17 ms·
The time has come to stand up for the GPL
- sheepdestroyer 12y agoI gave, if you care you should too.
- orf 12y agoI just donated $10. If there is nothing to stop large companies completely ignoring the GPL then what good is it?
- igl 12y agoI just donated $15. If there is nothing to stop large companies completely ignoring the GPL then what good is it?
- meira 12y agoI just donated $20. If there is nothing to stop large companies completely ignoring the GPL then what good is it?
- ownagefool 12y agoI just donated $25. If there is nothing to stop large companies completely ignoring the GPL then what good is it?
- aorth 12y agoI just donated $25. If there is nothing to stop large companies completely ignoring the GPL then what good is it?
- reitanqild 12y agoJust donated $5.
- jgmmo 12y agoditto!
- pyrois 12y agoI just donated $30. If there is nothing to stop large companies completely ignoring the GPL then what good is it?
- jjaredsimpson 12y agoI just donated $20. If there is nothing to stop large companies completely ignoring the GPL then what good is it?
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- geoelectric 12y agoHonestly, I think the best way to promote open source licenses over free software copyleft licenses is to make sure the GPL has obvious, proven teeth. That way, commercial companies that don't want to risk the successful lawsuit and just want to build on existing code will go the MIT/BSD route exclusively; and GPL can remain in the academic and the ideologically-driven free software sector where it's really much more suited. If a company then wants to actually be a free software-based company, more power to them, but there'll be a lot less stumbling into that situation and half-assing the ethics of it like we see now. If nothing else, giving the GPL teeth will force the confrontations and precedents that finally define the boundaries of the copyleft concept and let people make more informed choices.
- sangnoir 12y agoVMWare knew the software was licensed under GPL for years. They chose to violate the terms of the license - that's what matters here. They could have chosen to base off BSD licensed code, but they did not Would you be ok with them breaking the terms of the MIT/BSD license?I'm not familiar with the MIT/BSD restrictions, but I think one of them is to acknowledge original author? How would you feel if they violated that?
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- Gurkenmaster 12y agoIs this some kind of parallelogram scheme?
- alok-g 12y agoThese are copyright violations happening here and now right before our eyes (!), though probably with tacit mutual (but unverified) consent. See my related comment here about increasing general awareness about IP issues: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9157590 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9157590
- jodrellblank 12y agoExcuse me, igl, I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as large companies, are in fact, GNU/large companies, or as I've recently taken to calling them, GNU plus large companies. Large companies are not capitalist entities unto themselves, but rather a semi-free component of a fully functioning capitalist system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full corporate person as defined by law. Many capitalist systems run with a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used in large companies today is often ignored, and many citizens are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project. There really are large companies, but they are just a part of the wider system. Large companies are the parts we see every day: the people we buy goods and services from, allocating the world's resources for their customers. Large companies are an essential part of a capitalist system, but useless by themselves; they can only function in the context of a complete capitalist system. Large companies normally exist in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with large companies added, or GNU/Large companies. All the so-called large companies are really distributions of GNU/large companies.
- aethertap 12y agoIn for $50.
- rpcope1 12y agoIn for $35. Come on, we can do it!
- iamwil 12y agoI just donated $50. If there is nothing to stop large companies completely ignoring the GPL then what good is it?
- codehero 12y agoWould a donation also stop small companies and 1 man operations from violating the GPL?
- oldmanjay 12y agoGreat, HN is now officially reddit.
- mark_l_watson 12y agoI just spent ten minutes reading through their web site, and their list of corporate sponsors is impressive. My question is, what relationship does sfconservancy have with the FSF? I support the FSF and there seems to be a lot of overlap.
- dublinben 12y agoThe SFC is more legal-oriented and focused on GPL compliance and lawsuits like this.
- icebraining 12y agoWhile they are more legally oriented, I don't think they're focused so much on licensing, they provide many services for their member projects: http://sfconservancy.org/members/services/ http://sfconservancy.org/members/services/
- EvanAnderson 12y agoThere's some discussion of the services that the Software Freedom Conservancy provides in the "Free as in Freedom" "oggcast" (http://faif.us/cast/2010/oct/06/0x00/ http://faif.us/cast/2010/oct/06/0x00/).
