4 ms·

To me, CDDL/MPL 2.0-style licenses are much more sane than GPL based ones. The definition of what is a derivative work is IMHO overreaching in GPL based licens

To me, CDDL/MPL 2.0-style licenses are much more sane than GPL based ones. The definition of what is a derivative work is IMHO overreaching in GPL based licenses.

gumby 3y ago
> The definition of what is a derivative work is IMHO overreaching in GPL based licenses. GPL doesn’t use the word “derive” and specifies modified work in a way that is consistent with the customary legal definition. People twist things around because they want to use GPLed code without “paying” for it, but really at the end of the day it’s just an ordinary license agreement but instead of paying cash to use it you agree to give users the freedom to modify and/or redistribute the code. Just like any other licensed code you can agree to the terms and use the code or disagree with the terms and use something else.
- zigzag312 3y ago
  It doesn't really matter where exactly it is defined. There's effective definition of derivative works in place for GPL, even though it's definition is inherited. > People twist things around because they want to use GPLed code without “paying” for it, but really at the end of the day it’s just an ordinary license agreement but instead of paying cash to use it you agree to give users the freedom to modify and/or redistribute the code. You mean, instead of paying cash to use it, you pay with your property (your code). An old school barter exchange. Source of confusion probably comes from overuse of the word "free" by people promoting GPL, which is like you said, just an ordinary license agreement.
  - aleph_minus_one 3y ago
    > You mean, instead of paying cash to use it, you pay with your property (your code). An old school barter exchange. It's not that simple. If it was just about "my" code, this would indeed your claimed barter exchange. But often, say in industry, the code that you develop is combined with a lot of third party code and libraries for which you simply do not have the permission to put them under GPL.
    - kelnos 3y ago
      That's fine, and isn't the responsibility of the author of the GPL code you want to use. If you can comply with the terms of the license, great, you can use it. If you can't, you need to find something else whose license terms you can comply with. And you might have to pay money for it, but that's life.
teddyh 3y ago
IIUC, GPL based licensed do not define what what derivative work it, but leaves it to the law.
simiones 3y ago
The GPL can't really overwrite the legal definition of derivative work, even if it wanted to. Of course, there is little case law actually going into the weeds, so it's hard to say for sure. However, the GPL's definition seems pretty reasonable to me as to what would constitute a derived work (anything linking with the GPL work OR anything passing very very complex structures between itself and the GPL work). In fact, I suspect that a legal definition of exactly what constitutes a derived work of a program may be more broad than the GPL's definition. For example, it's plausible to me that a program which calls `sh` as a fundamental part of its functioning could be found to represent a derivative work of `sh` per copyright laws.
- zigzag312 3y ago
  Hmm, maybe didn't use the correct term when I said "derivative work". What term defines the scope to which copyleft applies to?
  - simiones 3y ago
    I think derived work or derivative work are the right terms. However, "copyleft" is not a legal term, and it is copyright law (and associated jurisprudence) that defines what constitutes a derived work of some original. Licenses then control what the copyright holder allows you to do with their works or derivatives. So, only copyright law itself can say whether, for example, this comment I'm making is a derived work of your own comment, or if it is an original work of my own. If it is a derived work of your comment, then you are the copyright holder for this comment I'm making and you can choose to write a license that allows me to distribute it or nor or whatever else. If it is not a derived work, then I am the copyright holder, and I don't require any license from you to distribute this comment. So, if copyright law were to say "a computer program A is a derived work of program B if and only if it is produced from the same source code of A or textual modifications of the code of A" (very implausible, but just for the sake of argument), then there would be no difference between the GPL and the LGPL, and you could freely link to a GPL program and distribute the result under a proprietary license (you'd still have to distribute the source code of the original GPL program, of course).

To me, CDDL/MPL 2.0-style licenses are much more sane than GPL based ones. The definition of what is a derivative work is IMHO overreaching in GPL based licenses.

gumby 3y ago

> The definition of what is a derivative work is IMHO overreaching in GPL based licenses. GPL doesn’t use the word “derive” and specifies modified work in a way that is consistent with the customary legal definition. People twist things around because they want to use GPLed code without “paying” for it, but really at the end of the day it’s just an ordinary license agreement but instead of paying cash to use it you agree to give users the freedom to modify and/or redistribute the code. Just like any other licensed code you can agree to the terms and use the code or disagree with the terms and use something else.

zigzag312 3y ago
It doesn't really matter where exactly it is defined. There's effective definition of derivative works in place for GPL, even though it's definition is inherited. > People twist things around because they want to use GPLed code without “paying” for it, but really at the end of the day it’s just an ordinary license agreement but instead of paying cash to use it you agree to give users the freedom to modify and/or redistribute the code. You mean, instead of paying cash to use it, you pay with your property (your code). An old school barter exchange. Source of confusion probably comes from overuse of the word "free" by people promoting GPL, which is like you said, just an ordinary license agreement.
- aleph_minus_one 3y ago
  > You mean, instead of paying cash to use it, you pay with your property (your code). An old school barter exchange. It's not that simple. If it was just about "my" code, this would indeed your claimed barter exchange. But often, say in industry, the code that you develop is combined with a lot of third party code and libraries for which you simply do not have the permission to put them under GPL.
  - kelnos 3y ago
    That's fine, and isn't the responsibility of the author of the GPL code you want to use. If you can comply with the terms of the license, great, you can use it. If you can't, you need to find something else whose license terms you can comply with. And you might have to pay money for it, but that's life.

teddyh 3y ago

IIUC, GPL based licensed do not define what what derivative work it, but leaves it to the law.

simiones 3y ago

The GPL can't really overwrite the legal definition of derivative work, even if it wanted to. Of course, there is little case law actually going into the weeds, so it's hard to say for sure. However, the GPL's definition seems pretty reasonable to me as to what would constitute a derived work (anything linking with the GPL work OR anything passing very very complex structures between itself and the GPL work). In fact, I suspect that a legal definition of exactly what constitutes a derived work of a program may be more broad than the GPL's definition. For example, it's plausible to me that a program which calls `sh` as a fundamental part of its functioning could be found to represent a derivative work of `sh` per copyright laws.

zigzag312 3y ago
Hmm, maybe didn't use the correct term when I said "derivative work". What term defines the scope to which copyleft applies to?
- simiones 3y ago
  I think derived work or derivative work are the right terms. However, "copyleft" is not a legal term, and it is copyright law (and associated jurisprudence) that defines what constitutes a derived work of some original. Licenses then control what the copyright holder allows you to do with their works or derivatives. So, only copyright law itself can say whether, for example, this comment I'm making is a derived work of your own comment, or if it is an original work of my own. If it is a derived work of your comment, then you are the copyright holder for this comment I'm making and you can choose to write a license that allows me to distribute it or nor or whatever else. If it is not a derived work, then I am the copyright holder, and I don't require any license from you to distribute this comment. So, if copyright law were to say "a computer program A is a derived work of program B if and only if it is produced from the same source code of A or textual modifications of the code of A" (very implausible, but just for the sake of argument), then there would be no difference between the GPL and the LGPL, and you could freely link to a GPL program and distribute the result under a proprietary license (you'd still have to distribute the source code of the original GPL program, of course).