4 ms·

Why on earth would the GPL ruin your day? What's with all the fear mongering? The only practical difference is you're forced to put up your patches somewhere…

by phillmv 15y ago

Why on earth would the GPL ruin your day? What's with all the fear mongering? The only practical difference is you're forced to put up your patches somewhere… which you've probably already done when you hit 'fork' on Github.

jakobe 15y ago
I can't include code under GPL in my own code without changing my own code to GPL. That's why it ruins my day.
- nileshtrivedi 15y ago
  Only if you are distributing the combined work and not giving the source code along with it. Preventing that is the whole point of GPL.
  - mikeash 15y ago
    It is indeed the whole point of the GPL. It also makes it impossible to use GPL code in a wide variety of situations. OP was asking what the problem was with the GPL, and that's what it is.
- phillmv 15y ago
  1. This only kicks in if you're distributing the program. If you're building a web service, you're good to go. It's only an issue if you're using the Affero GPL. 2. You're using free code off the internet. If you don't like the license terms, don't use it. It's within the author's prerogative to set his or her own license to his or her own code. (The most you can do is send them a politely worded email on how you want to use their code without being obliged to the virality clause - I imagine a lot of people would be okay with moving down to the LGPL at least. If not… deal with it.)
  - jakobe 15y ago
    "You are using free code". It's not free. The cost for this "free" code is that I apply the same license to my own code. Of course the original author can put whatever license on their code. But the license effectively renders the code useless to me. Not because I dislike the GPL, but because I use a different license. And it's simply very disappointing when I see that someone has already solved a problem I'm struggling with, and advertises their "free" solution, that then turns out to be not free for me.
    - phillmv 15y ago
      >Of course the original author can put whatever license on their code. But the license effectively renders the code useless to me. Not because I dislike the GPL, but because I use a different license. I've learned through much harsher experiences than the one you describe that life is unfair.
  - smackjer 15y ago
    And it's other people's prerogative if they choose to not use that code due to the license.
    - dfox 15y ago
      So they just shouldn't use the code. Not go off complaining how GPL if unfair and how it ruined their day.
  - armandososa 15y ago
    You're using free code off the internet. If you don't like the license terms, don't use it That's what the OP is addressing. There should be an easy way to filter out code with licenses I'm not going to like.
- jmillikin 15y ago
  No, this is not true. If you include GPL'd code in your code, then your code's license is unchanged. You do not have to license your code under the GPL just to use GPL'd code.
  - kevindication 15y ago
    Except that the GPL linking exception exists because of the taint that can be introduced by using GPL'd code. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception
    - jmillikin 15y ago
      No, the GPL linking exception exists to allow proprietary code to link against GPL'd code. It is a common myth (propagated by anti-GPL activists) that using GPL'd code in your software requires you to put your software under the GPL. In reality, your code can be under nearly any open-source license. I often receive emails from users asking me to re-license one of my libraries from GPL to BSD/MIT so they can use it in their own open-source projects. These users are often confused when I tell them that they can have a BSD/MIT project depend on GPL'd code. Everyone who cares about the health of Free software (and open-source in general) should be careful not to fall prey to this misinformation campaign.
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
      - kevindication 15y ago
        Perhaps I was not clear, but I was saying the same thing as your first sentence. When people are concerned about including GPL in their work code (as the OP is) then they are typically concerned with issues of linking/importing/etc.
      - jabkobob 15y ago
        So are you saying I can copy and paste some useful functions from your GPL code into my BSD code? And then the next person can use my code (with the pasted code from your project) in their proprietary software, given they stick to the requirements from my BSD license? As far as I understand, the viral nature of the GPL does not allow this.
JOnAgain 15y ago
Having anything with GPL in it in a startup is a red flag during diligence. Goes double for Enterprise level. For that reason, most companies won't use GPL software or, if they do, they have it all "fire-walled" from all their other software. The fear is that someone inadvertently includes it in the companies other code and causes a huge legal mess. Or you patch something, and now you need a way to open source stuff -- companies are built to prevent code from leaving, getting stuff going the other way is a bureaucratic nightmare. Overall, even if you're complying with the GPL (using the software in an approved manner), it's not usually worth the hassle of proving you're complying with the GPL _in a way that is legally defensible_.
mrsteveman1 15y ago
I don't think 'giving back' is the only practical difference with the GPL even if you open source your own code and hand it out freely. The FSF's position as of November 2010 is that you can't comply with the GPL's terms if you distribute that code as part of something else on the iOS app store. http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-November/077486.html http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-Novembe... Perhaps that has changed, but I doubt it. Binaries are still encrypted, still tied to a specific account, and still can't be re-distributed as the GPL specifically requires, because they won't work. I don't want to argue the commercial vs open, 'stealing code' vs giving back thing all over again, those are just the facts. According to the people who wrote the GPL, it can't be used on the App Store, so I avoid it when working on something for that platform.