- jordigh 12y agoThe two are very similar. Conservancy has a pretty tight relationship with the FSF. Indeed, co-founder bkuhn is on the board of directors of both: http://sfconservancy.org/about/board/ http://sfconservancy.org/about/board/ http://www.fsf.org/about/staff-and-board/ http://www.fsf.org/about/staff-and-board/ I rather like bkuhn, because he's a lawyer and a free hacker. His opinions on the GPL should be taken very seriously. I would only trust GPL-cowriter Eben Moglen himself more than bkuhn on GPL legalities. The FSF does more advocacy and handles infrastructure for GNU packages. For example, they handle our GNU Octave donations. Conservancy handles similar tasks, plus legal services. They handle the donations of the other big project I like, Mercurial. Oh, and they do the same for git. I also think bkuhn's writings are saying pretty much the same things that rms says, but in a different way that alienates fewer people, e.g. here is one on a fairly recent event you may remember: http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/11/11/groupon.html http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/11/11/groupon.html
- copsarebastards 12y agoUgh, "but nobody cares"? That's not in the original article. Please don't editorialize in HN headlines. That said, it's vital to the future of free software that we keep legal precedent aligned behind the GPL. I donated and I encourage other people to donate as well.
- valevk 12y agoCan I send them Bitcoins?
- dalke 12y agoNo. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8705036 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8705036 from 90 days ago : > I don't see in there all the accounting configurations you'd need to integrate [a bitcoind installation] with Conservancy's accounting system, nor all the legal research to figure out how it impacts Conservancy's Form 990 filings, nor all the workflow code to make sure transactions are auto-imported, identified with people who want to be identified, so they can be sent their t-shirts. I believe there are people who will convert it for you and forward the results to SFC.
- lucb1e 12y ago> I believe there are people who will convert it for you and forward the results to SFC. If anyone wishes to trust me (does karma count?), I could do this. Any coins to 16ctFcjpXJSuLSfX23sdPve3eLFGd17mco sent within 7 days of this post (so from 2015-03-06 until 2015-03-13) will go directly to the VMWare suit by the Software Freedom Conservancy. Market price is used from bitstamp. If you want a confirmation, email me the source address at sfcvmwaredonations@lucb1e.com and I'll message you how much I donated exactly in dollars.
- canvia 12y agoI would also prefer to have this option.
- belorn 12y agoCan someone fix the title? Putting words into sfconservancy mouth like that only add confusion.
- lucb1e 12y agoFor the people coming later, the title originally read "The time has come to stand up for the GPL and nobody cares". Author fixed it as said here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9156839 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9156839
- tobltobs 12y agoI removed the "but nobody cares" part. However I think it is still very disappointing that the SFC has still not enough founding for this case, which might be the biggest test of the limits of the GPL in a court until today. Just drink one starbuck coffee less today and spend your money for something useful.
- lucb1e 12y agoIf you read the text carefully, an anonymous donor will match every dollar up till that amount. So our money counts twice (you can double the amount in the bar). Nowhere do I read they actually need that money to get started. The lawsuit has already been filed from what I understood. In any case, thanks for removing the editorialized (incorrect?) part in the title.
- michaelhoffman 12y agoAs one of the many who does not have a daily latte habit, this thankfully does not apply to me.
- shiggerino 12y agoDamnit, why do we have to deal with this PayPal bullshit in this day and age? American banks need to get with the times and let people wire money straight to an IBAN number. Also, why the hell do they need my address?
- simgidacav 12y agoIs there a way of avoiding to make a PayPal account? I would like to contribute, but I don't want a PayPal account.
- shiggerino 12y agoYou don't have to make an account. But it's still annoying that you have to go through an intermediary whose only raison d'être is that banks still suck. When there is a much more elegant and federated payment protocol out there and in use outside of the US.
- ceronman 12y agoI believe the donation counter bar is not working in real time. I just donated and it didn't move. So don't say that nobody cares, I think a lot of people care. Give it some time. I encourage you to donate now!
- masamune__ 12y agoPlease correct me or feed me link if I'm wrong, but I can't just donate/support this case if they don't elaborate more on VMware side's story. What has exactly happened? LWN's article sounds somewhat, well, 'unbalanced'. In previous thread : vmkapi? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9153716 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9153716 is kernel's source really 'built'? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9155251 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9155251
- tempVariable 12y agoDonated. Please do so as well.
