4 ms·

Jacob brings up a point I haven't seen clearly expressed before -- the GPL's design directly leads to questions like these (now more than ever with Python/Ruby

by blasdel 17y ago

Jacob brings up a point I haven't seen clearly expressed before -- the GPL's design directly leads to questions like these (now more than ever with Python/Ruby and Javascript), but the FSF not only does not provide clear or useful answers, there is no mechanism for arriving at decent answers. The problem with the GPL is not really the evangelical copyleft (as annoying as those people can be), the problem is that it's too fucking complicated to deal with in real-world situations.

jacobian 17y ago
Yeah, that's really the nut of the problem, isn't it. Short of finding a lawyer qualified to speak to these issues -- which I can't afford -- my only other option is to simply avoid the GPL. Which sucks.
- imbaczek 17y ago
  i imagine your questions would be great for a hypothetical final exam at an established law school...
- mquander 17y ago
  Another option is to operate in reasonably good faith, try to observe the "spirit" of the GPL, and hope that you will not be the target of legal action. I don't really like that solution either (it kind of defeats the purpose of having a legally binding license), but it's the current solution silently adopted by a lot of people interoperating with GPLed code using any of the techniques described in your article. In a world where technology advances an order of magnitude faster than legal theory, it's just going to be a fact of life for a long time that there are many technological questions that have no clearcut legal answers.
  - jnoller 17y ago
    "...and hope that you will not be the target of legal action." I think that's a hope that I, jacob and many others are not willing to sign up to.
    - callahad 17y ago
      I've found that most of the fear comes from the misconception that the GPL could force your code open against your wishes. In the US, that's simply not possible. Check out this article on Groklaw ("The GPL is a License, Not a Contract, Which is Why the Sky Isn't Falling") for more: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851 I've found it helpful to clear up that misconception, point to past infractions / events, and try to humanize the free software community. In most cases, there isn't a litigious company lurking in the shadows, and a show of good faith will go a long way. It's also quite useful to direct attention to high profile products that are safely using and modifying GPL'd code, like the Kindle.
      - jballanc 17y ago
        I've never thought the fear was that proprietary code would be forced to have its source opened. I was under the impression that the fear for large companies has more to do with injunctions on sale and/or distribution as a result of license violation. Try to tell Microsoft that they can't sell Windows for the next week and see what they think of that...
        callahad 17y ago
        Both are very real concerns; the CTO of our division, representing a large chunk of a 50,000 person organization, was certainly very concerned about the chance that things would be forced open.
        duncanj 17y ago
        Yet, oddly, they don't seem to fear the very real consequences of the BSA coming and shutting them down for an "audit".
    - grellas 17y ago
      The business world abhors legal uncertainty. The problem is not just the case where a company does get hit with a lawsuit if it should violate the GPL as it might nebulously apply to myriad situations. It is the very possibility of such an event that will scare away those who might otherwise fund your company or who might otherwise acquire it. I know. I deal with funding rounds and M&A very frequently in real-world situations. Believe me, if the GPL pops up in due diligence, general panic ensues unless it involves only some incidental use that can be worked around or it involves a very clear-cut case of how the license applies. As an entrepreneur, you can lose and lose badly in such situations even where no lawsuit is ever filed.
  - davidw 17y ago
    > Another option is to operate in reasonably good faith, try to observe the "spirit" of the GPL, and hope that you will not be the target of legal action. And talk with the copyright holder of the software you're using! It's a good idea in any case, and will probably go a long ways towards getting an idea of what they're comfortable with, and what they think their rights are under that license.
    - jballanc 17y ago
      If we're going to go with "spirit", why not use the less restrictive license without the potentially scary legal ramifications for large company X? That is, can you tell me why: -- Here's this GPL licensed code. Go ahead and use it, and so long as you keep with the "spirit" of open source, I won't bother suing you. When I die, however, and the executors of my estate notice that they now control copyright on this GPL'd code that you might have used to grow your multi-billion dollar company...all bets are off. ...is better than: -- Here's this BSD licensed code. I'm not going to require anything of you to use it, but I expect you to keep with the "spirit" of open source and contribute back to the community. If you don't I have no legal means to force your hand, but if you die and haven't contributed back, your fork dies with you.
