4 ms·

The concept of infection is in the license terms of the GPL. It requires any code derived or linked against GPL software to also be GPL. This is where the term

by _ph_ 5y ago

The concept of infection is in the license terms of the GPL. It requires any code derived or linked against GPL software to also be GPL. This is where the term "infectious" comes from. As the previous poster says, this isn't the question here, as most licenses have terms which are not fulfilled by the copilot, if it is considered a derivative work. BSD for example requires attribution which copilot doesn't do either.

systemvoltage 5y ago
Indeed, there is a reason why commercial projects and corporations avoid GPL like a plague.
- formerly_proven 5y ago
  There's an interesting dichotomy here. Linux is super-successful largely because it is GPL, but only because the syscall boundary (as a widely-accepted "GPL firewall") separates it from company code. Meanwhile companies will more or less blanket-ban GPL and AGPL software, even if the terms would not impact them at all.
  - jakear 5y ago
    What annoys me most is that the “infection clause” so often results in a strictly worse user experience. Take Audacity, it’s a fully open source piece of software, but to do lots of common operations in it you need to figure out how to link in FFmpeg. This is something your or I can do no problem in our sleep, but it’s an absolute dealbreaker for someone like my dad, and probable millions of other people trying to get into audio projects using free software. I imagine a large number will simply bounce out and stick to GarageBand or whatever. I’m conflicted on this, on one hand I think FFmpeg is a brilliant piece of engineering and I want the creators to receive credit, but on the other I think Audacity and its built in components as listed in its “third party licenses” document are brilliant pieces of software that do receive credit. Further, I believe the one of the primary purposes of technology should be to enable the masses to create, and this licensing places an arbitrary yet powerful restriction on that for folks who aren’t already computer-proficient.
    - formerly_proven 5y ago
      > Take Audacity, it’s a fully open source piece of software, but to do lots of common operations in it you need to figure out how to link in FFmpeg. Audacity and FFmpeg are both under the L/GPL, compatible versions even. The reason Audacity doesn't include FFmpeg is because they are afraid of software patents. GPL has nothing to do with it. At all. > Because of software patents, Audacity cannot include the FFmpeg software or distribute it from its own websites. Instead, following the links below to instructions to download and install the free and recommended FFmpeg third-party library.
michaelmrose 5y ago
What you are describing as "infection" is in fact an extra escape hatch for license violators not an extra restriction. If you incorporate closed source software into your work you may stop distributing your software or rip it out possibly while paying a massive fine. If you incorporate GPL licensed software into your work you may stop distributing your software, rip it out, OR release your software as GPL. Furthermore while being discovered using someone else's proprietary software in yours will almost certainly result in at best a threat of near instant lawyer assisted corporate suicide using GPL software the same way has historically led to a strongly worded letter and months to years to fix your problem. This is to say that nearly all copyright is inherently viral and GPL is slightly less so than many because you have additional options. Hearing people, many of whom metaphorical develop software Ebola for a living describe the GPL as viral is in a word, amusing.
- chrismorgan 5y ago
  You’re comparing it with the wrong thing. When people speak of the GPL as infectious or viral, they’re comparing it with permissive licenses like MIT/Apache2, not closed-source licenses.
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    Particularly nobody says proprietary licensing is viral even though most licenses are and almost every refers to and focuses on the fact that you may avoid infringement by releasing the combined work under the GPL often confusing the fact that you can for must or even assuming that the combined work is automagically GPL. Also aficionados of permissive licensing seem to be frequently not only OK with proprietary licensing but approve of the fact that code can be used in such a fashion. It's almost as if the attitude is everyone's else's work MUST be free for ME to use in MY proprietary code else they are somehow taking away MY freedom!
goodpoint 5y ago
> It requires any code derived or linked against GPL software to also be GPL. This is where the term "infectious" comes from. And it's still an incorrect and arbitrary use of term. If you release software that is breaching GPL due to a dependency you have many options to rectify the issue. Under no conditions your software "catches" a GPL "infection" and magically changes its license while you are not looking. There is such concept in copyright law. EDIT: you can do better than silent downvotes.

by _ph_ 5y ago

systemvoltage 5y ago

Indeed, there is a reason why commercial projects and corporations avoid GPL like a plague.

formerly_proven 5y ago
There's an interesting dichotomy here. Linux is super-successful largely because it is GPL, but only because the syscall boundary (as a widely-accepted "GPL firewall") separates it from company code. Meanwhile companies will more or less blanket-ban GPL and AGPL software, even if the terms would not impact them at all.
- jakear 5y ago
  What annoys me most is that the “infection clause” so often results in a strictly worse user experience. Take Audacity, it’s a fully open source piece of software, but to do lots of common operations in it you need to figure out how to link in FFmpeg. This is something your or I can do no problem in our sleep, but it’s an absolute dealbreaker for someone like my dad, and probable millions of other people trying to get into audio projects using free software. I imagine a large number will simply bounce out and stick to GarageBand or whatever. I’m conflicted on this, on one hand I think FFmpeg is a brilliant piece of engineering and I want the creators to receive credit, but on the other I think Audacity and its built in components as listed in its “third party licenses” document are brilliant pieces of software that do receive credit. Further, I believe the one of the primary purposes of technology should be to enable the masses to create, and this licensing places an arbitrary yet powerful restriction on that for folks who aren’t already computer-proficient.
  - formerly_proven 5y ago
    > Take Audacity, it’s a fully open source piece of software, but to do lots of common operations in it you need to figure out how to link in FFmpeg. Audacity and FFmpeg are both under the L/GPL, compatible versions even. The reason Audacity doesn't include FFmpeg is because they are afraid of software patents. GPL has nothing to do with it. At all. > Because of software patents, Audacity cannot include the FFmpeg software or distribute it from its own websites. Instead, following the links below to instructions to download and install the free and recommended FFmpeg third-party library.

michaelmrose 5y ago

What you are describing as "infection" is in fact an extra escape hatch for license violators not an extra restriction. If you incorporate closed source software into your work you may stop distributing your software or rip it out possibly while paying a massive fine. If you incorporate GPL licensed software into your work you may stop distributing your software, rip it out, OR release your software as GPL. Furthermore while being discovered using someone else's proprietary software in yours will almost certainly result in at best a threat of near instant lawyer assisted corporate suicide using GPL software the same way has historically led to a strongly worded letter and months to years to fix your problem. This is to say that nearly all copyright is inherently viral and GPL is slightly less so than many because you have additional options. Hearing people, many of whom metaphorical develop software Ebola for a living describe the GPL as viral is in a word, amusing.

chrismorgan 5y ago
You’re comparing it with the wrong thing. When people speak of the GPL as infectious or viral, they’re comparing it with permissive licenses like MIT/Apache2, not closed-source licenses.
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  Particularly nobody says proprietary licensing is viral even though most licenses are and almost every refers to and focuses on the fact that you may avoid infringement by releasing the combined work under the GPL often confusing the fact that you can for must or even assuming that the combined work is automagically GPL. Also aficionados of permissive licensing seem to be frequently not only OK with proprietary licensing but approve of the fact that code can be used in such a fashion. It's almost as if the attitude is everyone's else's work MUST be free for ME to use in MY proprietary code else they are somehow taking away MY freedom!

goodpoint 5y ago

> It requires any code derived or linked against GPL software to also be GPL. This is where the term "infectious" comes from. And it's still an incorrect and arbitrary use of term. If you release software that is breaching GPL due to a dependency you have many options to rectify the issue. Under no conditions your software "catches" a GPL "infection" and magically changes its license while you are not looking. There is such concept in copyright law. EDIT: you can do better than silent downvotes.