5 ms·

You don't "inadvertently" spread GPL'd code all throughout your codebase, unless you're one of those people who just copy-paste code from the internet everywher

by jbri 16y ago

You don't "inadvertently" spread GPL'd code all throughout your codebase, unless you're one of those people who just copy-paste code from the internet everywhere.

hughw 16y ago
And your point is, people shouldn't do that? Well, you're not convincing me that the GPL doesn't spread virally and inadvertently then.
- jbri 16y ago
  If all you've done is copy-paste stuff from the internet everywhere, then you haven't actually written any code. Regardless, that's not the point. Including GPL code doesn't magically obligate you to release the rest of your source code free to the world - you always have the option of, say, not distributing your program until you've removed and rewritten all the GPL-licensed stuff. I'm really not sure what you're getting at with your 'viral and inadvertent' comment - it almost seems like you're willfully ignoring the points being made in reply to your comments.
  - hughw 16y ago
    The responses all have the theme, "Inadvertent? Who would do that? Only irresponsible ninnies would do that." So they ignore the premise of the article, which presumes that inadvertent inclusion does happen. Additionally, I posted a few examples below where otherwise responsible contributors to a codebase might leak some GPLd material into the codebase. Over a long enough time, with enough developers contributing to your codebase, it's inevitable. "Not distributing your program", for a business, may mean a lot of money. It might mean bankruptcy. How do you know it will be affordable to replace the offending code? The author said "inadvertent", not "tiny". That's the viral part. GPL source code is all over the net. Any developer on your staff could look at something on line and derive some code from it, and drop it into your codebase. You'll never know about 99.9% of it.
    - rbanffy 16y ago
      > Only irresponsible ninnies would do that Incompetent programmers do that too. > You'll never know about 99.9% of it. Too bad if it's your job knowing it.
    - nitrogen 16y ago
      look at something on line and derive some code from it Thankfully, copyright does not protect ideas, only the expression thereof. In this context I take the word "derive" in an informal rather than legal sense (i.e. "derivative work"). If there's only one way to, say, clear the non-blocking flag of a file descriptor, save a couple of variable names, then a developer finding that one way in some example code online and using that method in their own code can't reasonably be considered in violation of copyright law or any license. NB: IANAL.
    - ZachPruckowski 16y ago
      >"Any developer on your staff could look at something on line and derive some code from it, and drop it into your codebase" Well that's what's so crucial about having solid Best Practices and hiring good developers. If you hire people who break the rules (deliberately or accidentally, with your knowledge or without), then there's your problem. The GPL has nothing to do with that scenario, it's you hiring people who can't toe the line.
      - hughw 16y ago
        Yes. We need better prophylactics in place to ensure we don't catch the GPL virus. That's why people call it viral. You're correct that other open source licenses can present similar issues of poisoning.
        skore 16y ago
        Wow, can you possibly try /any/ harder to by a license douchebag?
        ZachPruckowski 16y ago
        No, you need systems in place to make sure you don't commit copyright infringement. But if you do commit copyright infringement, there are solutions other than opening up your code, such as buying a license from the guy you copied from or removing the infringing code.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
kenjackson 16y ago
The more likely scenario is that you start an open source project. Put it under the BSD. Great. Two years later someone comes and says, remember dev X, Y, and Z. They were using some GPL code in your project. We've found at least 50 instances of it. Now here's where it gets ugly, because everyone who picked up your project thinking it was a BSD project, just picked up a GPL project. They may be using your code in very intertwined, fully in compliance with the BSD license, but you must now inform them that the must comply with the GPL or cease using this code, or pay damages. That doesn't seem like a great situation to be in. Although it is ironically a good argument for the GPL... "sure the license may say MIT/BSD, but it might be GPL"
- SwellJoe 16y ago
  So, now we get the to heart of it: You don't care about the clarity of the license, or the availability of clear information about what it means, or the fact that the FSF recommends every project that is under the GPL include a complete copy of the GPL in every distributed copy of the code so that it is not inadvertently used by someone that might not know the license. You only care that it's not the license you prefer. "The more likely scenario is that you start an open source project. Put it under the BSD. Great. Two years later someone comes and says, remember dev X, Y, and Z. They were using some GPL code in your project. We've found at least 50 instances of it." I've been an Open Source developer for more than a dozen years, on projects in use by millions of people, and under more than a dozen different licenses including BSD and GPL. Some of those projects span hundreds of thousands of lines of code and hundreds of contributors, in both purely commercial and purely non-profit organizations and everything in between. I've never once seen an incident of GPL code being accidentally used in a situation where it caused a license problem. I have seen people try to get away with not following the license, but that's not the same thing, and it was not a misunderstanding or inadvertent. In short: He (or she) who writes the code, determines the license. Deal with it. If you're using the code it's your responsibility to understand the terms under which it is made available to you. You can't make it the author's responsibility to choose a license that meets your desires. The author of the code presumably has their own desires, and they supercede yours.
  - 16y ago
patio11 16y ago
We all work downstream of these people, potentially as simply as by virtue of typing "sudo gem install ...". See kanjackson's very perceptive comment.
- jasonlotito 16y ago
  Perceptive or not, it's not an issue with the GPL. Someone can come back to you with proprietary code inside the same BSD licensed project. Or proprietary inside a GPL. Or AGPL inside GPL. GPLv2 inside GPLv3. You make assumptions when you use code you didn't write. It's as simple as that. You assume that the distribution of the code is proper, and that the license is as described, and that everyone who contributed did so honestly. Proprietary or open, it's a problem everywhere, and not limited to just the GPL.

