3 ms·
I wish it were as simple as you say when you write that you can mix GPL code into BSD and retain the BSD license. Unfortunately, the FSF muddies the water quit
by jnbiche 15y ago
I wish it were as simple as you say when you write that you can mix GPL code into BSD and retain the BSD license. Unfortunately, the FSF muddies the water quite a bit here. For example, according to the FSF, if the GPL code is a library, well then you do have to release the other code under GPL, even if the GPL-licensed library is only a small component of the codebase. And there are other exceptions and requirements.
I think Stallman and FSF did a great job of getting the open source movement rolling, but unfortunately now seem more intent on enforcing their strict interpretation of what is "free" than on promoting the open source movement (and I don't think Stallman would dispute that statement). GPL has held me back from doing several interesting projects that would have depended on an old GPL-licensed C library.
The good news is that this situation is pushing me to get my C up to a level where I'm capable of writing optimized libraries to use in a larger Ruby or Python project.
Of course, the bottom line to most of these arcane licensing disputes is that they are legally meaningless -- few of they have ever been tried in a court of law.
- icebraining 15y agoI think Stallman and FSF did a great job of getting the open source movement rolling Not exactly: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
- jmillikin 15y ago"""For example, according to the FSF, if the GPL code is a library, well then you do have to release the other code under GPL, even if the GPL-licensed library is only a small component of the codebase.""" [citation needed] I have never seen this claim made by any member of the FSF. If you're going to make incredible statements like that, please cite your sources. """GPL has held me back from doing several interesting projects that would have depended on an old GPL-licensed C library.""" No, you held yourself back because you were tricked by a cloud of unreasonable fear that has been spread about free- and open-source software. Assuming your project was open-source, there is no reason at all that you couldn't have it depend on a GPL'd library.
- jnbiche 15y agoHere's the citation on the FSF license page, in no uncertain terms: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL The compatibility matrix on the same page confirms it, again in no uncertain terms: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility Both of these come from are from the official FSF license document: "FSF GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE, Version 3, 29 June 2007 Copyright © 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. <http://fsf.org/> http://fsf.org/> Why did you think that it was an incredible statement?
- jmillikin 15y agoBoth of those links support my position, and refute yours. Did you read them? edit: for the downvoters, here is a direct quote (emphasis added) from the first link (which covers combinations of GPL/non-GPL code): """If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that any software which uses it has to be under the GPL or a GPL-compatible license?"""