4 ms·

The thing is: The GPL is different. With other licenses if you distribute derived work, the distribution is illegal. With GPL in the mix the derived work beco

The thing is: The GPL is different. With other licenses if you distribute derived work, the distribution is illegal. With GPL in the mix the derived work becomes GPL as well.

chrismorgan 5y ago
No, that’s no different. With all licenses, derived work must comply with the terms or else be illegal. For something like MIT/Apache2, the burden is that your derived work must acknowledge the copyright and license of the original work. For something like GPL, the burden is that your derived work must acknowledge the copyright and license of the original work, and must be under a similar license to the original work. So yeah, it requires more of you, but it’s fundamentally the same proposition of “obey the terms or it’s illegal”.
- johannes1234321 5y ago
  The legal conclusion of a case where one embeds GPL Code, but doesn't release their own code is, as always in law, hard to predict. However gpl-violations.org documents different court case which ended in publication of code based on GPL'd code.
  - chrismorgan 5y ago
    OK, I see where you’re coming from now. I’m still sceptical that it’d be fundamentally any different: I wouldn’t expect a court to be able to compel them to release their code, only to order that they either comply or cease distribution, and issue fines—both of which would be the same on any license, though to be sure compliance is easier on permissive licenses than copyleft licenses. (I also note that you could easily have mingled other-licensed stuff that says you must not release the code; I wonder what a court would make of such a situation; I doubt that they’d quite order you to violate one license in order to comply with another.) Do you have a link for a particular case where an entity was ordered to release their software?
    - goodpoint 5y ago
      > I wouldn’t expect a court to be able to compel them to release their code, only to order that they either comply or cease distribution Correct. On top of that, GPL is very lenient and provides multiple escape mechanisms. Also it does not require any damage compensation.
michaelmrose 5y ago
Absolutely incorrect. With the GPL the distribution of software contrary to the terms of the license remains illegal just as with any software under any license. As with any other software you must either stop distribution or come to an agreement with the party owns the copyright to the code. The GPL merely provides you a get out of infringement free card whereby you may release all of the code under the GPL. This is different only insofar as it is more permissive not less compared to proprietary software. The idea that the GPL infects your code is a fantasy.

The thing is: The GPL is different. With other licenses if you distribute derived work, the distribution is illegal. With GPL in the mix the derived work becomes GPL as well.

chrismorgan 5y ago

No, that’s no different. With all licenses, derived work must comply with the terms or else be illegal. For something like MIT/Apache2, the burden is that your derived work must acknowledge the copyright and license of the original work. For something like GPL, the burden is that your derived work must acknowledge the copyright and license of the original work, and must be under a similar license to the original work. So yeah, it requires more of you, but it’s fundamentally the same proposition of “obey the terms or it’s illegal”.

johannes1234321 5y ago
The legal conclusion of a case where one embeds GPL Code, but doesn't release their own code is, as always in law, hard to predict. However gpl-violations.org documents different court case which ended in publication of code based on GPL'd code.
- chrismorgan 5y ago
  OK, I see where you’re coming from now. I’m still sceptical that it’d be fundamentally any different: I wouldn’t expect a court to be able to compel them to release their code, only to order that they either comply or cease distribution, and issue fines—both of which would be the same on any license, though to be sure compliance is easier on permissive licenses than copyleft licenses. (I also note that you could easily have mingled other-licensed stuff that says you must not release the code; I wonder what a court would make of such a situation; I doubt that they’d quite order you to violate one license in order to comply with another.) Do you have a link for a particular case where an entity was ordered to release their software?
  - goodpoint 5y ago
    > I wouldn’t expect a court to be able to compel them to release their code, only to order that they either comply or cease distribution Correct. On top of that, GPL is very lenient and provides multiple escape mechanisms. Also it does not require any damage compensation.

michaelmrose 5y ago

Absolutely incorrect. With the GPL the distribution of software contrary to the terms of the license remains illegal just as with any software under any license. As with any other software you must either stop distribution or come to an agreement with the party owns the copyright to the code. The GPL merely provides you a get out of infringement free card whereby you may release all of the code under the GPL. This is different only insofar as it is more permissive not less compared to proprietary software. The idea that the GPL infects your code is a fantasy.