Slashdot Mirror
Viral GPL Misconceptions Elegantly Explained
Scot W. Stevenson writes "Our favorite paralegal Pamela Jones of Groklaw has put together a short FUD-killer on the General Public License that explains why you can't lose your proprietary code if you inadvertently incorporate GPL code. This is not the only text of its kind, but it is so well explained that you might want to bookmark the page for future reference."
It has been proven valid in a court of law.
Not yet, it hasn't. this may change soon, but as of now... Remember that it was written by an OSS hippy, not a lawyer. Sure, lawyers suck, etc etc, but they do know how to write a document so it won't be destroyed by another lawyer. This is similar to the fact that a lawyer may learn to write code, but ti will be inferior to that of a trained developer.
It only grants rights, it doesn't take them away
Well, no. You can reuse teh software as you see fit, sort of. BSD licensing is much superior in this aspect.
For those of you who don't know
When anger rises, think of the consequences.
Confucius (551 BC - 479 BC)
The GPL states a single, specific requirement, above all else: that if you create a software program that is a derived work of another software program, then that combined work must be distributed under these terms, no more, no less. Making a derivative work of a software program IS NOT SOMETHING THAT CAN HAPPEN BY ACCIDENT. You, the hypothetical developer of the derived work, receive the program accompanied by its unambiguous terms of use, and IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO READ AND FULLY UNDERSTAND THOSE TERMS. If you do not, then that is your fault, and ignorance of the law does not excuse its transgression.
You therefore have a choice. You can use works distributed under the GPL to create your own software and license that under the GPL, or you can NOT USE the GPL software and use any license you want. If the GPL were infectious, then you would have no such choice; since you do have a choice it is clearly not infectious in this regard.
Also remember that the GPL clearly states your rights with respect to parts of a program you write: that the GPL only applies to the combined work as a whole. You retain all rights to do whatever you want with the parts of the program you wrote. Furthermore, if a developer combines a GPL'd program X with a proprietary program Y of which he is not the owner, then the combination does not, and cannot legally affect how Y is licensed. All that happens in this situation is that the developer will be unable to satisfy the conditions of the GPL and the proprietary license at the same time, making any release of the software -- however licensed -- in breach of copyright law. Copyright law is pretty clear on the notion that the owner of a copyrighted work has the sole ability to set the terms of use of his copyright.
New open letter idea: explain how you CAN lose your free code even if you don't incorporate any SCO code into it, as long as SCO keeps saying you have.
The real Ralph Yarro posts as Anonymous Coward. Anyone else is an impostor.
Donate to it! Pamela is FAST approaching sainthood, support her site.
"IANAL. I am a paralegal,"
No wonder. A license IS a contract.
Just one question. Why does slashdot keep 'mirroring' almost every single story from groklaw?
..... :-(
I've been lurking on groklaw for quite a while now, it's stories and replies have always had a high 'standard' and I have to admit: once this 'mirroring' began, the posted comments on groklaw started to lose quality and became more and more superficial.
Thanks slashdot!
For those of you not familiar with that situation, the author borrowed and modified some open source code for a terminal app into a Finder alternative. A bunch of GPL zealots then started a flame war with many actually demanding that he release the entire source code to the world under the GPL! What was worse was that the author had already helped the community by releasing many of the classes he had developed!
While such zealots obviously can't be taken as representative of GPL supporters, it is cases like that which gives the GPL a bad name.
"The claim that a GPL violation could lead to the forcing open of proprietary code that has wrongfully included GPL'd components is simply wrong. There is no provision in the Copyright Act to require distribution of infringing work on altered terms. What copyright plaintiffs are entitled to, under the Act, are damages, injunctions to prevent infringing distribution, and--where appropriate--attorneys' fees. A defendant found to have wrongfully included GPL'd code in its own proprietary work can be mulcted in damages for the distribution that has already occurred, and prevented from distributing its product further. That's a sufficient disincentive to make wrongful use of GPL'd program code. And it is all that the Copyright Act permits."
But it's the GPL, not Copyright Act that states the proprietary code needs to be released as GPLed open code. Why couldn't a judge order them to do that? It's not unthinkable. Besides, what possible monatery damages could there be to the GPLed project? It's not that the offending company is taking away income from the open source community.
Did you read the article?
