4 ms·

The GPL is not "viral", unless you consider every copyright license to be. Would you say the BSD or X11 licenses are "viral"? It's a common lie that someone mi

The GPL is not "viral", unless you consider every copyright license to be. Would you say the BSD or X11 licenses are "viral"? It's a common lie that someone might be forced to open-source their code because they accidentally copied some GPL'd code. This is not true. In a typical case of copyright infringement, the infringer must stop distributing the copied code and possibly pay damages. The GPL merely offers a additional choice, it doesn't force anything.

Xylakant 14y ago
> The GPL is not "viral", unless you consider every copyright license to be. Would you say the BSD or X11 licenses are "viral"? BSD is not viral. If you incorporate BSD code in your code, then you're free to licence the result under any license you choose. However, if you include GPL code in your code, the result must be under GPL or any other license that is compatible (AGPL for example). In that sense, the GPL is viral - it does not only cover the code that's licensed, but also "infects" other code.
- jmillikin 14y ago
  > BSD is not viral. If you incorporate BSD code in your > code, then you're free to licence the result under any > license you choose. No, you're not. You are not permitted to change the license of someone else's code. Their code remains under the BSD license, and you have to comply with it when you distribute the combined work (e.g. keeping copyright notices intact).
  - Xylakant 14y ago
    Let's see. This is MIT, but 3-clause BSD is pretty much equivalent: > Copyright (c) 2013 Felix Gilcher > > MIT License > > Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining > a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the > "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including > without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, > distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to > permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to > the following conditions: > > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be > included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. > > THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, > EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF > MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND > NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE > LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION > OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION > WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. The important part is: > to deal in the Software without restriction, including > without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, > distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to > permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to > the following conditions: All I need to do is retain the copyright notice, but only if I use substantial portions. So as long as I retain the notice, stating that some specified part of the code is licensed under MIT, I'm in the clear. The permission to sub-licence is explicitly granted, no further restriction is placed on the combined work. I don't have to provide the source code either. The end result can be whatever I choose, the license does not spread to the combined work. WTFPL is even more liberal: > DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE > Version 2, December 2004 > > Copyright (C) 2004 Sam Hocevar <sam@hocevar.net> > > Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified > copies of this license document, and changing it is allowed as long > as the name is changed. > > DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE > TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION > > 0. You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO. No restrictions at all - effectively placing the code in the public domain, but a valid copyright waiver in jurisdictions where code cannot be placed in the public domain (e.g. in Germany, where copyrights cannot be waived)

Xylakant 14y ago

> The GPL is not "viral", unless you consider every copyright license to be. Would you say the BSD or X11 licenses are "viral"? BSD is not viral. If you incorporate BSD code in your code, then you're free to licence the result under any license you choose. However, if you include GPL code in your code, the result must be under GPL or any other license that is compatible (AGPL for example). In that sense, the GPL is viral - it does not only cover the code that's licensed, but also "infects" other code.

jmillikin 14y ago
> BSD is not viral. If you incorporate BSD code in your > code, then you're free to licence the result under any > license you choose. No, you're not. You are not permitted to change the license of someone else's code. Their code remains under the BSD license, and you have to comply with it when you distribute the combined work (e.g. keeping copyright notices intact).
- Xylakant 14y ago
  Let's see. This is MIT, but 3-clause BSD is pretty much equivalent: > Copyright (c) 2013 Felix Gilcher > > MIT License > > Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining > a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the > "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including > without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, > distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to > permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to > the following conditions: > > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be > included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. > > THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, > EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF > MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND > NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE > LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION > OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION > WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. The important part is: > to deal in the Software without restriction, including > without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, > distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to > permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to > the following conditions: All I need to do is retain the copyright notice, but only if I use substantial portions. So as long as I retain the notice, stating that some specified part of the code is licensed under MIT, I'm in the clear. The permission to sub-licence is explicitly granted, no further restriction is placed on the combined work. I don't have to provide the source code either. The end result can be whatever I choose, the license does not spread to the combined work. WTFPL is even more liberal: > DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE > Version 2, December 2004 > > Copyright (C) 2004 Sam Hocevar <sam@hocevar.net> > > Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified > copies of this license document, and changing it is allowed as long > as the name is changed. > > DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE > TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION > > 0. You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO. No restrictions at all - effectively placing the code in the public domain, but a valid copyright waiver in jurisdictions where code cannot be placed in the public domain (e.g. in Germany, where copyrights cannot be waived)