3 ms·

Right. Any other interpretation is the "GPL is cancer"-FUD propagated by enemies of free licenses, like Microsoft under Balmer. Though lawyers like to err on th

by onli 9y ago

Right. Any other interpretation is the "GPL is cancer"-FUD propagated by enemies of free licenses, like Microsoft under Balmer. Though lawyers like to err on this side of license interpretation.

CogitoCogito 9y ago
Why is this being down-voted? It's totally correct. GPLed code linked into a program doesn't magically make the program GPLed. The GPL guarantees that as long as you provide the source code of your code under the GPL, you automatically get a license to use other GPLed code in your code. If you use GPLed code, but don't provide your code under the GPL, then you are probably infringing copyrights. That can be mitigated (assuming you're honorable and don't just hide it) by possibly paying the authors of the GPLed code to get a license under different terms, or possibly removing the code in question and maybe paying the original authors, or by fighting in court and possibly being forced to stop distributing the code and then removing the code and paying fines, or (as many assume is the only option) releasing their own code under the GPL as well. The details of what would occur almost certainly depend on the circumstances (was it known, when was it known, was it on purpose, did it have any real effect or was it a random bit of source code that was basically unused, etc.) and jurisdiction as well. Regardless it's definitely not the case that the GPL just magically infects any code it touches. That is a ridiculous simplification that is mostly spread by ignorance or those spreading FUD. Hell the GPL doesn't even do anything at all until the programs themselves is distributed. It's perfectly reasonable to prefer other licenses over the GPL, but let's not make up reasons to dislike it.
- bryanlarsen 9y ago
  "GPLed code linked into a program doesn't magically make the program GPLed" Lots of people for debatable but legitimate reasons believe that GPLv2 does this. They don't realize that this doesn't apply to GPLv3, nor to the AGPLv3.
  - CogitoCogito 9y ago
    > "GPLed code linked into a program doesn't magically make the program GPLed" > Lots of people for debatable but legitimate reasons believe that GPLv2 does this. > They don't realize that this doesn't apply to GPLv3, nor to the AGPLv3. Honestly I simply think you're not understanding me. Let me summarize: linking GPLed code without GPLing your own code and without having any other license to do so is copyright infringement. There are multiple ways to avoid infringement. You can pay the authors for another license, you can possibly remove the code and pay the authors enough so they're drop the matter, you can go to court, or you can release your own code under the GPL. You do understand that that is not the same as saying that "linking GPLed code to your code makes your code GPLed" right? edit: Apologies if I misunderstood you when you said: "Lots of people for debatable but legitimate reasons believe that GPLv2 does this." Maybe you don't believe this yourself (which is what I assumed when drafting my reply here). I agree with you that lots of people believe this, but it basically isn't debatable and certainly is wrong. Put another way: What is the legal rationale for the claim that linking GPLed code immediately makes the linking code GPLed?
    - ghaff 9y ago
      Assuming that linked code is distributed. You can use it internally as much as you want. (With the caveat that distribution has a broader meeting under AzGPL.)
      - CogitoCogito 9y ago
        You are 100% correct that you can execute/link/etc. GPLed code without following the terms of the license when you're not distributing your code. But I'm not referring to distribution. I'm saying that if you were to link your own non-GPLed code to GPLed code _and_ you were to distribute it, your code would not automatically become GPLed code. You would be infringing upon copyright. There are multiple options to stop that infringement which do not involve GPLing your code.
- dpark 9y ago
  This is splitting hairs. If you link GPL’d code to your proprietary code (and distribute your proprietary code to users in executable form), your only options are to release your code under the GPL or violate copyright law. You can address your illegal action in the ways you’ve described but you’re absolutely engaging in illegal behavior at the point you link the GPL code without licensing your own code under the GPL. The “viral” description of the GPL is reasonably accurate. At least for people don’t who want to engage in illegal behavior. Forced (re)licensing is specifically the intent of the GPL.
  - CogitoCogito 9y ago
    It absolutely is not splitting hairs. This means that if you have a large codebase and accidentally link GPLed code into it, you have many different options that do not involve GPLing your code. Many people incorrectly believe that is not the case which is proved by many of the responses in this very thread. One of the original examples here in this thread (by bryanlarsen above) was even about checking GPLed code into a repo. Any company can do that and can experiment and decide they really like the code and then they can e.g. contact the copyright holders and offer to license under different terms or another large number of options. This sort of misconception is widespread only one example of why most people's understanding of the "GPL is viral" is simply wrong. Calling this splitting hairs is ridiculous. It's fundamental.
    - dpark 9y ago
      Who thinks that “accidental” linking is the problem? And how does that really even happen? You accidentally check in some GPL code, build and link to it, and then also accidentally distribute the resulting binaries? Bryanlarsen above specifically called out that checking into a repo is not linking. The only real misconception is that use of GPL software by a company will somehow result in all software owned by that company becoming GPL licensed. This is of course not true. It is true that linking proprietary software to GPL code and then distributing executables must result in either the proprietary software being licensed under the GPL or a copyright violation. Your comments about getting different license terms is proving my point. Your proposed solutions to the GPL redistribution clause all boil down to not using GPL software.
- onli 9y ago
  I think that the topic is too complicated. Too many developers not firmly on the FOSS-side simply follow the FUD, or they follow their lawyer's [typically overly risk-averse] lead when saying to steer away, or when the virality is described elsewhere. The knowledge that even GPL2-definition of virality for linked code is debatable (what exactly is linked code, what does being part of something mean exactly? To not get started with derived work), what GPL3 means in this context, and that the court's decisions in different jurisdictions are not straightforward is simply not there. Thus downvotes, as you saw. The questions with the monorepo and having code checked in is the perfect example. On the other hand, it is understandable. In a crazy jurisdiction like the US where Oracle can win with absurdly claiming copyright on Java-APIs I can understand everyone trying to minimize risk.

