4 ms·

>You cannot separate the end user from the programmer. Bullshit. The only thing GPL requires you to do is to extend the same freedoms granted to you to the us

by tpxl 7y ago

>You cannot separate the end user from the programmer. Bullshit. The only thing GPL requires you to do is to extend the same freedoms granted to you to the user. >Requiring to relicense other parts of the software, isn't. You can absolutely use GPL software without relicensing everything else - split the part that requires use of GPL and extend the freedoms to your users.

_ph_ 7y ago
Obviously, if the GPL software is a complete application, then that works. See Emacs, see GCC, see Linux. But not in the space of libraries, where I can't use anything GPLed without relicensing my software.
- cercatrova 7y ago
  Why not relicense your software then?
  - _ph_ 7y ago
    Because the license was chosen with a clear reason. And if that license was not GPL (otherwise the discussion would be moot), this is not an option.
  - nmz 7y ago
    There are many domains where the GPL is not applicable, gaming for one, requires the source to be secret, or else you'll allow anyone to build and release the game easily and thus not recuperating costs of production. This is why most lua libraries are MIT, as something that is heavily used in games, using anything other than is not applicable. It is also the reason rms created the lgpl, as a copyleft library that wont relicense software that depends on it.
    - ric2b 7y ago
      > gaming for one, requires the source to be secret, or else you'll allow anyone to build and release the game easily and thus not recuperating costs of production. The engine is not the game, it's missing all the assets (3D models, textures, audio, scripts, etc). The assets don't need to be GPL-licensed. Most games use one of the few popular game engines: Unreal Engine, Source or Unity, which while not being open-source, are available to anyone and make it possible for anyone to build and release games with them. That doesn't stop them from making money.
    - cercatrova 7y ago
      The code and logic of games can be open source (look at Dwarf Fortress or ports of Doom) while the assets are still closed source. The bigger fear I always see is that someone will steal the code and run it without paying. In reality, this almost never happens. People don't care enough to run their own version of the game, or any other software.
- belorn 7y ago
  Thats wrong. You can put all your work under any permissible license and use any GPL library. The same is true for anyone who get the work from you. No need to re-license anything. Large programs often use multiple different software licenses without having to relicensing everything to be the same. They just have to be compatible.

by tpxl 7y ago

_ph_ 7y ago

Obviously, if the GPL software is a complete application, then that works. See Emacs, see GCC, see Linux. But not in the space of libraries, where I can't use anything GPLed without relicensing my software.

cercatrova 7y ago
Why not relicense your software then?
- _ph_ 7y ago
  Because the license was chosen with a clear reason. And if that license was not GPL (otherwise the discussion would be moot), this is not an option.
- nmz 7y ago
  There are many domains where the GPL is not applicable, gaming for one, requires the source to be secret, or else you'll allow anyone to build and release the game easily and thus not recuperating costs of production. This is why most lua libraries are MIT, as something that is heavily used in games, using anything other than is not applicable. It is also the reason rms created the lgpl, as a copyleft library that wont relicense software that depends on it.
  - ric2b 7y ago
    > gaming for one, requires the source to be secret, or else you'll allow anyone to build and release the game easily and thus not recuperating costs of production. The engine is not the game, it's missing all the assets (3D models, textures, audio, scripts, etc). The assets don't need to be GPL-licensed. Most games use one of the few popular game engines: Unreal Engine, Source or Unity, which while not being open-source, are available to anyone and make it possible for anyone to build and release games with them. That doesn't stop them from making money.
  - cercatrova 7y ago
    The code and logic of games can be open source (look at Dwarf Fortress or ports of Doom) while the assets are still closed source. The bigger fear I always see is that someone will steal the code and run it without paying. In reality, this almost never happens. People don't care enough to run their own version of the game, or any other software.
belorn 7y ago
Thats wrong. You can put all your work under any permissible license and use any GPL library. The same is true for anyone who get the work from you. No need to re-license anything. Large programs often use multiple different software licenses without having to relicensing everything to be the same. They just have to be compatible.