by phillmv 15y ago

jakobe 15y ago

I can't include code under GPL in my own code without changing my own code to GPL. That's why it ruins my day.

nileshtrivedi 15y ago
Only if you are distributing the combined work and not giving the source code along with it. Preventing that is the whole point of GPL.
- mikeash 15y ago
  It is indeed the whole point of the GPL. It also makes it impossible to use GPL code in a wide variety of situations. OP was asking what the problem was with the GPL, and that's what it is.
phillmv 15y ago
1. This only kicks in if you're distributing the program. If you're building a web service, you're good to go. It's only an issue if you're using the Affero GPL. 2. You're using free code off the internet. If you don't like the license terms, don't use it. It's within the author's prerogative to set his or her own license to his or her own code. (The most you can do is send them a politely worded email on how you want to use their code without being obliged to the virality clause - I imagine a lot of people would be okay with moving down to the LGPL at least. If not… deal with it.)
- jakobe 15y ago
  "You are using free code". It's not free. The cost for this "free" code is that I apply the same license to my own code. Of course the original author can put whatever license on their code. But the license effectively renders the code useless to me. Not because I dislike the GPL, but because I use a different license. And it's simply very disappointing when I see that someone has already solved a problem I'm struggling with, and advertises their "free" solution, that then turns out to be not free for me.
  - phillmv 15y ago
    >Of course the original author can put whatever license on their code. But the license effectively renders the code useless to me. Not because I dislike the GPL, but because I use a different license. I've learned through much harsher experiences than the one you describe that life is unfair.
- smackjer 15y ago
  And it's other people's prerogative if they choose to not use that code due to the license.
  - dfox 15y ago
    So they just shouldn't use the code. Not go off complaining how GPL if unfair and how it ruined their day.
- armandososa 15y ago
  You're using free code off the internet. If you don't like the license terms, don't use it That's what the OP is addressing. There should be an easy way to filter out code with licenses I'm not going to like.
jmillikin 15y ago
No, this is not true. If you include GPL'd code in your code, then your code's license is unchanged. You do not have to license your code under the GPL just to use GPL'd code.
- kevindication 15y ago
  Except that the GPL linking exception exists because of the taint that can be introduced by using GPL'd code. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception
  - jmillikin 15y ago
    No, the GPL linking exception exists to allow proprietary code to link against GPL'd code. It is a common myth (propagated by anti-GPL activists) that using GPL'd code in your software requires you to put your software under the GPL. In reality, your code can be under nearly any open-source license. I often receive emails from users asking me to re-license one of my libraries from GPL to BSD/MIT so they can use it in their own open-source projects. These users are often confused when I tell them that they can have a BSD/MIT project depend on GPL'd code. Everyone who cares about the health of Free software (and open-source in general) should be careful not to fall prey to this misinformation campaign.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - kevindication 15y ago
      Perhaps I was not clear, but I was saying the same thing as your first sentence. When people are concerned about including GPL in their work code (as the OP is) then they are typically concerned with issues of linking/importing/etc.
    - jabkobob 15y ago
      So are you saying I can copy and paste some useful functions from your GPL code into my BSD code? And then the next person can use my code (with the pasted code from your project) in their proprietary software, given they stick to the requirements from my BSD license? As far as I understand, the viral nature of the GPL does not allow this.

JOnAgain 15y ago

Having anything with GPL in it in a startup is a red flag during diligence. Goes double for Enterprise level. For that reason, most companies won't use GPL software or, if they do, they have it all "fire-walled" from all their other software. The fear is that someone inadvertently includes it in the companies other code and causes a huge legal mess. Or you patch something, and now you need a way to open source stuff -- companies are built to prevent code from leaving, getting stuff going the other way is a bureaucratic nightmare. Overall, even if you're complying with the GPL (using the software in an approved manner), it's not usually worth the hassle of proving you're complying with the GPL _in a way that is legally defensible_.

mrsteveman1 15y ago

I don't think 'giving back' is the only practical difference with the GPL even if you open source your own code and hand it out freely. The FSF's position as of November 2010 is that you can't comply with the GPL's terms if you distribute that code as part of something else on the iOS app store. http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-November/077486.html http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-Novembe... Perhaps that has changed, but I doubt it. Binaries are still encrypted, still tied to a specific account, and still can't be re-distributed as the GPL specifically requires, because they won't work. I don't want to argue the commercial vs open, 'stealing code' vs giving back thing all over again, those are just the facts. According to the people who wrote the GPL, it can't be used on the App Store, so I avoid it when working on something for that platform.