4 ms·

>GPL3-infected software I don't think we can have a rational discussion about this.

akerl_ 12y ago
The GPL is a viral license; it's an intentional choice on their part, and "viral" and "infected" are pretty accurate ways to describe it. Whether you believe that this nature is a good thing for development or a bad thing, disagreeing about the fundamental nature of how the GPL works isn't productive.
- danieldk 12y ago
  The GPL is a viral license; it's an intentional choice on their part, and "viral" and "infected" are pretty accurate ways to describe it. For libraries. We are talking user land tools here, which are standalone. Providing a new bash version doesn't 'infect' any other software. I think the extended (or some would say more explicit) patent license in the GPLv3 is what troubles many companies.
- icebraining 12y ago
  When you find a virus that you have to voluntarily get infected by, let me know. Until then, is just biased language.
- agwa 12y ago
  But the "viralness" of the GPL applies to modified versions of the covered work, and this is a discussion of the distribution of GPLv3-licensed software in Mac OS X, which is not a modified work. Thus the "viralness" does not apply and throwing out the phrase "GPL3-infected software" adds nothing to the discussion and only stokes flames.
  - Sanddancer 12y ago
    However, there are additional legally questionable terms of distribution which the GPL3 imposes which remain open legal questions. For example, how inclusive is the patent grant? A lot of companies don't want to go anywhere near that minefield, even with using GPL3 software internally, which suggests that it's a much bigger problem than the FSF doesn't want to discuss.
    - icebraining 12y ago
      A lot of companies don't want to go anywhere near that minefield, even with using GPL3 software internally, which suggests that it's a much bigger problem than the FSF doesn't want to discuss. Nonsense. The GPL terms have never applied to internally used software. Besides, you make it sounds like discouraging companies that live on proprietary software & patents from using GPLv3 licensed code is somehow an unintended and unwanted consequence. The whole point of the GPL is to prevent proprietary software from capitalizing on Free Software. That they won't use it internally either sounds like a feature, not a bug.
- belorn 12y ago
  The language shows a lack of knowledge around what a copyright license is, and how it works. Copyright prevent every distribution of copies and derivative works. A license is thus a permission, which permits distribution which otherwise is not permitted. Any license is viral in that you must follow the license in order to distribute the copyrighted work. I can't just take a BSD licensed work, replace it with my own license, and ignore the BSD requirements. The license is my permission to distribute the work and if I ignore it, I am liable under copyright law. Describing the permission as infective, restrictive, preventive and so on only show how completely fundamentalist the person is. You are given permission to use, copy and modify the program. If you feel infected by that choice, then I call that ungrateful and childish behavior.
  - Sanddancer 12y ago
    I know exactly how a license works. The GPL in its wording frustrates the distribution of free and open software precisely in its requirement that all derivative works by default must also be GPLed. This frustration is amplified when one wants to use a mutually incompatible license, like the CDDL. So yes, a license that makes it hard to cooperate with others is infective and judging by how many companies have avoided the GPLv3, is ineffective as well in encouraging sharing.
  - akerl_ 12y ago
    Referring to the GPL as viral isn't done because of the rules about redistributing or relicensing the original work. It's called viral because derivative works that I make which use or include the GPL'd code must also be GPL'd. It thus spreads to other projects due to proximity.
    - belorn 12y ago
      That is incorrect. Derivative works must respect every copyright license that is included in it, regardless of type. A project can have BSD, Apache, MIT and GPL licensed software parts, and the derivative work must respect all the licenses when distributed. You can not "make" them GPL. Trying to re-license something is like printing your own permission to enter a train. Its not only illogical, its illegal.
craigyk 12y ago
why is that statement irrational? GPL3 was intentionally changed to be more viral. I think it's creators have even used the terminology themselves. Calling GPL3 software infected seems like perfectly fair turnabout.
vladiliescu 12y ago
imo it's a valid observation - a cursory search revealed this really really old and spot-on HN comment[1] 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1011426 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1011426
- davexunit 12y ago
  From that comment: >The GPL is infectious; any code that uses a GPL library automatically becomes GPL as well. Wrong. Developers make a conscious decision to use a GPL licensed library. Their code does not "automatically" become GPL against their will. Licenses are not viral. It's a nasty, pejorative term used to attack copyleft.
nemo 12y ago
"I don't think we can have a rational discussion about this." That might be, but it's not because the person you were replying to was wrong.