The GPL is not some weird contract, some new experiment in copyright law interpretation that requries a test in court.. it is a straightforward license (which is different from a contract). it is, in fact, very clearly a license, not a contract.
It DOES NOT take away any rights: Copyright allows you certain things by default. The GPL grants you other rights IN ADDITION to those allowed under copyright law, under certain conditions.
There is nothing to test in court (any more than any license needs to be tested in court).
We are not talking about freedom here.. or the relative freedom of various licenses..
As people keep saying, it's very, very simple. If the GPL is not valid... then show how you had permission to create a derived work from MY code. Plain and simple. Either you had no license to do so, in which copyright law applies, and what you did was illegal, or you have the GPL, which says you can do this, within limits.
OK, great you can't lose your code if you "accidently" incorporate a bit of GPL code. What if its the other way around. What if you intentionally insert your proprietary code into a GPL program and release the binary?
Is it okay to use and distribute a snippet of GPLed code if it's considered "fair use"? If so, can you ignore the GPL license since it would THEN be more restrictive than the current copyright law?
After reading various articles from Linus Torvalds and from people posting on Groklaw, I still have no idea if a program that uses the Linux kernel headers is required to be GPLed. If this is true, what system calls are permitted to be used without having to GPL one's program--only ones already specified in standards such as for Unix?
I kept reading waiting for that new bit of information to process. They nugget to file. I was very dissappointed. Yes it was well written, but it contained no information. Worse, it contained information that seemed to be reassuring at first, but increadibly naive. The rules about contracts versus licenses varies depending on your jursdiction.
Just because law is being discussed on the Internet does not mean the law is influenced by it. Case law varies between countries, and in the case of the US in particular, WITHIN a country.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Dude, she's a chick.
No sack.
What a strange bird is the pelican, his beak can hold more than his belly can.
I mean come on, look at what FUD stands for, Fear uncertainty and doubt, All three essentially meaning the same thing, The unpredictability of future.
Even a rock solid data provided by linux gurus can be used to generate FUD back against linux .
cnet is shining example of how to use opensourse's strength against spreading FUD against opensourse itself.
Just read some of CNET's recent articles on the hacking of debain server, kernel tree, gentoo server. All these attacks were detected quite early without causing any major damage and patched very quickly. But CNET articles' undertone for all of them was linux is insecure and opensource is not a good secure solution.
for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
Tell me, please, how the General Public License can be a contract if I have signed nothing?
Infuriate left and right
Nope. A contract implies a two-way promise. I contract with you to sell me two tons of sugar for five cents a pound. You promise to do something (produce the sugar) and I promise to do something (buy it from you). If either of us defaults on the contract, there are penalties involved.
A license simply allows you to do something you couldn't otherwise do. There's no contract because you don't have to perform any obligations. Simply because you have a driver's license doesn't mean you have to drive a car. (You do have to follow traffic rules but that is a condition of the grant of license, it's not a contractual obligation.)
PJ is not a lawyer, but she knows plenty of lawyers, and is meeting more as time goes on. If she says that the General Public License is a LICENSE, not a contract, she has the opinion of experts to back it up with. Those experts include Eben Moglen, the author of the GPL and a professor of law and legal history at Columbia University. What do you have?
Someone you trust is one of us.
As an aside, maybe now the zealots will stop clamoring for the code when Linksys or some other hardware manufacturer is determined to be in breach of the GPL by some LKML poster with too much time on his hands. It's only fair, I think.
A paralegal does legal research, but in order to really give people legal advice, you need to pass the bar exam. He hasn't done that, so he can't legally give you advice. His name IS on the line, in that if they turn out to be wrong, we won't trust him.
His job is legal research, which is what this article is. If he called it legal advice, he'd be in trouble. That's why he has the disclamer on top of the page.
So basically, you're saying that you can only contradict a lawyer if you are a lawyer or fraudulently pretending to be one? Ooh, she didn't claim she's something she's not! No credibility whatsoever!
From the article:
This is likely to mean that a copyright holder who licenses her software under the GPL, and subsequently brings a law suit against an individual who allegedly violated a term under the GPL would sue for copyright infringement rather than breach of contract.
Not exactly encouraging. According to the RIAA, copyright infringement is worse than manslaughter. You'd be better off shooting the original author - you'll do less time.
