4 ms·

> I think that alone makes this project unusable in non-open-source projects? I hope so. I mean, that's the only reason for GPL to exist, right? There's quite

> I think that alone makes this project unusable in non-open-source projects? I hope so. I mean, that's the only reason for GPL to exist, right? There's quite a few proprietary programs that decided to relicense as GPL in order to use a GPL library.

est31 5y ago
IANAL but you don't need to relicense your program to GPL just to use a GPL library. You can relicense to something that is compatible with GPL, like say the MIT license. Then the combined form has to be distributed under GPL terms. But when you one day replace the library with something not under GPL, you can distribute combined forms of those under MIT.
- nextaccountic 5y ago
  Yes, that's true. I mean the whole work to be under GPL. The exact terms of your own code is less important, as long as it is GPL compatible.
- kazinator 5y ago
  That is correct. If you want to redistribute a mixture of different program components as one program, all the pieces have to have licenses that are compatible. If any of them are GPL, then the whole thing will be GPL; all the other licenses have to be cool with being part of a whole that carries a GPL umbrella license. MIT and BSD pieces are this way.
- greyivy 5y ago
  This must be why so many proprietary apps require you to manually download FFmpeg binaries during runtime. Thanks for the explanation!
dcgudeman 5y ago
I think the original point of GPL was to incentivise companies/developers to contribute changes back to GPL licensed project. What is clear is that, minus a few exceptions, most large open source engaged companies avoid GPL because of the risk of compliance [1]. And many authors that originally licensed their projects as GPL see this and regret their choice [2][3]. This is why there is a trend away from copyleft licenses [4]. [1] https://opensource.google/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#restricted https://opensource.google/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#restrict... [2] https://lwn.net/Articles/478361/ https://lwn.net/Articles/478361/ [3] https://twitter.com/id_aa_carmack/status/1412271091393994754?lang=en https://twitter.com/id_aa_carmack/status/1412271091393994754... [4] https://opensource.com/article/17/2/decline-gpl https://opensource.com/article/17/2/decline-gpl
- stebalien 5y ago
  The original point of the GPL was to ensure that end-users retained their rights to the source code. See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms.
  - vlovich123 5y ago
    There’s the philosophical intent of the FSF and then there’s what individual project authors intended by adopting GPL. I think OP correctly explains the perspective of some/many/or even most authors. Arguably, given the decline of GPL as the de facto license for OSS might indicate this viewpoint is at least an accurate perspective today and may have been the underlying truth all along. Certainly growing up I think I cared more about the concept of contributing improvements back than necessarily being able to have source to all derivative products and didn’t trust corporations to give back (I still don’t, but the situation doesn’t seem quite so serious for most projects).
  - kazinator 5y ago
    That's just one point; but note that the LGPL also ensures that users retain those rights. Yet here is a difference between the GPL and LGPL. A GPLed piece cannot be mixed together pieces that have incompatible licenses. This is true even if the pieces are mixed together in a dynamic way that respects their boundaries, so that users can rebuild the GPL-ed piece from sources, make modifications, and slide the modified piece back into the combination. This is part of the point of the GPL, and specifically that point which is relaxed by the Lesser GPL, which is called "lesser" for some ideological reason.
  - NightMKoder 5y ago
    This is a bit reductionist but a fun story for those that haven’t heard it. The GPL was created so rms could modify his printer driver: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt .
    - gentleman11 5y ago

est31 5y ago

IANAL but you don't need to relicense your program to GPL just to use a GPL library. You can relicense to something that is compatible with GPL, like say the MIT license. Then the combined form has to be distributed under GPL terms. But when you one day replace the library with something not under GPL, you can distribute combined forms of those under MIT.

nextaccountic 5y ago
Yes, that's true. I mean the whole work to be under GPL. The exact terms of your own code is less important, as long as it is GPL compatible.
kazinator 5y ago
That is correct. If you want to redistribute a mixture of different program components as one program, all the pieces have to have licenses that are compatible. If any of them are GPL, then the whole thing will be GPL; all the other licenses have to be cool with being part of a whole that carries a GPL umbrella license. MIT and BSD pieces are this way.
greyivy 5y ago
This must be why so many proprietary apps require you to manually download FFmpeg binaries during runtime. Thanks for the explanation!

dcgudeman 5y ago

I think the original point of GPL was to incentivise companies/developers to contribute changes back to GPL licensed project. What is clear is that, minus a few exceptions, most large open source engaged companies avoid GPL because of the risk of compliance [1]. And many authors that originally licensed their projects as GPL see this and regret their choice [2][3]. This is why there is a trend away from copyleft licenses [4]. [1] https://opensource.google/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#restricted https://opensource.google/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#restrict... [2] https://lwn.net/Articles/478361/ https://lwn.net/Articles/478361/ [3] https://twitter.com/id_aa_carmack/status/1412271091393994754?lang=en https://twitter.com/id_aa_carmack/status/1412271091393994754... [4] https://opensource.com/article/17/2/decline-gpl https://opensource.com/article/17/2/decline-gpl

stebalien 5y ago
The original point of the GPL was to ensure that end-users retained their rights to the source code. See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms.
- vlovich123 5y ago
  There’s the philosophical intent of the FSF and then there’s what individual project authors intended by adopting GPL. I think OP correctly explains the perspective of some/many/or even most authors. Arguably, given the decline of GPL as the de facto license for OSS might indicate this viewpoint is at least an accurate perspective today and may have been the underlying truth all along. Certainly growing up I think I cared more about the concept of contributing improvements back than necessarily being able to have source to all derivative products and didn’t trust corporations to give back (I still don’t, but the situation doesn’t seem quite so serious for most projects).
- kazinator 5y ago
  That's just one point; but note that the LGPL also ensures that users retain those rights. Yet here is a difference between the GPL and LGPL. A GPLed piece cannot be mixed together pieces that have incompatible licenses. This is true even if the pieces are mixed together in a dynamic way that respects their boundaries, so that users can rebuild the GPL-ed piece from sources, make modifications, and slide the modified piece back into the combination. This is part of the point of the GPL, and specifically that point which is relaxed by the Lesser GPL, which is called "lesser" for some ideological reason.
- NightMKoder 5y ago
  This is a bit reductionist but a fun story for those that haven’t heard it. The GPL was created so rms could modify his printer driver: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt .
  - gentleman11 5y ago