- EpicDavi 12y ago> VMware, a company with net revenue of over $1 billion and over 14,000 employees... Wow. I did not know they were that big.
- esaym 12y agoSo many people hate on the GPL. I personally like. It will protect your freedom as an open source developer. It is a good thing.
- Argorak 12y agoEspecially, it protects your right as an open source user, which I feel is a perspective rarely taken.
- jordigh 12y agoAs a free-software user. Or a free software-user, take your pick. :-)
- digi_owl 12y agoFrankly i find that the GPL do not distinguish between the two. Any user is a potential developer, given time and access to tools.
- Argorak 12y agoHm, I would make the distinction, but I do see the point you are making. It ensures people can even become developers.
- spopejoy 12y agoAgreed. I can't help but be depressed that anti-GPL FUD dominates convos on HN. I mean, my own work has been disrupted by GPL being "inconvenient" but I will still defend it. My life has been enriched by the great software written under it, and the fact that it continues to thrive under this terrific license.
- Karunamon 12y agoIs that a function of the software, or of the license? (And more importantly, can that difference be quantified?) BSD/MIT is pretty well thriving, too. You probably use OpenSSH every day :) The more permissive licenses always seemed the way to go, to me. I'd rather people contribute out of personal desire to, rather than legal obligation. That, and the GPL always seemed a bit too communist (in the sense of implying that other people have a moral right to your work) for my taste.
- tedunangst 12y agoMy understanding is this is primarily about driver code. Is that correct? One way out for VMWare would be to import FreeBSD drivers, although that wouldn't do the Linux community much good. From what I've read, VMWare does provide the source for the drivers, but not the core of their kernel, so Linux would still benefit from any improvements they make. If they switch to another set of drivers, that won't happen. I can understand the principle of the position, but given that releasing the crown jewel core of the vmkernel as GPL seems unlikely, I'm not sure what actual benefits will be realized here. Something of a Pyrrhic victory.
- masamune__ 12y agoIt's not driver itself but clever module that VMware developed so they can use linux drivers. (In prev thread : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9153716 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9153716) But VMK API is not just wrapper for linux drivers. You can specifically write device driver for ESXI, like GPU : https://developercenter.vmware.com/web/dp/sdks https://developercenter.vmware.com/web/dp/sdks According to LWN's article they found linux kernel's source (radix tree, scheduler) https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/635290/e501ce0264c182f4/ https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/635290/e501ce0264c182f4/ But it's not exactly clear if those codes were actually built and shipped with product according to 'former employ' https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9155251 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9155251 This is all cluster*uck of wild guessworks unless they elaborate more on VMware's response or VMware makes formal statements on their position. What a waste of time
- travem 12y ago> "According to LWN's article they found linux kernel's source (radix tree, scheduler)" [1]. Presumably when LWN article states "code can be downloaded from VMware's web site" they got it from the open source tab on VMware vSphere's download page [2]. [1] https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/635290/e501ce0264c182f4/ https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/635290/e501ce0264c182f4/ [2] https://my.vmware.com/web/vmware/info/slug/datacenter_cloud_infrastructure/vmware_vsphere/5_5#open_source https://my.vmware.com/web/vmware/info/slug/datacenter_cloud_...
- 12y ago
- zak_mc_kracken 12y agoJust let the GPL die of its own death, there are countless licenses out there that are much more reasonable. I've worked at a lot of companies these past 20 years and in every single one of them, the GPL was simply banned. You were not allowed to touch any software that used that license, and sometimes, the ban extended to even more reasonable licenses like the LGPL. And for good reasons. These days, releasing a software with a GPL license is pretty much a guarantee that your code will never become popular because nobody with a sane mind and a minimal understanding of software licensing will want to touch it, let alone corporations.
- thomasahle 12y agoI understand why cooperations that plan on making the free software part of their proprietary software wouldn't want to touch it. Why wouldn't everybody else?
- zak_mc_kracken 12y agoBecause the GPL restricts the freedom of anyone who incorporates your code. Pick Apache or a BSD license, you have the same guarantees of access to the source code and you're not restricting the freedom of people using your code.
- shiggerino 12y agoRestricts what freedom? If there indeed is a meaningful restriction, you should be able to articulate it in words.