Weaselmancer
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
This lady is doing the OSS industry a great service with some of the research and background she is producing. She might _not_ be a lawyer, but she's certainly clarifying some very important issues for the community.
Hit that contribution button when you've read the article.....
DAVE (No connection apart from being an appreciative reader)
what does 'spoke' mean? thank you.
If you believe your words are true, stand behind them. Show some sack and put yourself and your name on the line.
Her name is Pamela Jones, that isn't any secret. In what way is she not "putting herself on the line"?
or is it moves backwards? ;-)
Quack, quack.
If you had read further than that, you would have seen that a great deal of the article cites a lawyer.
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
How ironic--in a Slashdot story about GPL misconceptions, the biggest misconception is promoted: what the G in GPL stands for.
Only works that specifically state they are covered by the *GENERAL* Public License recieve the protections of that work. A reference to "GNU" Public License could be a reference to ANYTHING.
Registrant:
Groklaw
P.O. Box 1986
White Plains, New York 10601
United States
Registered through: GoDaddy.com
Domain Name: GROKLAW.NET
Created on: 03-Oct-03
Expires on: 03-Oct-05
Last Updated on: 06-Oct-03
Administrative Contact:
Jones, P. pj@groklaw.com
Groklaw
P.O. Box 1986
White Plains, New York 10601
United States
(914) 484-5688 Fax --
Technical Contact:
Hostmaster (UH1409-ORG), UNC hostmaster@unc.edu
The University of North Carolina
ATN CB #3420
Abernethy Hall
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599-3420
United States
(919)962-4357 Fax -- (919) 962-5604
I agree that this is a very well-written and well-argued artcle. It's ideal for somebody who is non-technical and doesn't grasp the concept of the GPL, such as management types.
:)
That's why I'm not toally thrilled with the liberal use of jargon like "FUD" in the article. While it's second nature for us to use that term, I doubt that non-technical types will know what that means. It's easily-enough explained, but it might cheapen an otherwise-supurb article in their eyes. Communication is all about understanding your audience and expressing your message appropriately...
I feel bad about nitpicking such a nicely-written article. It's great otherwise. Kudos to the author.
OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
You seriously think someone who reads slashdot doesn't know what FUD, GNU, and GPL stand for?
*cough*her*cough*
A licence grants rights in only one direction; a contract grants rights (and obligations) in both directions. Because the GPL is merely a licence, those using GPL code cannot be required to give up the rights to their own code.
People who write free software often work for companies or universities that would do almost anything to get money. A programmer may want to contribute her changes to the community, but her employer may "see green" and insist on turning the changes into a commercial product.
When we explain to the employer that it is illegal to distribute the improved version except as free software, the employer usually decides to release it as free software rather than throw it away.
So, this apologist for the FSF is apparently attempting to sweep its true intentions under the rug.
One thing that's made me wonder is, if I want to use gcc or another gpl compiler, would the resultant project automatically be gpl'd? Just compiling a "hello world" program would link together several gpl'd libraries would that be considered a derivitive of the original?
Shop smart, Shop S-Mart.
I put this right up there with consultant's who only "advise" and managers who only "coordinate". There is a fine line between sticking to your guns and having a target painted on your back. This is just plain old flexible spin(e) syndrome.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
If the proprietary code is inherently derivative of the GPL'ed code, then the company's only options would be to stop selling it or release the source. Since both would result in the loss of revenue from that IP, they lose their investment either way. If anything, releasing their code under the GPL would be the lesser of two evils, since they could still sucker a few people into paying for the box with their name on it. So in that sense, the "viral" argument holds up from a business perspective.
Of course, in software it's easier to separate the original work from the "derived" portions (compared to literature, etc.), but that would still negate all the benefits of using the OSS base code in the first place. Better to use a base OS/framework that you know you own than to risk having to rewrite everything later...
I wouldn't be surprised if there are similar rules in place regarding para-legals or if she happens to be in law school (or aspired to someday).
Free speech is a myth at best. Don't believe me? Go to the movies and shout "fire" - you'll see how free speech is.
Just because you're not aware of her restrictions, doesn't make her a wuss.
Beyond all that, are you saying all of your peers in your field always agree with you? Can't you see how somebody doesn't need to be right just because of their job (or level of study/training/certification/professional status) and how somebody doesn't need a certain job to be right?
