3 ms·

Interesting examples. Also, a weird take for them to think that’s not triggering the virality, if not that, what then? Directly using the source code only? > t

Interesting examples. Also, a weird take for them to think that’s not triggering the virality, if not that, what then? Directly using the source code only? > the GPL is about the spirit of the license, not the exact words. They often say not to worry about litigation. Even weirder. Especially since then, why pick the GPL at all? The only reasons I can see is that you care about free software, and want virality for that reason, and/or you want companies to pick a commercial license.

dagmx 3y ago
Usually, the developers (and this is over multiple different GPL projects with different leads) have the following thought: 1. If you’re not touching the core code, it’s not under the GPL. I try and get them to LGPL license the extension points but they don’t see the benefit in trying to relicense it with all their contributors. 2. For your second point, the issue is that the GPL is intentionally vague as a deterrent for corporate abuse. The issue becomes that, as a corporate user: I have to take the most pessimistic view to protect myself. If I switch my hat to someone non corporate, then I take the most optimistic view. In those cases, they often say to not take the pessimistic view because that’s not the spirit as they understand it.
- growse 3y ago
  I think I'm with you on this in general > 1. If you’re not touching the core code, it’s not under the GPL. I try and get them to LGPL license the extension points but they don’t see the benefit in trying to relicense it with all their contributors. I sense this comes down to a really poor definition of "linking" (is that the word in the text? Can't remember and don't have it to hand). It's not at all obvious for each software/language ecosystem which specific act constitutes "linking". > 2. For your second point, the issue is that the GPL is intentionally vague as a deterrent for corporate abuse. The issue becomes that, as a corporate user: I have to take the most pessimistic view to protect myself. If I switch my hat to someone non corporate, then I take the most optimistic view. In those cases, they often say to not take the pessimistic view because that’s not the spirit as they understand it. 100%, and this is my gripe against things like the BSL too. It's disingenuous because the aim of the license is to create risk and uncertainty through poor definitions and vagueness.
  - Nursie 3y ago
    > It's disingenuous because the aim of the license is to create risk It’s really not, the aim of the GPL is to preserve freedom to tinker and reuse for all users. If that’s not something you’re wanting to do, then it’s best not to use GPL components.
    - hnfong 3y ago
      Yep, that's what the GP said.
    - growse 3y ago
      Both things can be true. The wealth of comments in this very discussion from people who aren't sure what exactly is and isn't permitted under the GPL shows that it is vague. I'm just not convinced that the lack of clarity which tends to steer large companies away from such software is just a bug, not a feature.
      - mistrial9 3y ago
        > people who aren't sure what exactly is and isn't permitted under the GPL shows that it is vague this is literally FALSE
      - Nursie 3y ago
        Whether it is vague, and whether it is purposely vague as a mechanism to achieve its aims, are different phenomena to the aim of the license. IMHO.
- mistrial9 3y ago
  > GPL is intentionally vague as a deterrent for corporate abuse. no the GPL was intentionally set the way it was.. vague is not the word for that IMHO.. thirty+ years of computer markets has brought every possible challenge plus a few more. So the original LICENSE has been deeply scrutinized and the markets have changes... the parts that needed clarification have had changes as a result. "vague" is mildly insulting, and there is plenty of that going on as part of this discussion.
tsimionescu 3y ago
I believe this is coming from the developers of a piece of GPL software who want to allow proprietary extensions. However, extensions to their software must import a python module that they created to register with their software or something. They don't want to invest time in separating that module and its dependencies into a different project with a different license (some variant of the LGPL), so they choose to believe that importing a python module is somehow different from linking a C library. From the point of view of the owner of the software, I can see how you can think that your intention matters more than the word of the license. It's wrong in a legal sense, of course, but it makes some kind of sense of you say "nah, we'd never sue for that".
- actionfromafar 3y ago
  If the writer is the only copyright holder, if they just put the exception in writing, it's still OK. Like the exception for the Linux kernel to load proprietary binaries.
  - tsimionescu 3y ago
    Sure, but if the copyright holder is a foundation, you actually need some legal representative to put that in writing, a single dev writing something on GitHub wouldn't mean much, even if they are the sole maintainer.
    - mistrial9 3y ago
      IANAL that seems to be a distinction without a difference.. you say yourself "the copyright holder" then make a gray case about some entity holding legal ownership that is not the copyright holder. first to say, the interpretation will be different in different legal regimes, but.. here in the USA, I believe that the copyright holder is the title that determines who gets the say about changes to the license.
      - tsimionescu 3y ago
        Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant that it is fairly common for a project that has a single author and contributor to nevertheless be developed as part of an organization such as Apache. So, even if that single author is the de facto owner, they may not be the legal owner of the copyright.