      - davidw 17y ago
        Like I said, talk with the person/people/org, and understand their situation. I've talked with some people who are real GPL zealots, who are really not interested in the idea of proprietary software at all, and you can take their code as is, or leave it. Others are willing to work with you when they see some potential advantages to a more liberal license. A lot of people, probably the majority, just don't want to feel "ripped off", so if you're using their software, you should respect the license (it's not that hard with the GPL) both in the spirit (which may vary from person to person) and in the letter, and see if there's a way to come to an agreement if things don't quite match. And sometimes people in this latter category don't understand the GPL well either, so talking with them is likely to smooth things over in any case, if what you're using is something important to your business. And consider that in the worst case, you're no worse off than if you encountered a proprietary-licensed library that was too expensive for you to use.
- edfgtyhuj 17y ago
  Yeah better off sticking to those simple licenses from IBM,Oracle, SAS and MSFT - any child can understand them. Actually SAS licenses are simple - you are allowed to use the product to send SAS all your money, any other use is probably forbidden.
  - jnoller 17y ago
    Nice troll; too bad that's all it is. I mean, damn all those BSD/MIT/Apache 2.0/etc licensed products, which comprise the bulk of the Python software and library ecosystem.
    - jrockway 17y ago
      Perhaps people choose the GPL over one of those licenses because they don't want you linking your proprietary code to their library for free.
kingkilr 17y ago
The FSF provides an opinion on some of these questions, unfortunately their opinion, that any import or dynamic linking triggers the GPL, a) has never been tested in court, ever (unlike for static linking), and b) is often not matched by the users of the GPL, such as the famed disagreement between RMS and Linus Torvalds with regard to whether Linux in it's current form complies with the GPL.
- brl 17y ago
  c) Does not matter. The FSF does not get to write copyright law and decide what is or is not a derivative work.
  - eli 17y ago
    Ok, but if you're not going to take their word for what is and isn't covered by the license, then I think the only possible answer is to get a good IP lawyer.
    - Semiapies 17y ago
      And if you want to fight the terms of the license, why not just avoid the GPL?
tptacek 17y ago
The complexity is a feature. Simply put: if you want to work in the open, noncommercially, with maximal sharing, use something other than GPL. If you ever intend to commercialize your work, use GPL. GPL's complexities are a problem for downstream developers, not for the author. That's essentially what you want if you're doing the Open Source / Commercial dual license play.
- jmillikin 17y ago
  The complexity is a feature. Simply put: if you want to work in the open, noncommercially, with maximal sharing, use something other than GPL. If you ever intend to commercialize your work, use GPL. I disagree. All of my work is under the GPL, not out of any concern with commercial use, but to ensure that any users have the same rights to the code as I do. The complexity of the GPL is undesirable and unwanted, though currently necessary. I used to use the BSD license for my personal projects, under the reasoning that having the source "somewhere out there" would be enough. Then somebody modified my work and passed it on to users without the source. It was a very minor project, and there was no legitimate reason why he couldn't have provided the modified source to his users. After he stopped supporting it, the whole mess was dumped in my lap, with several miserable people wondering why I couldn't help support their "BSD-licensed" software. The fundamental difference between the BSD/MIT and GPL modes of thought is in whose rights are more important, the developer or the user.
- tow21 17y ago
  The complexity is a feature. Exactly. If you go down this road, you want big companies to be scared of potential liability. Then you offer to grant them a traditional software license for a traditional sum of money, just like they're used to, and everyone goes home happy.
imajes 17y ago
It's not that complicated for lawyers - i am certain most M&A ends up being more convoluted. It's just that no-one has really tried this in court -- that's really the pain point. Till then it's just a bit of paper that everyone freaks out over because there are so many unanswered questions. Jacob: the question you were missing: "What happens if a Judge finds the GPL unenforceable?" That's the big elephant in the room.
pqs 17y ago
I think that the GPL is not the problem. Intelectual property is the source of the problem. The GPL is a hack to make the system work in a way it was not thought to work.

