7 ms·

Dynamic linking (also what most more modern languages do instead of traditional static linking) always has been an utter mess when it comes to GPL "virality".

Dynamic linking (also what most more modern languages do instead of traditional static linking) always has been an utter mess when it comes to GPL "virality". It's completely untested in court and a lot of legal scholars doubt the reasoning and interpretations given by the FSF (namely that dynamically linking with a GPLed work transfers the same GPL license to that work) would be allowed by current copyright law. More or less amounts to the question of "do you need to use parts of the original work to make a derivative work". Another, possibly far bigger problem, is that it's entirely possible to effectively neuter the GPL with a secondary contract. We know this is legally possible because of what Red Hat does (cut you off as a customer if you redistribute the source code of RHEL) as well as a far more direct legal case in Germany where a WordPress theme maker was able to prevent distribution of a theme they made by arguing that the contract made when the theme was sold overrode the terms of the GPL and prevented the buyer from sharing the theme because of agreed to terms in the contract.

megous 3y ago
It's pretty clear what it means, based on the goals of the license: To allow the user to easily replace/modify the (L)GPL licensed (part) of a program. For GPL, that means you can only include GPLed code if you make the whole program available for user to modify and redistribute. For LGPL, you can include LGPLed code if you make just the LGPLed part of the app available for easy replacement. (so normally this means some form of dynamic linking, and very commonly used in practice with eg. glibc) So if some company statically links (L)GPLed code to their app or makes it in other ways hard to modify/replace, it's a violation.
- noirscape 3y ago
  Except the "whole program" bit is in question here. A lot of legal scholars doubt that using the GPL in the way the FSF wants it to be used when it comes to linking would actually confer the terms of that license to the final product (because the FSF wants it to be considered a derivative work of the GPL code). In the EU, it's to the point where the EU themselves have written guidance that they doubt this interpretation applies[0]. This would effectively limit the scope of the GPL to always function like the LGPL/MPL (or any other copyright license that limits the copyleft element to the parts of the program actually licensed as such, as opposed to spreading it across the whole work.) The problem is that the GPL isn't the law; it's something (a license or a contract, the interpretation of which is a toss-up; the FSF wants it to be a license since it allows shrinkwrapping the terms, all legal enforcement has it treated as a contract) that relies on existing law to function. Which fails to work if it tries to do something that legal framework doesn't allow you to do. You can't enforce copyright over derivatives if it's not considered a derivative to begin with. If the FSF conceded that the GPL was actually a contract and were to write more explicit terms stating that this is a requirement to using GPL'ed source code, they'd probably not run into this problem, but because they insist on forcing it through the framework of copyright the virality of the license only goes as far as the definition of derivative works go. [0]: https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/licence-compatibility-permissivity-reciprocity-and-interoperability https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/licence-compatib...
thechao 3y ago
Unless the GPl'd work provides a novel API that the GPL code implements; that has been tested in court. The API is protected, by copyright, and linking to that API requires the use of the API. That's why you can't just link to GPL'd code will-he–nill-he, without the possibility of serious repercussions.
- fsmv 3y ago
  That phrase you're looking for is willy nilly. You did a bone apple tea.
  - Feathercrown 3y ago
    Bone apple tea, with an em dash to boot
    - urxvtcd 3y ago
      will (hypen-minus) he (en-dash) nill (hyphen-minus) he
  - yifanl 3y ago
    Shakespeare had it as will he nill he in Hamlet: > “If the man go to this water and drown himself, it is, will he nill he, he goes - mark you that.” (Hamlet.V.1) Though I admit I didn't know this until I actually looked it up just now :)
    - bee_rider 3y ago
      “Will he nill he…” huh, I wonder if that’s the etymology of the modern expression. “Willy-nilly” just seems like a nonsense phrase. “Will he nill he” could be read as “will he or will he not,” right? It seems like only a couple short conceptual hops to go from “whether or not he decides to do something” to “look at all the random things he could do.”
      - DiggyJohnson 3y ago
ta1243 3y ago
> as well as a far more direct legal case in Germany where a WordPress theme maker was able to prevent distribution of a theme they made by arguing that the contract made when the theme was sold overrode the terms of the GPL and prevented the buyer from sharing the theme because of agreed to terms in the contract. What case was that?
kelnos 3y ago
> Another, possibly far bigger problem, is that it's entirely possible to effectively neuter the GPL with a secondary contract. I don't really think that's a problem, per se. Regarding your second example, that's totally fair: effectively the theme maker (who is presumably also the sole copyright holder) did not actually give the theme to the other party licensed under the GPL: they licensed it differently in that sale, which is 100% their right to do. The Red Hat example is a little more complex, I think. The GPL says you cannot add extra conditions to redistribution. If Red Hat owned the copyright for everything they distribute, that would be fine: they couldn't say RHEL was GPL-licensed, but they'd be in the clear. I'm actually surprised they've gotten away with this: as far as "ambiguity in GPL enforcement" goes, I feel like it's not all that ambiguous that RH is committing a GPL violation by adding that condition. All it would take would be for rightsholders of a major component of RHEL (like perhaps the Linux kernel) to complain about this. (Then again, there may be no publicly-stated contract or policy here; RH may just cut off customers who share, and cite vague "we reserve the right to cut you off for any reason" policies.) (Also I might be getting details wrong here; I'm just going by your description and haven't done my own research into these cases.)
- me-vs-cat 3y ago
  This is not adding any conditions to the GPL: "If you redistribute this GPL software, then we will refuse to license later versions to you."

