Slashdot Mirror
LGPL is Viral for Java
carlfish writes "According to this post to POI-dev, Dave Turner (Mr License) of the FSF has decreed that the steps required to use an LGPL'd Java library will actually infect client code with substantial GNU-ness via Section 6 of the LGPL. (The "Lesser" GPL is supposed to protect only the Library, without infecting code using the library) This, as you might imagine, puts a few LGPL Java projects that previously thought they were embeddable without being viral in a bit of a bind. Various weblogs have further coverage." Update: 07/18 02:44 GMT by CN : The FSF's Executive Director, Brad Kuhn adds "LGPL's S. 6 allows you to make new works that link with the LGPL'ed code, and license them any way you see fit. Only the LGPL'ed code itself must remain Free. Such 'client code' can even be proprietary; it need not be LGPL'ed."
they coined the term "viral" with respect to software licenses, and now everyone's using it.
:\
good stuff.
Just switch to the BSD license, like the Vorbis project did.
Please read that again. And again, until you get it. The GPL is not viral. It's pretty simple, really. If you're going to use [L]GPL'd code, follow the terms of the license, or don't use it.
You have a choice. The [L]GPL is not a little bug trying to worm its way into your code. If you chose to use GPL code, then you follow the terms, or don't use the code. It's simple.
If you find some really neat library under the [L]GPL that you want to use, and you don't want to follow the terms, well: tough luck. Offer to compensate the author; perhaps he or she will license it to you differently. Otherwise, write your own code.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
I am a Java developer, and I have used the LGPL on work (and also used work that HAS been LGPLed).
My intent in using the LGPL is pretty simple: If you want to use my library, go ahead. If you make CHANGES to my library, those have to be released back into the wild, so the library can be improved by everyone's improvements. I'm not a 'Free Software' zealot - I'm an open-source pragmatist.
If the LGPL does not meet this intent with Java, then we should find or write a license that has this intent. Perhaps one of the ones at Creative Commons would work...
The post states that you cannot import or "lift" any lgpl code * code * code into another project unless that project becomes lgpl'd also. This is correct; however, the resulting lgpl'd library (binary) can be called / used by a non-lgpl'd project. It is really not that confusing.
You have a choice. The [L]GPL is not a little bug trying to worm its way into your code. If you chose to use GPL code, then you follow the terms, or don't use the code. It's simple.
You seem to miss the entire point of the LGPL. The whole point is that you should be able to use LGPL code in a non-LGPL project. To quote from the website:
"The choice of license makes a big difference: using the Library GPL permits use of the library in proprietary programs; using the ordinary GPL for a library makes it available only for free programs."
So whereas the GPL is intended to be somewhat "viral" -- i.e. software using GPL code must also be GPL -- the LGPL is not supposed to. This is why the viral-ness of the LGPL is news, since it's contrary to much of the community's understanding and intent regarding the use of LGPL code.
Cheers,
IT
Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.
The problem here is that the technicality of this section of the LGPL and the FSF's interpretation of it are not in sync with 98% of the people using and releasing code under the LGPL. I've used LGPL code and seeing as the jars were libraries it didn't even occurr to me that this would be an issue.
This causes uncertainty over the nature of LGPL software right now. Would a court of law agree with this interpretation? Now I'm left with an odd decision. Do I gut my code under the presumption that this FSF lawyer is right, or do I take my chances that a court will interpret this as the vast majority of the community has.
Open source software lives by the certainty of the licensing it uses. If we can't trust the interpretation of the licenses, then we can't feel confident in working with this code. The FSF is risking a serious blow to the open source community.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
If I decide to write a program and contribute it to free software, the GPL assures me that it will stay free software forever. I'd be bothered if somebody made it non-free, effectively stealing my work for their own remuneration.
No dumbass, they can't steal your code if it is BSD licensed. What are they going to do, break into your house and remove the source from your HD? And do the same to every person who downloaded it? Repeat after me: YOU CANNOT STEAL WHAT IS FREE. As long as someone out there has a copy of your BSD code it will always be free.