by jbri 16y ago

You don't "inadvertently" spread GPL'd code all throughout your codebase, unless you're one of those people who just copy-paste code from the internet everywhere.

hughw 16y ago

And your point is, people shouldn't do that? Well, you're not convincing me that the GPL doesn't spread virally and inadvertently then.

jbri 16y ago
If all you've done is copy-paste stuff from the internet everywhere, then you haven't actually written any code. Regardless, that's not the point. Including GPL code doesn't magically obligate you to release the rest of your source code free to the world - you always have the option of, say, not distributing your program until you've removed and rewritten all the GPL-licensed stuff. I'm really not sure what you're getting at with your 'viral and inadvertent' comment - it almost seems like you're willfully ignoring the points being made in reply to your comments.
- hughw 16y ago
  The responses all have the theme, "Inadvertent? Who would do that? Only irresponsible ninnies would do that." So they ignore the premise of the article, which presumes that inadvertent inclusion does happen. Additionally, I posted a few examples below where otherwise responsible contributors to a codebase might leak some GPLd material into the codebase. Over a long enough time, with enough developers contributing to your codebase, it's inevitable. "Not distributing your program", for a business, may mean a lot of money. It might mean bankruptcy. How do you know it will be affordable to replace the offending code? The author said "inadvertent", not "tiny". That's the viral part. GPL source code is all over the net. Any developer on your staff could look at something on line and derive some code from it, and drop it into your codebase. You'll never know about 99.9% of it.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    > Only irresponsible ninnies would do that Incompetent programmers do that too. > You'll never know about 99.9% of it. Too bad if it's your job knowing it.
  - nitrogen 16y ago
    look at something on line and derive some code from it Thankfully, copyright does not protect ideas, only the expression thereof. In this context I take the word "derive" in an informal rather than legal sense (i.e. "derivative work"). If there's only one way to, say, clear the non-blocking flag of a file descriptor, save a couple of variable names, then a developer finding that one way in some example code online and using that method in their own code can't reasonably be considered in violation of copyright law or any license. NB: IANAL.
  - ZachPruckowski 16y ago
    >"Any developer on your staff could look at something on line and derive some code from it, and drop it into your codebase" Well that's what's so crucial about having solid Best Practices and hiring good developers. If you hire people who break the rules (deliberately or accidentally, with your knowledge or without), then there's your problem. The GPL has nothing to do with that scenario, it's you hiring people who can't toe the line.
    - hughw 16y ago
      Yes. We need better prophylactics in place to ensure we don't catch the GPL virus. That's why people call it viral. You're correct that other open source licenses can present similar issues of poisoning.
      - skore 16y ago
        Wow, can you possibly try /any/ harder to by a license douchebag?
      - ZachPruckowski 16y ago
        No, you need systems in place to make sure you don't commit copyright infringement. But if you do commit copyright infringement, there are solutions other than opening up your code, such as buying a license from the guy you copied from or removing the infringing code.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

kenjackson 16y ago

The more likely scenario is that you start an open source project. Put it under the BSD. Great. Two years later someone comes and says, remember dev X, Y, and Z. They were using some GPL code in your project. We've found at least 50 instances of it. Now here's where it gets ugly, because everyone who picked up your project thinking it was a BSD project, just picked up a GPL project. They may be using your code in very intertwined, fully in compliance with the BSD license, but you must now inform them that the must comply with the GPL or cease using this code, or pay damages. That doesn't seem like a great situation to be in. Although it is ironically a good argument for the GPL... "sure the license may say MIT/BSD, but it might be GPL"

SwellJoe 16y ago
So, now we get the to heart of it: You don't care about the clarity of the license, or the availability of clear information about what it means, or the fact that the FSF recommends every project that is under the GPL include a complete copy of the GPL in every distributed copy of the code so that it is not inadvertently used by someone that might not know the license. You only care that it's not the license you prefer. "The more likely scenario is that you start an open source project. Put it under the BSD. Great. Two years later someone comes and says, remember dev X, Y, and Z. They were using some GPL code in your project. We've found at least 50 instances of it." I've been an Open Source developer for more than a dozen years, on projects in use by millions of people, and under more than a dozen different licenses including BSD and GPL. Some of those projects span hundreds of thousands of lines of code and hundreds of contributors, in both purely commercial and purely non-profit organizations and everything in between. I've never once seen an incident of GPL code being accidentally used in a situation where it caused a license problem. I have seen people try to get away with not following the license, but that's not the same thing, and it was not a misunderstanding or inadvertent. In short: He (or she) who writes the code, determines the license. Deal with it. If you're using the code it's your responsibility to understand the terms under which it is made available to you. You can't make it the author's responsibility to choose a license that meets your desires. The author of the code presumably has their own desires, and they supercede yours.
- 16y ago

patio11 16y ago

We all work downstream of these people, potentially as simply as by virtue of typing "sudo gem install ...". See kanjackson's very perceptive comment.

jasonlotito 16y ago
Perceptive or not, it's not an issue with the GPL. Someone can come back to you with proprietary code inside the same BSD licensed project. Or proprietary inside a GPL. Or AGPL inside GPL. GPLv2 inside GPLv3. You make assumptions when you use code you didn't write. It's as simple as that. You assume that the distribution of the code is proper, and that the license is as described, and that everyone who contributed did so honestly. Proprietary or open, it's a problem everywhere, and not limited to just the GPL.