by blasdel 17y ago

jacobian 17y ago

Yeah, that's really the nut of the problem, isn't it. Short of finding a lawyer qualified to speak to these issues -- which I can't afford -- my only other option is to simply avoid the GPL. Which sucks.

imbaczek 17y ago
i imagine your questions would be great for a hypothetical final exam at an established law school...
mquander 17y ago
Another option is to operate in reasonably good faith, try to observe the "spirit" of the GPL, and hope that you will not be the target of legal action. I don't really like that solution either (it kind of defeats the purpose of having a legally binding license), but it's the current solution silently adopted by a lot of people interoperating with GPLed code using any of the techniques described in your article. In a world where technology advances an order of magnitude faster than legal theory, it's just going to be a fact of life for a long time that there are many technological questions that have no clearcut legal answers.
- jnoller 17y ago
  "...and hope that you will not be the target of legal action." I think that's a hope that I, jacob and many others are not willing to sign up to.
  - callahad 17y ago
    I've found that most of the fear comes from the misconception that the GPL could force your code open against your wishes. In the US, that's simply not possible. Check out this article on Groklaw ("The GPL is a License, Not a Contract, Which is Why the Sky Isn't Falling") for more: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851 I've found it helpful to clear up that misconception, point to past infractions / events, and try to humanize the free software community. In most cases, there isn't a litigious company lurking in the shadows, and a show of good faith will go a long way. It's also quite useful to direct attention to high profile products that are safely using and modifying GPL'd code, like the Kindle.
    - jballanc 17y ago
      I've never thought the fear was that proprietary code would be forced to have its source opened. I was under the impression that the fear for large companies has more to do with injunctions on sale and/or distribution as a result of license violation. Try to tell Microsoft that they can't sell Windows for the next week and see what they think of that...
      - callahad 17y ago
        Both are very real concerns; the CTO of our division, representing a large chunk of a 50,000 person organization, was certainly very concerned about the chance that things would be forced open.
      - duncanj 17y ago
        Yet, oddly, they don't seem to fear the very real consequences of the BSA coming and shutting them down for an "audit".
  - grellas 17y ago
    The business world abhors legal uncertainty. The problem is not just the case where a company does get hit with a lawsuit if it should violate the GPL as it might nebulously apply to myriad situations. It is the very possibility of such an event that will scare away those who might otherwise fund your company or who might otherwise acquire it. I know. I deal with funding rounds and M&A very frequently in real-world situations. Believe me, if the GPL pops up in due diligence, general panic ensues unless it involves only some incidental use that can be worked around or it involves a very clear-cut case of how the license applies. As an entrepreneur, you can lose and lose badly in such situations even where no lawsuit is ever filed.
- davidw 17y ago
  > Another option is to operate in reasonably good faith, try to observe the "spirit" of the GPL, and hope that you will not be the target of legal action. And talk with the copyright holder of the software you're using! It's a good idea in any case, and will probably go a long ways towards getting an idea of what they're comfortable with, and what they think their rights are under that license.
  - jballanc 17y ago
    If we're going to go with "spirit", why not use the less restrictive license without the potentially scary legal ramifications for large company X? That is, can you tell me why: -- Here's this GPL licensed code. Go ahead and use it, and so long as you keep with the "spirit" of open source, I won't bother suing you. When I die, however, and the executors of my estate notice that they now control copyright on this GPL'd code that you might have used to grow your multi-billion dollar company...all bets are off. ...is better than: -- Here's this BSD licensed code. I'm not going to require anything of you to use it, but I expect you to keep with the "spirit" of open source and contribute back to the community. If you don't I have no legal means to force your hand, but if you die and haven't contributed back, your fork dies with you.
    - davidw 17y ago
      Like I said, talk with the person/people/org, and understand their situation. I've talked with some people who are real GPL zealots, who are really not interested in the idea of proprietary software at all, and you can take their code as is, or leave it. Others are willing to work with you when they see some potential advantages to a more liberal license. A lot of people, probably the majority, just don't want to feel "ripped off", so if you're using their software, you should respect the license (it's not that hard with the GPL) both in the spirit (which may vary from person to person) and in the letter, and see if there's a way to come to an agreement if things don't quite match. And sometimes people in this latter category don't understand the GPL well either, so talking with them is likely to smooth things over in any case, if what you're using is something important to your business. And consider that in the worst case, you're no worse off than if you encountered a proprietary-licensed library that was too expensive for you to use.
edfgtyhuj 17y ago
Yeah better off sticking to those simple licenses from IBM,Oracle, SAS and MSFT - any child can understand them. Actually SAS licenses are simple - you are allowed to use the product to send SAS all your money, any other use is probably forbidden.
- jnoller 17y ago
  Nice troll; too bad that's all it is. I mean, damn all those BSD/MIT/Apache 2.0/etc licensed products, which comprise the bulk of the Python software and library ecosystem.
  - jrockway 17y ago
    Perhaps people choose the GPL over one of those licenses because they don't want you linking your proprietary code to their library for free.