by onli 9y ago

Right. Any other interpretation is the "GPL is cancer"-FUD propagated by enemies of free licenses, like Microsoft under Balmer. Though lawyers like to err on this side of license interpretation.

CogitoCogito 9y ago

Why is this being down-voted? It's totally correct. GPLed code linked into a program doesn't magically make the program GPLed. The GPL guarantees that as long as you provide the source code of your code under the GPL, you automatically get a license to use other GPLed code in your code. If you use GPLed code, but don't provide your code under the GPL, then you are probably infringing copyrights. That can be mitigated (assuming you're honorable and don't just hide it) by possibly paying the authors of the GPLed code to get a license under different terms, or possibly removing the code in question and maybe paying the original authors, or by fighting in court and possibly being forced to stop distributing the code and then removing the code and paying fines, or (as many assume is the only option) releasing their own code under the GPL as well. The details of what would occur almost certainly depend on the circumstances (was it known, when was it known, was it on purpose, did it have any real effect or was it a random bit of source code that was basically unused, etc.) and jurisdiction as well. Regardless it's definitely not the case that the GPL just magically infects any code it touches. That is a ridiculous simplification that is mostly spread by ignorance or those spreading FUD. Hell the GPL doesn't even do anything at all until the programs themselves is distributed. It's perfectly reasonable to prefer other licenses over the GPL, but let's not make up reasons to dislike it.