- johnward 12y agoI'm torn on this VMWare issue. On one hand I want GPL to be upheld. On the other hand if they win it will mean the end of most corporations using GPL code (possibly any open source licensed code that isn't as liberal as MIT or something). These megacorps are not going to expose themselves to a risk like this. I know from experience as we already are removing OSS that we feel could be a liability and replacing it with solutions that in some cases are not as good technically but legally less of a risk. IT won't be good for the OSS ecosystem to have thousands of devs all the sudden stop contributing at their day jobs when the code is replaced.
- mrj 12y agoAll they have to do is comply with the terms. They have had many chances to do so. Really, I don't think other companies have to feel threatened. In fact, I worry that they will feel emboldened when they see how long they can violate the terms without repercussion.
- callahad 12y ago> I don't think other companies have to feel threatened. Many CTOs of large enterprises have, let's say, a less nuanced view of the GPL. Their concern is that "just complying" would mean the complete and total revelation of all of their code, all of their trade secrets, and thus all of their competitive advantage. They believe, wrongly, that there are no other ways to come into compliance than to do something they believe would kill their business. Cases like this are accelerants on those flames of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.
- mrj 12y agoCTOs are not unused to contracts and licenses. I refuse to believe that they are incapable of dealing with outside entities and coming to terms. VMware is just being willfully rotten.
- shiggerino 12y agoI'm sure they could have licensed the equivalent code from someone like Oracle, but the CFO would have probably balked at the costs. VMware received an extremely generous offer from Hellwig and his co-contributors, at zero price, even. Not honouring their side of the deal is no different from defrauding any other of their contractors.
- ocdtrekkie 12y agoIt's kinda necessary you enforce your licensing terms, but man, I wish people would realize that GPL is an extremely nasty thing.
- jerven 12y agoIt's rather nice compared to VMWare's commercial licensing terms.
- ocdtrekkie 12y agoI'm speaking in reference to truly free licenses like Apache and MIT.
- NathanKP 12y agoI agree. I dislike GPL and would never use GPL for anything that I open source. All the npm modules I've developed are MIT licensed. But if a corporation chooses to violate the terms of someone who did release their stuff under GPL then they should pay for it.
- dragonwriter 12y agoIf nothing else, nothing is going to encourage corporations to prefer permissively licensed code if copyleft licenses aren't strictly enforced.
- dragonwriter 12y ago> It's kinda necessary you enforce your licensing terms, but man, I wish people would realize that GPL is an extremely nasty thing. But even assuming it is a nasty thing, no one will notice that if its nastiness isn't enforced.
- frequent 12y ago+10$
- tacos 12y ago"Either way, it's beneficial to our entire community to find out what the judges think." Bold and inaccurate statement. There's a 100% chance that it won't be beneficial at all to "the entire community." Also, the judges in the fancy courthouse aren't any less prone to error than the ones sitting ringside at boxing matches. Which is why cooler heads have prevailed on these matters for so long. All sides (copyleft, non-copyleft, and proprietary) have a lot to lose and the unresolved tension was largely keeping things in check. Until the FSF chimes in I'd be hesitant to encourage this with financial support.
- jdjb 12y agoHow exactly is the unresolved tension keeping things in check? The untested nature of how far the GPL can hold up in court is exactly why we see violations of the GPL so flagrantly. It's exactly why violators of the GPL are willing to let this go to court (if there was ample precedent of the GPL being upheld it is reasonable to assume most corps would choose to settle issues like these before they escalate to a law suit). If the GPL is never proven to be upheld (at least to the point where most legal corporate accepts it) by the courts then it is a meaningless licence that only matters to free software advocates and geeks.
- tacos 12y agoLegal documents aren't tight programs rigidly followed to by a computer. They're rough sketches that Judges are given enormous latitude to interpret. Several bad things could happen here, not the least of which is that people avoid the GPL for new projects while this plays out. Agreements are just that -- agreements. The tension that both sides know that they can seek judicial relief in the event of a dispute arguably is the entire basis of civilization. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisprudence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisprudence
- mikegioia 12y agoThe FSF has already made a statement: https://www.fsf.org/news/conservancy-and-christoph-hellwig-gpl-enforcement-lawsuit https://www.fsf.org/news/conservancy-and-christoph-hellwig-g...