dagmx 3y ago

Usually, the developers (and this is over multiple different GPL projects with different leads) have the following thought: 1. If you’re not touching the core code, it’s not under the GPL. I try and get them to LGPL license the extension points but they don’t see the benefit in trying to relicense it with all their contributors. 2. For your second point, the issue is that the GPL is intentionally vague as a deterrent for corporate abuse. The issue becomes that, as a corporate user: I have to take the most pessimistic view to protect myself. If I switch my hat to someone non corporate, then I take the most optimistic view. In those cases, they often say to not take the pessimistic view because that’s not the spirit as they understand it.

growse 3y ago
I think I'm with you on this in general > 1. If you’re not touching the core code, it’s not under the GPL. I try and get them to LGPL license the extension points but they don’t see the benefit in trying to relicense it with all their contributors. I sense this comes down to a really poor definition of "linking" (is that the word in the text? Can't remember and don't have it to hand). It's not at all obvious for each software/language ecosystem which specific act constitutes "linking". > 2. For your second point, the issue is that the GPL is intentionally vague as a deterrent for corporate abuse. The issue becomes that, as a corporate user: I have to take the most pessimistic view to protect myself. If I switch my hat to someone non corporate, then I take the most optimistic view. In those cases, they often say to not take the pessimistic view because that’s not the spirit as they understand it. 100%, and this is my gripe against things like the BSL too. It's disingenuous because the aim of the license is to create risk and uncertainty through poor definitions and vagueness.
- Nursie 3y ago
  > It's disingenuous because the aim of the license is to create risk It’s really not, the aim of the GPL is to preserve freedom to tinker and reuse for all users. If that’s not something you’re wanting to do, then it’s best not to use GPL components.
  - hnfong 3y ago
    Yep, that's what the GP said.
  - growse 3y ago
    Both things can be true. The wealth of comments in this very discussion from people who aren't sure what exactly is and isn't permitted under the GPL shows that it is vague. I'm just not convinced that the lack of clarity which tends to steer large companies away from such software is just a bug, not a feature.
    - mistrial9 3y ago
      > people who aren't sure what exactly is and isn't permitted under the GPL shows that it is vague this is literally FALSE
    - Nursie 3y ago
      Whether it is vague, and whether it is purposely vague as a mechanism to achieve its aims, are different phenomena to the aim of the license. IMHO.
mistrial9 3y ago
> GPL is intentionally vague as a deterrent for corporate abuse. no the GPL was intentionally set the way it was.. vague is not the word for that IMHO.. thirty+ years of computer markets has brought every possible challenge plus a few more. So the original LICENSE has been deeply scrutinized and the markets have changes... the parts that needed clarification have had changes as a result. "vague" is mildly insulting, and there is plenty of that going on as part of this discussion.

tsimionescu 3y ago

I believe this is coming from the developers of a piece of GPL software who want to allow proprietary extensions. However, extensions to their software must import a python module that they created to register with their software or something. They don't want to invest time in separating that module and its dependencies into a different project with a different license (some variant of the LGPL), so they choose to believe that importing a python module is somehow different from linking a C library. From the point of view of the owner of the software, I can see how you can think that your intention matters more than the word of the license. It's wrong in a legal sense, of course, but it makes some kind of sense of you say "nah, we'd never sue for that".

actionfromafar 3y ago
If the writer is the only copyright holder, if they just put the exception in writing, it's still OK. Like the exception for the Linux kernel to load proprietary binaries.
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  Sure, but if the copyright holder is a foundation, you actually need some legal representative to put that in writing, a single dev writing something on GitHub wouldn't mean much, even if they are the sole maintainer.
  - mistrial9 3y ago
    IANAL that seems to be a distinction without a difference.. you say yourself "the copyright holder" then make a gray case about some entity holding legal ownership that is not the copyright holder. first to say, the interpretation will be different in different legal regimes, but.. here in the USA, I believe that the copyright holder is the title that determines who gets the say about changes to the license.
    - tsimionescu 3y ago
      Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant that it is fairly common for a project that has a single author and contributor to nevertheless be developed as part of an organization such as Apache. So, even if that single author is the de facto owner, they may not be the legal owner of the copyright.