The next point is that if someone copies your free BSD code and charges money for it they are NOT MAKING MONEY OFF OF YOUR CODE. Your code is FREE remember? They are making money off of whatever they added to your code (be it more code or a service contract or shiny packaging). If Microsoft takes your free BSD code, adds one line to it and charges $100 for it they are charging $100 for that one line of their code.
The BSD license lets people apply almost any license to my software, including most non-free licenses. If I wrote work under the BSD license, someone could modify it and sell the result with no source code, and I'd have no recourse at all.
Why would you want recourse? How have they wronged you? You released your code under a free license, and people are using your code. Hooray! Wasn't that the point of releasing your code?
Anyone who wants can infect my BSD software with the non-free license virus.
How can they "infect" your code? You still have your code sitting on your harddrive. What they have done is create an entirely new "thing" out of your code and their code.
By the way, the BSD license allows you to apply the GPL to a modified BSD work.
Correct. Isn't that nice and free of them?
I've thought about organizing a GPL-ed thread derived from the body of existing BSD-licensed work, just to illustrate a lesson about the BSD license. That would really piss people off, but it would be legal.
Perfectly legal. That's the point of the BSD license: allow as many people as possible to use the code for whatever purpose they imagine. I doubt the authors of the BSDed code would be bothered at all. They will probably be happy it is being used - that is why they released it under the BSD license.
Serve Gonk.
I'm convinced that the vast majority of people who release code under GPL have a hero fantasy in which Microsoft gets caught stealing their GPLed code and is thus forced to release the source for Windows, destroying them and sending Bill to the poorhouse. Then our brave coder will become a geek folk hero, showered with adoration for all time. I can see them on Letterman now: "Aw shucks, Dave, I just like writing code. I didn't plan on changing the world."
A very small group don't have this fantasy but foolishly believe that the GPL helps "free software" (whatever the hell that means).
An even smaller group understands what the GPL is actually for. These are the diehard RMS zealots who think nobody should be allowed to keep code private.
Serve Gonk.
I'm not a GPL fantic or anything but...
GPL backers typically don't like the adjective "viral" to be used to describe their work because it has a negative connotation. ie. The set of associations implied by a word in addition to its literal meaning. ( dictionary.com ) To me, that position is very understandable.
There's always more than one way to say what you mean. You can call someone "Stubborn" or you can call them "Strong willed", almost the same thing? Marketing, politicials use this type of thing very often.
In fact 'viral', as an adjective is, I'd say, blatantly demeaning. There is absolutely nothing good about a virus, and that connotation sticks with the adjective.
Would you tell your girlfriend "your love for her is spreading through your system like ebola"? or I love you like flies like sh**?
Both those statements I believe express great unyeilding passion. But it may not go over that way.
Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
You forgot the group that wants to release their code but they also want the assurance that anyone making additions shares back.
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
Okay, if I make a piece of java code, like a class, and provide methods to use that class, and wrap this up in a jar file and say it's now under LGPL, then here's what somebody should be able to do (IMO):
1. Create java code which uses my library (jar file) with the library as a separate jar file (ie., none of my code is in their code, they're just calling methods and classes from my code).
2. Not have any requirements placed upon their code at all in any way.
As I see it, this is exactly what the LGPL does. Section 6 never comes into play whatsoever, because their code falls into section 5. They haven't actually combined my code into theirs, it's totally separate, sitting right in that jar file (aka library).
Granted, if they modify my code and distribute the modified version, then they must distribute the modifications they made to my code as well. That's what the LGPL is for in the first place.
But I fail to see how section 6 applies in any way whatsoever. None of my LGPL'd code is included in their code in any way. It's separated because it's in a separate jar file.
Lookie here:
5. A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked with it, is called a "work that uses the Library". Such a work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls outside the scope of this License.
To me, this exactly describes someone calling classes or other code that resides in my jar file. They're not copying the code into their own jar, they're linking to it. But let's look at section 6:
6. As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or link a "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a work containing portions of the Library...
This never happens if done properly. My jar is sitting alone, their jar is sitting alone. At runtime, their jar loads, says to the java interpreter "hey, make a class from that other jar", then my jar loads and a class gets created.
So, am I wrong here? I see no normal situation in which section 6 would ever apply to Java libraries, unless someone was straight up ripping my classes off and including them in their own jar file along with their own code.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.