- putzdown 12y agoI confess I've never paid much attention to GPL, and when I think about this I find one particular reason. I don't understand the harm. What bad thing happens when the GPL is not obeyed? I think I understand that the answer is that your generously donated code (Christoph's in the article) may then be taken into private hands and used to benefit a commercial company. Is that the harm? But if so, what's the harm? You donated your code, didn't you? I'm asking in all sincerity: what specific asset or benefit have you lost when someone takes your GPL code and uses it in their commercial product? The article seems to get upset about this event: "They took Christoph's code from Linux and modified it to work with their own kernel without releasing source code of the resulting complete work." So that's the harm? But how is that harmful? How does that hurt Christoph or anyone else? Perhaps the answer is: "Christoph worked so hard on it, and gave such expertise and so much time, and now his work is providing benefit to others with no further benefit to himself." I would certainly agree in general that if you work hard on something and someone else steals your work and benefits from it instead of you, then this is a clear and deplorable harm. But if you give your work away so that people benefit from it in general, then you have agreed that your sole benefit is not at issue and that you don't expect compensation for the work. If someone then uses the work for their own financial benefit, or modifies it without giving you the changes back, what has that deprived you of? Surely that's not taking away anything that would have been coming to you had they not done it. Is it? Where's the harm?
- timruffles 12y agoSeriously? "modifies it without giving you the changes back, what has that deprived you of?" Uh... it's depriving you of the changes? e.g the kind of changes a big, rich company can afford to pay people to do to free software.
- drhayes9 12y agoIANAL. I'm not a GPL expert. But here's my reasoning: 1. Code written under the GPL is value created for public consumption. VMWare is violating the spirit of reciprocity by benefiting from that value, creating more value on top of it, then not releasing their additions for everyone to benefit. So it's not about Christoph's benefit, nor the company's. It's about our benefit as the people not involved directly in that transaction. 2. I imagine copyright gets really hairy if you write something, someone comes along and modifies it over a period of a year or two, then claims ownership. I imagine the GPL helps clear that sort of thing up as well.
- chappi42 12y ago>> isn't the combined works and/or derivative works question a legal grey area? >We don't think so, but this case will let the court to decide that question. I don't think a judge is able to decide it. A grey area cannot be black or white. -- 25 years ago I heard a RMS speak and it seems to me the whole freedom movement is unable to move and/or adapt. The same old (now) boring words again and again. And meanwhile we have App distribution models (iphone, google play, SaaS) which are much more closed/dangerous then waht we ever had. Abundant ad spamming and data grabbing. FSF did not help one yota and their extremism made them weak. GPLv3 divided instead of fortified. What shall I think of RSM which not even uses smartphones? How much more beside your shoes could you be today?
- nske 12y agoOn one hand you agree with RMS on the existence of a problem (">> which are more closed/dangerous than what we ever had"), on the other hand you are criticising him for not doing enough things right or being detached from reality (well, I believe back in the 80s many people would think that the expectation of a license like GPL being as successful as it is today, would be detached from reality). The problem with this (correct me if I'm wrong) is that you neither seem to suggest an alternative course nor care to act yourself towards a solution. RMS, on the other hand, does and most would agree that his actions have yielded a net positive effect in today's ecosystem.
- autoreleasepool 12y agoBy your logic, nobody is allowed to criticize RMS and his tactics unless they have a vested interest in providing an alternative to the GPL and FSF. However, I would argue that the failure of the FSF and RMS to adapt to the mobile and Internet centric world is a valid criticism in its own right; notwithstanding the personal achievements and plans for improving freedom of the person who wrote it. As a side note, the strength of the cult of personality around Richard is always striking to me. He gets away with doing and saying things that would seem absolutely insane if anyone else in the software community did them. For example, forgoes all normal Internet usage (instead he fetches html files to his email), no longer programs, doesn't own a cellphone, did not know that lldb was a debugger, etc... Yet, we are still supposed to beleive he is capable of producing modern and relevant solutions. I'm sorry, but Richard is out of touch. He is stuck in the past. His achievements should no doubt be honored, but someone else needs to take over.