His name appears to be "Pam"...
So then whats the point of the advice if it is not legal advice? What is it worth?
All she puts is "trust" on the line, while she asks others to put their money. Roger that.
If I include submissions from others provided under the GPL license in my own GPL project, at some point I decide that I want the composite version to be used in my own commercial software. Can I do that? I figure as the copyright holder, to the project I should be able to, but credit would have to be given to the author(s) of the contibuted code. Would I have to re-create the contibuted code on my own? Or can I just patch it in and still retain my complete ownership rights and be license free?
Thanks.
I am a programmer looking to start my own business. I don't mind open-sourcing my libraries, but the glue code between the libraries would be proprietary.
The GPL is not about giving freedom to developers, it's about giving freedom to end users. The BSD license is about giving freedom to developers, including the freedom to screw their end users. The GPL guarantees the end user of a piece of software that they have control over the software that is running on their machines, no matter who modifies that software.
Even though I'm a developer, I still prefer the GPL out of respect for my customers.
Of course, the bidder is free to remove or alter any stipulation he wishes and i'm sure there are many projects on rent-a-coder that are explcitly gpl. however, for my proprietary needs, i'm happy with the no-GPL provision--it makes a lot of business sense in my particular case. i guess what i'm bringing out in this post is the notion that people are aware of the GPL's viral nature (the parent article notwithstanding) and do plan business strategy to avoid it regularly. similar non-gpl provisions are commonplace in many corporate IT departments as well. it's not necessarily foolhardy--it's a choice.
I really don't care how many lawyers she knows.
0 3. pdf
Try this:
Raymond T. Nimmer, Leonard Childs Professor of Law at the University of Houston Law Center and co-director of the Houston Intellectual Property and Information Law Institute.
His books include, amoung others:
The Law of Electronic Commercial Transactions
Information Law (West)
The Law of Computer Technology
Notes from his class:
http://www.law.uh.edu/assignments/RNimmerFall20
"First and foremost, a license is a contract.
Unfortunately, the fundamental nature of licensing as a contractual relationship
has often been buried in other concerns."
Here is some relevant case law:
Micro Data Base Systems, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee, v. Dharma Systems, Inc., Defendant-Appellee, Cross-Appellant
148 F.3d 649
Opinion by Posner, the guy who wrote the textbook on Contract Law. Find any distinction in the language of the opinion distinguishing contract and license.
First off, Groklaw is not an apologist for anyone. It is an anti-FUD site, and this article was to fight FUD about the GPL. You then contributed to the FUD by your incorrect comments about the GPL. The example Stallman gives is of an employer who sees an opportunity to steal GPL code. Stallman is trying to prevent that from happening.
If you incorporate GPL code into propietary code, you do NOT have to release the resulting code. You are welcome to do so in-house forever. But if you want to take someone else's GPL code and, against the wishes of that copyright owner, put it into your proprietary code and sell it for a profit, that original copyright owner can say no, you may not use my code in that way. Nothing wrong with that, that's what a license is for. That is what copyright law is for.
The true intentions of the GPL are right out there in the open: Don't steal our code! Use it internally all you want. Release it if you want, but release our code only the way the copyright holder of the code wants it to be released. Only if you try to steal code does the GPL bite. But then you should write your own code if that is your intention.
Whereas EULA's restrict rights, GPL grants you additional rights ... This I think is very well put, and it immediately brings to mind the development of numbers ... from positive to negative, and gives a hint of why some people are having trouble understanding the expansive developments ...
When numbers started off they were probably used to count stuff like sheep and bales. So all that was need was positive numbers. And that was that. Now I can imagine someone came up with the concept of negative numbers, and many people would have been flabbergasted. What ? Negative numbers ? What are they supposed to stand for ? Can you have a negative number of Sheep ? Can there be negative number of Bales. Ha Ha. Mr. King, Can you see how stupid the idea of negative numbers is ...
But of course we now know that negative numbers are not a stupid idea. But a pretty brilliant idea. And then of course Zero is a brillianter idea. And don't get me started on Complex numbers ....
Me thinks, Darl is an Ape who still thinks that numbers should only be positive, and the rest of the things like negative numbers, zero, and complex numbers, are going to destroy the whole notion of property - because, he thinks, all property has to be positive.
