4 ms·

Curious about how the GPL is not viral... Unless you go through the hoops of making sure GPL code is sectioned (through a shared library or whatever) in your co

Curious about how the GPL is not viral... Unless you go through the hoops of making sure GPL code is sectioned (through a shared library or whatever) in your codebase, then your software becomes GPL, no? I mean sometimes you can avoid it so that the GPL project stands at an arms length to your own code but it is not always trivial. You just don't get to include the code in your project and not get "infected". The fact that you can sometimes circumvent the infection does not mean it is not viral because I believe it violates the "spirit" of the license anyways.

simion314 5y ago
I think you are wrong here, if I have 2 files, first is GPL and the second is proprietary and you steal them from me and use them then what license is your code now ? The correct answer is that your code stealing is not transforming the product into GPL or into my proprietary license. If I catch and ask for money from you you have more options with the GPL code then with my proprietary code. With the GPL code you can just GPL your code changes, maybe the entire product but you are not forced to pay me anything. With the proprietary license though you don't have the option and I can make you pay. So if you like that much the "infectious" word, you should add an "optional" modifier , you can always not GPL your changes, remove the "stolen" code , pay damages? (not sure if this ever happened). What I observer the issues with GPL like software is lazy developers and companies that would like to "npm install" solutions and skip doing the work.
__david__ 5y ago
Your software never "becomes" GPL, no matter what. That's the problem with the "viral" label, it's somewhat of a misnomer that implies that anything that comes into contact with it gets infected and suddenly all your private IP _has_ to be released and anyone can just take it an fork it. In reality, your proprietary code can only be GPLed if you explicitly release it under that license. What people are confusing is that it is a violation of the GPL to release binary code that links (statically or dynamically[1]) with GPL-ed code without also releasing that code under a compatible license. This is where the "viral" label comes into play, since the easiest way to link against GPL code is to just make your code GPL as well. But it _does not_ mean that if you mess up and release a binary blob with GPL code in it that you've given up all rights to the non-GPL parts. [1] LGPL allows dynamic linking, plain GPL doesn't distinguish.
- dkarras 5y ago
  Sorry I still don't get it. Please tell me which step I am getting wrong: I have my own proprietary code. I decide to make use of GPL code. Then I distribute the binaries. Now I have to make the source available, correct? This source that was just made available (that includes my "proprietary code" and the GPL library I used) needs a license. At this step, I already lost my proprietary code and made it public - which might be unacceptable for some, but that in itself does not make GPL viral. Now that I need to license the released code, what options do I have? Can it be less permissive than GPL? My understanding has always been "no".
  - __david__ 5y ago
    > Now I have to make the source available, correct? Nope! That's one way to fix the licensing issue—but you're not forced to do that. Another option would be to immediately stop distributing your binary and not distribute it again until you can replace or otherwise excise the GPL code that caused the licensing issue.
    - dkarras 5y ago
      Eh, that is a bit dishonest argument. "I want to keep distributing, and I want to keep using this code" are the immutable assumptions of my argument. My point is, with those assumptions in place, there is no way to NOT propagate GPL in the entirety of the work - was my point. That is OK since GPL is intentionally made that way. Take it or leave it deal. No one is entitled to anything, if people want to distribute their work as GPL, that is up to them to decide after all. I am only discussing the virality aspect of it here as a separate fact. And how does immediately stoping distribution help, legally? If I have already distributed the binary, the recipients are already entitled to the entire sources, no? Or does GPL have a "I have learned my lesson" clause?

simion314 5y ago

I think you are wrong here, if I have 2 files, first is GPL and the second is proprietary and you steal them from me and use them then what license is your code now ? The correct answer is that your code stealing is not transforming the product into GPL or into my proprietary license. If I catch and ask for money from you you have more options with the GPL code then with my proprietary code. With the GPL code you can just GPL your code changes, maybe the entire product but you are not forced to pay me anything. With the proprietary license though you don't have the option and I can make you pay. So if you like that much the "infectious" word, you should add an "optional" modifier , you can always not GPL your changes, remove the "stolen" code , pay damages? (not sure if this ever happened). What I observer the issues with GPL like software is lazy developers and companies that would like to "npm install" solutions and skip doing the work.

__david__ 5y ago

Your software never "becomes" GPL, no matter what. That's the problem with the "viral" label, it's somewhat of a misnomer that implies that anything that comes into contact with it gets infected and suddenly all your private IP _has_ to be released and anyone can just take it an fork it. In reality, your proprietary code can only be GPLed if you explicitly release it under that license. What people are confusing is that it is a violation of the GPL to release binary code that links (statically or dynamically[1]) with GPL-ed code without also releasing that code under a compatible license. This is where the "viral" label comes into play, since the easiest way to link against GPL code is to just make your code GPL as well. But it _does not_ mean that if you mess up and release a binary blob with GPL code in it that you've given up all rights to the non-GPL parts. [1] LGPL allows dynamic linking, plain GPL doesn't distinguish.

dkarras 5y ago
Sorry I still don't get it. Please tell me which step I am getting wrong: I have my own proprietary code. I decide to make use of GPL code. Then I distribute the binaries. Now I have to make the source available, correct? This source that was just made available (that includes my "proprietary code" and the GPL library I used) needs a license. At this step, I already lost my proprietary code and made it public - which might be unacceptable for some, but that in itself does not make GPL viral. Now that I need to license the released code, what options do I have? Can it be less permissive than GPL? My understanding has always been "no".
- __david__ 5y ago
  > Now I have to make the source available, correct? Nope! That's one way to fix the licensing issue—but you're not forced to do that. Another option would be to immediately stop distributing your binary and not distribute it again until you can replace or otherwise excise the GPL code that caused the licensing issue.
  - dkarras 5y ago
    Eh, that is a bit dishonest argument. "I want to keep distributing, and I want to keep using this code" are the immutable assumptions of my argument. My point is, with those assumptions in place, there is no way to NOT propagate GPL in the entirety of the work - was my point. That is OK since GPL is intentionally made that way. Take it or leave it deal. No one is entitled to anything, if people want to distribute their work as GPL, that is up to them to decide after all. I am only discussing the virality aspect of it here as a separate fact. And how does immediately stoping distribution help, legally? If I have already distributed the binary, the recipients are already entitled to the entire sources, no? Or does GPL have a "I have learned my lesson" clause?