megous 3y ago

It's pretty clear what it means, based on the goals of the license: To allow the user to easily replace/modify the (L)GPL licensed (part) of a program. For GPL, that means you can only include GPLed code if you make the whole program available for user to modify and redistribute. For LGPL, you can include LGPLed code if you make just the LGPLed part of the app available for easy replacement. (so normally this means some form of dynamic linking, and very commonly used in practice with eg. glibc) So if some company statically links (L)GPLed code to their app or makes it in other ways hard to modify/replace, it's a violation.

noirscape 3y ago
Except the "whole program" bit is in question here. A lot of legal scholars doubt that using the GPL in the way the FSF wants it to be used when it comes to linking would actually confer the terms of that license to the final product (because the FSF wants it to be considered a derivative work of the GPL code). In the EU, it's to the point where the EU themselves have written guidance that they doubt this interpretation applies[0]. This would effectively limit the scope of the GPL to always function like the LGPL/MPL (or any other copyright license that limits the copyleft element to the parts of the program actually licensed as such, as opposed to spreading it across the whole work.) The problem is that the GPL isn't the law; it's something (a license or a contract, the interpretation of which is a toss-up; the FSF wants it to be a license since it allows shrinkwrapping the terms, all legal enforcement has it treated as a contract) that relies on existing law to function. Which fails to work if it tries to do something that legal framework doesn't allow you to do. You can't enforce copyright over derivatives if it's not considered a derivative to begin with. If the FSF conceded that the GPL was actually a contract and were to write more explicit terms stating that this is a requirement to using GPL'ed source code, they'd probably not run into this problem, but because they insist on forcing it through the framework of copyright the virality of the license only goes as far as the definition of derivative works go. [0]: https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/licence-compatibility-permissivity-reciprocity-and-interoperability https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/licence-compatib...

thechao 3y ago

Unless the GPl'd work provides a novel API that the GPL code implements; that has been tested in court. The API is protected, by copyright, and linking to that API requires the use of the API. That's why you can't just link to GPL'd code will-he–nill-he, without the possibility of serious repercussions.

fsmv 3y ago
That phrase you're looking for is willy nilly. You did a bone apple tea.
- Feathercrown 3y ago
  Bone apple tea, with an em dash to boot
  - urxvtcd 3y ago
    will (hypen-minus) he (en-dash) nill (hyphen-minus) he
- yifanl 3y ago
  Shakespeare had it as will he nill he in Hamlet: > “If the man go to this water and drown himself, it is, will he nill he, he goes - mark you that.” (Hamlet.V.1) Though I admit I didn't know this until I actually looked it up just now :)
  - bee_rider 3y ago
    “Will he nill he…” huh, I wonder if that’s the etymology of the modern expression. “Willy-nilly” just seems like a nonsense phrase. “Will he nill he” could be read as “will he or will he not,” right? It seems like only a couple short conceptual hops to go from “whether or not he decides to do something” to “look at all the random things he could do.”
    - DiggyJohnson 3y ago

ta1243 3y ago

> as well as a far more direct legal case in Germany where a WordPress theme maker was able to prevent distribution of a theme they made by arguing that the contract made when the theme was sold overrode the terms of the GPL and prevented the buyer from sharing the theme because of agreed to terms in the contract. What case was that?

kelnos 3y ago

> Another, possibly far bigger problem, is that it's entirely possible to effectively neuter the GPL with a secondary contract. I don't really think that's a problem, per se. Regarding your second example, that's totally fair: effectively the theme maker (who is presumably also the sole copyright holder) did not actually give the theme to the other party licensed under the GPL: they licensed it differently in that sale, which is 100% their right to do. The Red Hat example is a little more complex, I think. The GPL says you cannot add extra conditions to redistribution. If Red Hat owned the copyright for everything they distribute, that would be fine: they couldn't say RHEL was GPL-licensed, but they'd be in the clear. I'm actually surprised they've gotten away with this: as far as "ambiguity in GPL enforcement" goes, I feel like it's not all that ambiguous that RH is committing a GPL violation by adding that condition. All it would take would be for rightsholders of a major component of RHEL (like perhaps the Linux kernel) to complain about this. (Then again, there may be no publicly-stated contract or policy here; RH may just cut off customers who share, and cite vague "we reserve the right to cut you off for any reason" policies.) (Also I might be getting details wrong here; I'm just going by your description and haven't done my own research into these cases.)

me-vs-cat 3y ago
This is not adding any conditions to the GPL: "If you redistribute this GPL software, then we will refuse to license later versions to you."