, GPL isn't appropriate in any circumstance, like it or not.

pekk 10y ago

If you're going to say that the GPL is viral because it applies to derivative works, then almost any license is viral because the license of any work follows it around. That is the nature of licenses. Anyone who expects to copy-paste other people's code into their own code and change the license is just fighting the legal system. You're still going to have to follow the terms of the license, whether that means sharing changes or including attributions.

snovv_crash 10y ago
The problem is that the GPL considers adding a single GPL method to a large non-GPL project as being a derivative work of the GPL method. Moreover, it considers the interactions between the method and other code a derivative of the GPL, even if only the implementation was under GPL but the header/API was provided under a more liberal licence.
- mcguire 10y ago
  No. Copyright makes adding a single method to a large project a derivative work of the method.

davexunit 10y ago

Using the term "viral" is a pejorative term used explicitly to make the GPL seem dangerous. It's propaganda by the anti-copyleft crowd. Asking a representative of a foundation that represents the most important copylefted software project in history to stop using anti-copyleft propaganda terms isn't asking them to "sugar coat" their words.

snovv_crash 10y ago
Nonsense. It is an adjective that correctly describes the behaviour. If you want a non-viral GPL, then use the MPL2. It is exactly like the GPL, except it has a file-level firewall so that other files that it interacts with don't need to have the same licence, something the GPL is intolerant of. In every other sense the MPL2 provides all the protections the GPL does, it just doesn't consume the rest of the project you integrate it with.
- davexunit 10y ago
  It DOESN'T "consume" the rest of your project. Your code does not have to use the GPL as its license!
  - snovv_crash 10y ago
    Unless the GPL code matches the Compiler or OS exceptions, yes, you do have to relicense as GPL. This is what GPL detractors refer to when they use the word "viral".
    - davexunit 10y ago
      You don't have to relicense your code as GPL. You are confusing the copyright applied to your own code vs. distribution of the whole program.
      - snovv_crash 10y ago
        Technically you are correct, and I guess that's the best kind of correct. However the GPL does apply to non-GPL code in the case of distribution, which is what I was referring to. Perhaps with the advent of cloud computing and fast networks the more sticky problems of GPL code in proprietary systems become less of an issue. That said, I've already seen an uptick in AGPL code in some of the fields I'm interested in.