- alok-g 12y agoIf use of GPL code causes more risk to the business than the costs/risks of developing in-house, then the corporation should choose such path. Nobody is forcing them one way or the other. If they use GPL, they have used a benefit that open-source community has provided them which they do in exchange for backward contributions that are intended to help other people/corporations using the same GPL code-base as well. I like to believe that corporations would generally agree to the above, though some employees may accidentally violate open source licenses or other forms of IP without realizing (and thereby potentially putting the company's business or own IP at risk). Making employees aware of the licensing issues would help. Interestingly though also, people go through such corporate IP training treating it as bureaucracy. Elsewhere too, I see people copying things from the Internet (e.g., images, music) without adhering to copyright laws. People click on "I agree" without reading, sign employment agreements without having slightest idea of what they says, and so on. I have myself tried to educate people about these several times on Hacker News. Not to defend VMWare here by any means, fixing/mitigating the bigger problem would require increasing general awareness of IP issues at forums like HN and elsewhere, such that the corporations can sanely honor the IP licensing without high costs of employee training and maintaining a sizeable legal department. It also seems to me that lawyers at big corporations can also help by making the legal processes easier. They are often so risk averse (to save their own back, not necessarily for the benefit of or on behalf of the organization) that they won't approve even reasonable IP requests sent their way.
- EvanAnderson 12y agoI'd argue that business entities that realize revenue from restrictively licensing intellectual "property" (like VMware does) should bear the burden of the "high costs of employee training and maintaining a sizeable legal department." I would argue that if they don't want those expenses then, perhaps, they should seek revenue from another business model, and just release their software under Libre license terms.
- alok-g 12y agoWhile I agree, there is no harm in helping corporations reduce their burden under the assumption that the issue is happening without their consent. If a corporation is doing this on purpose or refusing to cooperate like sounds to be the case for VMWare here, I have little sympathies for them.
- jbandela1 12y agoI think long-term GPL days are numbered. Corporations are going to see that the code is not worth the politics. Take a look at GCC and the whole debate about exporting an AST. Once there was a suitable alternative (clang) with a more liberal license, companies flocked to it, and clang is now eating GCC's lunch. One can speculate what would happen if Apple really decided to push the BSD kernel like they did clang. I suspect, that a lot of companies doing Linux development, would start contributing to that BSD once it had reached a certain level of parity with Linux.
- vondur 12y agoUnfortunately, this will come down to who has the better resources with regard to the legal costs involved. If VMware decides to really fight this in court, they may prevail, regardless of truth. IBM had an army of lawyers that were able to fight of the SCO case regarding Linux code coming from AIX. I don't know how great the resources that the Software Freedom Conservancy has.
- dang 12y agoDiscussed yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9151799 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9151799.
- kazinator 12y agoMaybe the time has come to stand up to the GPL's insane anti-dynamic-linking nonsense. Dynamic linking is mere use. If you say that "this cannot be called from certain kinds of programs", you're restricting use, not merely redistribution. That is because such programs can be shipped to users without including the GPLed code (thus without redistributing it), so that the users then instruct the software to load the GPLed code that they separately obtain. Any GPLed program which isn't a shared library could be turned into one, and it could be turned into one by a project which completely complies with the GPL. For instance, if I'd like my proprietary program to be able to use Bash without spawning a process, I can make a public "Libbash" project which turns Bash into a library (without switching the license to LGPL, which I have no right to do). In my proprietary program, I can test for the presence of Libbash on a system, and use dlopen or LoadLibrary to use the thing if it is present, otherwise fall back on spawning an external process. If I do this, the crazy FSF zealots think I'm a violator, even though I didn't ship a single line of GPLed code with my program. So, whereas the jury is out on P = NP, but to me, it is clear that GPL = LGPL. :)
- foobarqux 12y agoWhat would be the point of the GPL if you could just bypass it by dynamic linking?
- kazinator 12y agoIf the GPL is regarded as inapplicable to dynamic linking, then its purpose is the same as that of the LGPL. Independently of the linking issue, the GPL prevents redistribution in non-source-code form. It ensures that users have access to the source code of the covered work, and can modify that code, share the modifications, and build the code to produce a component which replaces the one which the proprietary program uses. Continuing with the fictitious "Libbash", it means that users can patch or upgrade their "Libbash". My proprietary program will use whatever version they have installed, just like it will use whatever version of /bin/bash they have installed. If I were to statically link "libbash.a" into my program, then there would be a violation: users cannot upgrade or replace that. And, of course, it necessarily must be shipped with my program, being an inseparable part of it, so I cannot avoid redistributing. Dynamic linking is no different from command line invocation. Having it embroiled in the licensing rhetoric is a pointless mingling of C-and-Unix technology concepts with freedom concepts.