4 ms·

This must be one of the most misunderstood issues with the GPL. The GPL is not that contagious. If your project contains code from a GPL-licensed project, it d

This must be one of the most misunderstood issues with the GPL. The GPL is not that contagious. If your project contains code from a GPL-licensed project, it doesn't magically make your project GPL-licensed. Instead, it means you are using code from someone else (let's call him Richard) without his permission. Richard could sue you for copyright infringement. Or you could ask Richard for permission to use that code. But since Richard already gave blanket permission to everyone to use that code if they release their project under the GPL, that's the easy way out. But there is no way for Richard to magically open and license the code you wrote (and you own). Now, in your example you are talking about one line, that you pretty clearly rewrote and took out of your project. You will not be distributing your version with GPL code in it, so there is no infringement at that point. Only a very picky lawyer would be concerned :-)

ISL 12y ago
I used the "one line" to give a minimal example of my concern. The project in question has included 2-4 files with minor changes from GNU Octave, which is GPLv3, in order to patch around bugs and version differences within the Octave codebase. It is scientifically essential that I document the path by which the project reached its current form in order to fully document the thinking and analysis that led to final result. Thus, the entire repository history must be distributed with the project. From a time-investment perspective, finding and patching the Octave bugs comprised < 0.1% of the decade-scale project. It'd probably take me a day to excise the Octave code, package it into a standalone "ISL's wonky Octave patches" repo and license the changes GPLv3, and I'm happy to do so. Octave has already patched some of the relevant changes ( see http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?39177 http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?39177 for an example ). I must, however, retain the repository's development tree. So, if I distribute GPL code in a project's history as documentation, but not in the final version, am I required to license my life's work as GPL, and not BSD?
- belorn 12y ago
  What you are asking is if you can distribute a small, possibility insignificant, amount of gnu octave's code in the history of a repository's development tree without it's license being invoked. I see a few possible routes: 1# contact gnu octave (https://www.gnu.org/software/octave/get-involved.html https://www.gnu.org/software/octave/get-involved.html). They are human beings like everyone else. 2# Consider the code as too insignificant for copyright status. A practical choice, but would make lawyers scream. 3# Consider that part of the repository history to be "separate works", similar to bundles of packages. This would be walking the line of what constitute separate work. likely has the same issue of screaming lawyers.

ISL 12y ago

I used the "one line" to give a minimal example of my concern. The project in question has included 2-4 files with minor changes from GNU Octave, which is GPLv3, in order to patch around bugs and version differences within the Octave codebase. It is scientifically essential that I document the path by which the project reached its current form in order to fully document the thinking and analysis that led to final result. Thus, the entire repository history must be distributed with the project. From a time-investment perspective, finding and patching the Octave bugs comprised < 0.1% of the decade-scale project. It'd probably take me a day to excise the Octave code, package it into a standalone "ISL's wonky Octave patches" repo and license the changes GPLv3, and I'm happy to do so. Octave has already patched some of the relevant changes ( see http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?39177 http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?39177 for an example ). I must, however, retain the repository's development tree. So, if I distribute GPL code in a project's history as documentation, but not in the final version, am I required to license my life's work as GPL, and not BSD?

belorn 12y ago
What you are asking is if you can distribute a small, possibility insignificant, amount of gnu octave's code in the history of a repository's development tree without it's license being invoked. I see a few possible routes: 1# contact gnu octave (https://www.gnu.org/software/octave/get-involved.html https://www.gnu.org/software/octave/get-involved.html). They are human beings like everyone else. 2# Consider the code as too insignificant for copyright status. A practical choice, but would make lawyers scream. 3# Consider that part of the repository history to be "separate works", similar to bundles of packages. This would be walking the line of what constitute separate work. likely has the same issue of screaming lawyers.