4 ms·
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
by 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 agoThe 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 agolook 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 agoYes. 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 agoWow, can you possibly try /any/ harder to by a license douchebag?
- ZachPruckowski 16y agoNo, 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.
- hughw 16y agoI'll reword it for you. Well have a Special class. We'll pay an instructor to come in and give our devs a half day course on How not to Violate the GPL. GPL is another bureaucratic hoop to jump through, just like race and gender discrimination classes. Cost of doing business.