5 ms·

The GPL is not designed to be "viral". It is the author's decision and right what license to apply (GPL or not), and it is their right to decide that developmen

by pekk 14y ago

The GPL is not designed to be "viral". It is the author's decision and right what license to apply (GPL or not), and it is their right to decide that development on that project and its derivatives should never be taken closed-source and to choose the GPL as the mechanism of ensuring this. Otherwise, we are saying that Linus was doing something wrong to license his work under the GPL... Please stop attacking people for applying GPL to their own work by their own choice. You are NEVER forced to use someone else's work in violation of their license. If you want to use their work, you must comply with their license. If you can't comply with the license, find an alternative or build your own. Then you will be able to license it as you wish. End of story.

biot 14y ago
> The GPL is not designed to be "viral". It is designed so that if one chooses to create a work that makes use of another GPLed work, that the license "spreads" to the resulting combined work. It is in that sense that some people call it "viral" though, unlike most viral infections, choosing to incorporate a GPLed work into a larger work is done so willingly, even if sometimes those making the choice don't fully understand the ramifications. For example, as Torvalds notes [0] it's sometimes a gray area; kernel modules may or may not be considered derived works. As you correctly note, it's the author's choice to adopt the license for a new project or to combined works licensed under the GPL into an existing project. That it is a choice doesn't preclude an analysis of the license's effect on any given work. [0] http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0312.0/0670.html http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0312.0/0670.h...
- jmillikin 14y ago
  > It is designed so that if one chooses to create a work > that makes use of another GPLed work, that the license > "spreads" to the resulting combined work. This is true for all popular software licenses under current US copyright law.
  - bigiain 14y ago
    And this is a freedom, not a restriction. If you _dont_ license your code under the GPL or some similar license which explicitly allows others to build on your code, copyright prohibits anyone from doing so. You can't, in general, "create a work that makes use of" somebody else's song, or movie, or novel. Because copyright says you need their permission, and there's not a culture of songwriters, filmmakers, or authors; who explicitly grant the freedom to use their work without asking. I find it difficult to understand people who intentionally use negative language like "viral" about the GPL. It's remarkable there so much high quality software available where the authors have said "here, you can use it inspite of the fact that it's copyrighted to us, the only condition we require is that you offer that freedom to everybody else if you build something new using our copyrighted work."
    - Xylakant 14y ago
      By that argument, MIT is even more free. Licensing your code under MIT basically says "here, you can use it inspite of the fact that it's copyrighted to us, no strings attached. Go forth and multiply." This is why the GPL gets portrayed as viral. It spreads to the parts that I add and restricts the license for my additions. Don't get me wrong: It's a completely fair thing to do - the authors are giving me something for free, but it's still a restriction.
  - Xylakant 14y ago
    How is the above statement true for BSD (3-Clause), MIT, APL or WTFPL? Neither of those licenses places any restriction on the license of the combined work.
    - jmillikin 14y ago
      Nobody has the right to change the license of a work except the copyright holder. If I have a project licensed under the X11 license, and I copy some BSD-licensed code into it, then that code is still the property of the original owner, and it needs to remain under the BSD license. If I simply copied it and stripped out the copyright notices, then I would be committing copyright infringement.

by pekk 14y ago

biot 14y ago

> The GPL is not designed to be "viral". It is designed so that if one chooses to create a work that makes use of another GPLed work, that the license "spreads" to the resulting combined work. It is in that sense that some people call it "viral" though, unlike most viral infections, choosing to incorporate a GPLed work into a larger work is done so willingly, even if sometimes those making the choice don't fully understand the ramifications. For example, as Torvalds notes [0] it's sometimes a gray area; kernel modules may or may not be considered derived works. As you correctly note, it's the author's choice to adopt the license for a new project or to combined works licensed under the GPL into an existing project. That it is a choice doesn't preclude an analysis of the license's effect on any given work. [0] http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0312.0/0670.html http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0312.0/0670.h...

jmillikin 14y ago
> It is designed so that if one chooses to create a work > that makes use of another GPLed work, that the license > "spreads" to the resulting combined work. This is true for all popular software licenses under current US copyright law.
- bigiain 14y ago
  And this is a freedom, not a restriction. If you _dont_ license your code under the GPL or some similar license which explicitly allows others to build on your code, copyright prohibits anyone from doing so. You can't, in general, "create a work that makes use of" somebody else's song, or movie, or novel. Because copyright says you need their permission, and there's not a culture of songwriters, filmmakers, or authors; who explicitly grant the freedom to use their work without asking. I find it difficult to understand people who intentionally use negative language like "viral" about the GPL. It's remarkable there so much high quality software available where the authors have said "here, you can use it inspite of the fact that it's copyrighted to us, the only condition we require is that you offer that freedom to everybody else if you build something new using our copyrighted work."
  - Xylakant 14y ago
    By that argument, MIT is even more free. Licensing your code under MIT basically says "here, you can use it inspite of the fact that it's copyrighted to us, no strings attached. Go forth and multiply." This is why the GPL gets portrayed as viral. It spreads to the parts that I add and restricts the license for my additions. Don't get me wrong: It's a completely fair thing to do - the authors are giving me something for free, but it's still a restriction.
- Xylakant 14y ago
  How is the above statement true for BSD (3-Clause), MIT, APL or WTFPL? Neither of those licenses places any restriction on the license of the combined work.
  - jmillikin 14y ago
    Nobody has the right to change the license of a work except the copyright holder. If I have a project licensed under the X11 license, and I copy some BSD-licensed code into it, then that code is still the property of the original owner, and it needs to remain under the BSD license. If I simply copied it and stripped out the copyright notices, then I would be committing copyright infringement.