bryanlarsen 9y ago
"GPLed code linked into a program doesn't magically make the program GPLed" Lots of people for debatable but legitimate reasons believe that GPLv2 does this. They don't realize that this doesn't apply to GPLv3, nor to the AGPLv3.
- CogitoCogito 9y ago
  > "GPLed code linked into a program doesn't magically make the program GPLed" > Lots of people for debatable but legitimate reasons believe that GPLv2 does this. > They don't realize that this doesn't apply to GPLv3, nor to the AGPLv3. Honestly I simply think you're not understanding me. Let me summarize: linking GPLed code without GPLing your own code and without having any other license to do so is copyright infringement. There are multiple ways to avoid infringement. You can pay the authors for another license, you can possibly remove the code and pay the authors enough so they're drop the matter, you can go to court, or you can release your own code under the GPL. You do understand that that is not the same as saying that "linking GPLed code to your code makes your code GPLed" right? edit: Apologies if I misunderstood you when you said: "Lots of people for debatable but legitimate reasons believe that GPLv2 does this." Maybe you don't believe this yourself (which is what I assumed when drafting my reply here). I agree with you that lots of people believe this, but it basically isn't debatable and certainly is wrong. Put another way: What is the legal rationale for the claim that linking GPLed code immediately makes the linking code GPLed?
  - ghaff 9y ago
    Assuming that linked code is distributed. You can use it internally as much as you want. (With the caveat that distribution has a broader meeting under AzGPL.)
    - CogitoCogito 9y ago
      You are 100% correct that you can execute/link/etc. GPLed code without following the terms of the license when you're not distributing your code. But I'm not referring to distribution. I'm saying that if you were to link your own non-GPLed code to GPLed code _and_ you were to distribute it, your code would not automatically become GPLed code. You would be infringing upon copyright. There are multiple options to stop that infringement which do not involve GPLing your code.
dpark 9y ago
This is splitting hairs. If you link GPL’d code to your proprietary code (and distribute your proprietary code to users in executable form), your only options are to release your code under the GPL or violate copyright law. You can address your illegal action in the ways you’ve described but you’re absolutely engaging in illegal behavior at the point you link the GPL code without licensing your own code under the GPL. The “viral” description of the GPL is reasonably accurate. At least for people don’t who want to engage in illegal behavior. Forced (re)licensing is specifically the intent of the GPL.
- CogitoCogito 9y ago
  It absolutely is not splitting hairs. This means that if you have a large codebase and accidentally link GPLed code into it, you have many different options that do not involve GPLing your code. Many people incorrectly believe that is not the case which is proved by many of the responses in this very thread. One of the original examples here in this thread (by bryanlarsen above) was even about checking GPLed code into a repo. Any company can do that and can experiment and decide they really like the code and then they can e.g. contact the copyright holders and offer to license under different terms or another large number of options. This sort of misconception is widespread only one example of why most people's understanding of the "GPL is viral" is simply wrong. Calling this splitting hairs is ridiculous. It's fundamental.
  - dpark 9y ago
    Who thinks that “accidental” linking is the problem? And how does that really even happen? You accidentally check in some GPL code, build and link to it, and then also accidentally distribute the resulting binaries? Bryanlarsen above specifically called out that checking into a repo is not linking. The only real misconception is that use of GPL software by a company will somehow result in all software owned by that company becoming GPL licensed. This is of course not true. It is true that linking proprietary software to GPL code and then distributing executables must result in either the proprietary software being licensed under the GPL or a copyright violation. Your comments about getting different license terms is proving my point. Your proposed solutions to the GPL redistribution clause all boil down to not using GPL software.
onli 9y ago
I think that the topic is too complicated. Too many developers not firmly on the FOSS-side simply follow the FUD, or they follow their lawyer's [typically overly risk-averse] lead when saying to steer away, or when the virality is described elsewhere. The knowledge that even GPL2-definition of virality for linked code is debatable (what exactly is linked code, what does being part of something mean exactly? To not get started with derived work), what GPL3 means in this context, and that the court's decisions in different jurisdictions are not straightforward is simply not there. Thus downvotes, as you saw. The questions with the monorepo and having code checked in is the perfect example. On the other hand, it is understandable. In a crazy jurisdiction like the US where Oracle can win with absurdly claiming copyright on Java-APIs I can understand everyone trying to minimize risk.