kingkilr 17y ago

The FSF provides an opinion on some of these questions, unfortunately their opinion, that any import or dynamic linking triggers the GPL, a) has never been tested in court, ever (unlike for static linking), and b) is often not matched by the users of the GPL, such as the famed disagreement between RMS and Linus Torvalds with regard to whether Linux in it's current form complies with the GPL.

brl 17y ago
c) Does not matter. The FSF does not get to write copyright law and decide what is or is not a derivative work.
- eli 17y ago
  Ok, but if you're not going to take their word for what is and isn't covered by the license, then I think the only possible answer is to get a good IP lawyer.
  - Semiapies 17y ago
    And if you want to fight the terms of the license, why not just avoid the GPL?

tptacek 17y ago

The complexity is a feature. Simply put: if you want to work in the open, noncommercially, with maximal sharing, use something other than GPL. If you ever intend to commercialize your work, use GPL. GPL's complexities are a problem for downstream developers, not for the author. That's essentially what you want if you're doing the Open Source / Commercial dual license play.

jmillikin 17y ago
The complexity is a feature. Simply put: if you want to work in the open, noncommercially, with maximal sharing, use something other than GPL. If you ever intend to commercialize your work, use GPL. I disagree. All of my work is under the GPL, not out of any concern with commercial use, but to ensure that any users have the same rights to the code as I do. The complexity of the GPL is undesirable and unwanted, though currently necessary. I used to use the BSD license for my personal projects, under the reasoning that having the source "somewhere out there" would be enough. Then somebody modified my work and passed it on to users without the source. It was a very minor project, and there was no legitimate reason why he couldn't have provided the modified source to his users. After he stopped supporting it, the whole mess was dumped in my lap, with several miserable people wondering why I couldn't help support their "BSD-licensed" software. The fundamental difference between the BSD/MIT and GPL modes of thought is in whose rights are more important, the developer or the user.
tow21 17y ago
The complexity is a feature. Exactly. If you go down this road, you want big companies to be scared of potential liability. Then you offer to grant them a traditional software license for a traditional sum of money, just like they're used to, and everyone goes home happy.

imajes 17y ago

It's not that complicated for lawyers - i am certain most M&A ends up being more convoluted. It's just that no-one has really tried this in court -- that's really the pain point. Till then it's just a bit of paper that everyone freaks out over because there are so many unanswered questions. Jacob: the question you were missing: "What happens if a Judge finds the GPL unenforceable?" That's the big elephant in the room.

pqs 17y ago

I think that the GPL is not the problem. Intelectual property is the source of the problem. The GPL is a hack to make the system work in a way it was not thought to work.