The GPL is a viral license; it's an intentional choice on their part, and "viral" and "infected" are pretty accurate ways to describe it. Whether you believe that this nature is a good thing for development or a bad thing, disagreeing about the fundamental nature of how the GPL works isn't productive.

danieldk 12y ago
The GPL is a viral license; it's an intentional choice on their part, and "viral" and "infected" are pretty accurate ways to describe it. For libraries. We are talking user land tools here, which are standalone. Providing a new bash version doesn't 'infect' any other software. I think the extended (or some would say more explicit) patent license in the GPLv3 is what troubles many companies.
icebraining 12y ago
When you find a virus that you have to voluntarily get infected by, let me know. Until then, is just biased language.
agwa 12y ago
But the "viralness" of the GPL applies to modified versions of the covered work, and this is a discussion of the distribution of GPLv3-licensed software in Mac OS X, which is not a modified work. Thus the "viralness" does not apply and throwing out the phrase "GPL3-infected software" adds nothing to the discussion and only stokes flames.
- Sanddancer 12y ago
  However, there are additional legally questionable terms of distribution which the GPL3 imposes which remain open legal questions. For example, how inclusive is the patent grant? A lot of companies don't want to go anywhere near that minefield, even with using GPL3 software internally, which suggests that it's a much bigger problem than the FSF doesn't want to discuss.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    A lot of companies don't want to go anywhere near that minefield, even with using GPL3 software internally, which suggests that it's a much bigger problem than the FSF doesn't want to discuss. Nonsense. The GPL terms have never applied to internally used software. Besides, you make it sounds like discouraging companies that live on proprietary software & patents from using GPLv3 licensed code is somehow an unintended and unwanted consequence. The whole point of the GPL is to prevent proprietary software from capitalizing on Free Software. That they won't use it internally either sounds like a feature, not a bug.
belorn 12y ago
The language shows a lack of knowledge around what a copyright license is, and how it works. Copyright prevent every distribution of copies and derivative works. A license is thus a permission, which permits distribution which otherwise is not permitted. Any license is viral in that you must follow the license in order to distribute the copyrighted work. I can't just take a BSD licensed work, replace it with my own license, and ignore the BSD requirements. The license is my permission to distribute the work and if I ignore it, I am liable under copyright law. Describing the permission as infective, restrictive, preventive and so on only show how completely fundamentalist the person is. You are given permission to use, copy and modify the program. If you feel infected by that choice, then I call that ungrateful and childish behavior.
- Sanddancer 12y ago
  I know exactly how a license works. The GPL in its wording frustrates the distribution of free and open software precisely in its requirement that all derivative works by default must also be GPLed. This frustration is amplified when one wants to use a mutually incompatible license, like the CDDL. So yes, a license that makes it hard to cooperate with others is infective and judging by how many companies have avoided the GPLv3, is ineffective as well in encouraging sharing.
- akerl_ 12y ago
  Referring to the GPL as viral isn't done because of the rules about redistributing or relicensing the original work. It's called viral because derivative works that I make which use or include the GPL'd code must also be GPL'd. It thus spreads to other projects due to proximity.
  - belorn 12y ago
    That is incorrect. Derivative works must respect every copyright license that is included in it, regardless of type. A project can have BSD, Apache, MIT and GPL licensed software parts, and the derivative work must respect all the licenses when distributed. You can not "make" them GPL. Trying to re-license something is like printing your own permission to enter a train. Its not only illogical, its illegal.

craigyk 12y ago

why is that statement irrational? GPL3 was intentionally changed to be more viral. I think it's creators have even used the terminology themselves. Calling GPL3 software infected seems like perfectly fair turnabout.

vladiliescu 12y ago

imo it's a valid observation - a cursory search revealed this really really old and spot-on HN comment[1] 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1011426 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1011426

davexunit 12y ago
From that comment: >The GPL is infectious; any code that uses a GPL library automatically becomes GPL as well. Wrong. Developers make a conscious decision to use a GPL licensed library. Their code does not "automatically" become GPL against their will. Licenses are not viral. It's a nasty, pejorative term used to attack copyleft.

nemo 12y ago

"I don't think we can have a rational discussion about this." That might be, but it's not because the person you were replying to was wrong.