4 ms·

Ask HN: Have licenses ever stopped you from combining two FOSS programs?

• Xylakant 4y ago
  For a long time, Debian/Ubuntu shipped unusable ruby packages due to the ruby/OpenSSL licenses being incompatible.
• brianm 4y ago
  Yes, but it mainly has come up when combining libraries and releasing something else as OSS. For example, the ASF has a good examination of the effect of combinations with the AL2: https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
• kazinator 4y ago
  I put code under a BSD license, so on many occasions I've been prevented from using GPLed code. BSD and GPL are not incompatible. BSD and GPL pieces can be combined into a single program, while retaining their individual licenses; the problem is that the combination has to be redistributed under the GPL. Compatibility is not the only question, but what kind of compatibility: what must the master license be if the combination is made. Cygwin changing to the LGPL back in 2016 enabled me to distribute BSD code with Cygwin DLL's without having to GPL the code. When I learned from the Cygwin mailing list about this change, I immediately set to work to create a fork of the Cygwin DLL which provides more native-like behaviors, to be used as run-time library for programs. Had they not announced a licensing change, I'd not have done anything of the sort.
  • torstenvl 4y ago
    Have you considered releasing your code under both BSD and GPL?
    • kazinator 4y ago
      No; it makes no (logical) sense.
      • torstenvl 4y ago
        It obviously does. You wish to use a permissive license; the GPL requires that you provide distributes your code under the GPL; dual-licensing meets both of these requirements. Care to explain the thinking behind you reaching the opposite conclusion?
        • kazinator 4y ago
          If I offer you a program under the BSD license, and then offer you exactly the same program under the GPL licnese, I have effectively offered you the program under the BSD license. Everything you could want to do with the program is granted by the BSD license maximally; the GPL doesn't grant you anything new. And the BSD offer nullifies all restrictions imposed by the GPL. There is no benefit in such a dual licensing idea, and so if there is any nonzero harm, there is a net harm. What are you going to do if a contributor sends you a significant patch that you would like? Only, oops, their contributions are under the GPL because they are working with your GPL offering? Suppose that person believes in the GPL and won't switch to the BSD. If you accept that, you will have to fork the program into two. If you make it clear that all contributions must be dual-licensed, then there isn't really any meaning. Those who favor the GPL aren't going to contribute to a project that requires them to BSD-license their contribution alongside the GPL, because it negates the GPL. If you don't agree with the redistribution terms of the GPL, then just don't use it. BSD, MIT or whatever. It's clear to all potential contributors that they must use the same license in order to get their changes merged, and that's it; no ambiguity, no confusions leading to forking.
          • deleted 4y ago
            [deleted]
          • deleted 4y ago
            [deleted]
• satvikpendem 4y ago
  If I'm not modifying the source and just using the built application, then I have nothing to worry about regarding mixing programs.
  • josephcsible 4y ago
    It doesn't matter whether or not you modify the source. The thing that makes you not have to worry about licenses is if you don't distribute the result.
    • torstenvl 4y ago
      I have serious doubts that this is true, because (a) the text of the GPL itself is insufficiently clear on this IMHO; and (b) dynamic linking is literally just a declaration of an API you want to use and where the dynamic linker should look for that API provider, but APIs are, at least in some cases, fair use. See Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. ___ (2021) available at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/593/18-956/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/593/18-956/ You can easily make a binary that will use GNU libreadline, if it exists, without ever installing GPL software on your machine, let alone using it in compiling your distributable binary. freebsd% ls readlineshim.c readlineshim.h test.c freebsd% cat test.c #include <stdio.h> #include "readlineshim.h" int main(void) { char *name; name = readline("What's your name? "); if (name) printf("Hello, %s!\n", name); return 0; } freebsd% cat readlineshim.h char *readline(const char *p); freebsd% cat readlineshim.c char *readline(const char *p) { return ((void *)0); } freebsd% cc -c -fPIC readlineshim.c -o readlineshim.o freebsd% cc -shared readlineshim.o -o libreadline.so freebsd% cc test.c -o test -Wl,-rpath-link=. -L. -lreadline freebsd% ./test ld-elf.so.1: Shared object "libreadline.so" not found, required by "test" At this point, test.c has been compiled into a distributable binary without linking any GNU software, but it requires GNU software to run... freebsd% sudo pkg install -qy readline freebsd% ./test What's your name? Lee Hello, Lee! freebsd% Since GNU software is only required to run the program, then either (a) FSF's claim to cover dynamically-linked programs is false, or (b) the GPL isn't a free software license because it places restrictions on use.
• rolenthedeep 4y ago
  A very long time ago I took over a FOSS project under GPL. It had pretty good support for plugins, a lot of demand for plugins, and exactly zero third-party plugins that were even remotely maintained. I don't think we ever got many direct complaints about GPL, but our main assumption was that copy left contamination was pushing developers away. We wanted more open licensing to encourage wider adoption, so we started a replacement project under MIT license, I believe. Once the replacement project was in a good state, suddenly plugin developers started crawling out of the woodwork. My estimation is that about 30% of our trouble was due to licensing concerns, and the rest was down to the original project being in a very, very bad way. It was very old, had been abandoned by six developers, and about 70% of the code was unused and unusable. The new project had bells and whistles and was more attractive, but I think the open license definitely helped. You probably could have built a plugin without needing to use the GPL, but it would have been a lot more difficult. That whole project was a disaster, and I never once regretted letting it finally die.
  • lloydatkinson 4y ago
    What project is this?
    • lloydatkinson 4y ago
      Guess we will never know. How OP expects anyone to maintain said project when being secretive about it, I've no idea.
• psacawa 4y ago
  It happens all the time for software that is copyleft-licensed in projects that are unwilling to also adopt a copyleft license. For example, it blocks linking the node interpreter to libreadline [0]. On the other hand, cpython is also permissively licensed, yet it does link to the same library, so who knows what the legality of linking against a GPL lib really is. [0] https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/5608 https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/5608
  • josephcsible 4y ago
    This isn't quite the kind of conflict I meant, since the licenses are compatible and the maintainer just doesn't want to do it.
• rurban 4y ago
  Still struggling from this famous fallout: https://librearts.org/2012/01/whats-up-with-dwg-adoption-in-free-software/ https://librearts.org/2012/01/whats-up-with-dwg-adoption-in-... I'm the maintainer, the FSF owns the code, and I'm very fine that it's GPLv3. Others not so, but we don't care. GPLv3 is the only possibility.
• nubinetwork 4y ago
  In the Linux space, it doesn't really bother me... Packages in distros use all kinds of licenses, and as long as you're up front with what you're using and provide the source or license as required. If "this product is made from a combination of domestic and foreign components" is good enough for physical goods, then it should be good enough for software. But IANAL. :)
• Haga 4y ago
  [dead]