Of course Darl forgets that in addition to positive (credit), property can be negative (debt), or zero (easy come easy go) and complex (the financial instruments and derivatives ...) .....
To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies
Update: Oops, looks like we don't even know what the fsck GPL stands for and we're supposed to be a mouthpiece for the FS/OS community! Silly us.
v2sw7CUPhw5ln6pr5Pck4ma7u7LFw0m6g/l7Di5e6t5Ab6TH.
Where's the consideration? There isn't one. It's a pure grant of rights with stipulations/conditions.
A contract only exists if the parties have the legal right to contract. A contract with a minor is voidable by the minor party of the contract. However, the GPL is enforcable against a minor.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
So then whats the point of the advice if it is not legal advice? What is it worth?
It's an article you can hand to your idiot boss when he orders you to uninstall Linux and replace it with My First Windows from Fisher Price (aka WinXP), because he's afraid you'll have to give away all the code the company produces.
That's probably worth quite a bit to quite a number of people.
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
Now, would the database schema/design now be GPL or would it be proprietary? It isn't compiled or linked to any 'librarys'. It is just instantiated into a physical instance. So, it should not be GPL'ed should it? What about a bunch of PHP scripts you run on Apache...those aren't GPL'ed are they?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Um, use the wrong file, and you can wind up emailing the collected works of Led Zeppelin to your whole address book.
You'd think people would think carefully before compiling code belonging to others.
sulli
RTFJ.
A license is an implyed contract. My drivers license is a contract between the state and my self that I will follow the road traffic laws. My pilots license is a contract between my self and the govt where they give me a limimited ability to fly an air plane and I agree to not break their rules.
People get very confused about the term "License" mostly because we learn that our "Drivers license" is a bit of plastic with our picture on it. That isn't true. The "license" is simply an unwritten contract. The plastic bit is a "certificate of license".
I can not think of one case where a license doesn't meet the contract requirement of "exchange of obligations".
As far as how this goes with the GPL, if someone steals GPL code and it goes to court, the results will be 1) they pay for past damages and/or 2) they stop shipping the product or 3) some new agreement is forced. The court has to deal with 2 situations, one is the past violation and the 2nd is future issues. The second can be delt with by simply removing the offending code but that still means the 1st case was a copyright violation wich will result in fines.
I think the FSF should be dealing with violators in the terms of "we will sue you for $MAXCASH if you don't relase your source". They claim they want to make source code free but the actions I've seen so far with 3com's nbx don't seem to back that up. The court wouldn't force a 3rd party to release the code but if the violator has the choice of a cheap way out, they will take it.
You make a valid point, in a way.
There is a grey area, as to what constitutes "part of the original GPL source" and what isn't.
If you take some GPL webboard lets say, and put it on only your server, make some changes to it, etc... is that distribution, or just use? It's sending out parts of its source code, if you consider HTML/CSS part of the source code, which the author likely does.
The FSF claims to be looking into adding a clause to clarify some of these situations.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
- Offer
- Acceptance
- Consideration (i.e. a mutual exchange of something of value)
The use of code under the GPL lacks consideration.You don't need to go any further. The answer is no, the software you develop by merely using the tools does not make your software GPL. Mere use of the GPL'ed program does not make your software GPL.
For example, if I decide to develop, say, a game to run under Linux, using gcc to compile it, XFree libraries to render graphics, and the GIMP to create the graphical images, I can still choose to release that game under any license I choose.
Now, would the database schema/design now be GPL or would it be proprietary? It isn't compiled or linked to any 'librarys'. It is just instantiated into a physical instance. So, it should not be GPL'ed should it? What about a bunch of PHP scripts you run on Apache...those aren't GPL'ed are they?In all of these cases, you are simply using the program or library in question. That does not make it a derivative work. In my example above, there are several libraries that I may link to that are GPL. Linking does not constitute a derivative work, it constitutes merely using the library. Now, if I purposely built an extension to that library, actually recompiled the library with my new code, then in that case, yes, my code would have to be GPL as well.
Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
Preferably, spoofing the From: address to someone s/he trusts. Guerrilla information warfare baby!
I think so (though doing so in the Last Samurai when they bring out the new guns might be considered in bad taste).
So what if I call my lawyer and he says she is wrong?
Dude, there are many different types of lawyers. I doubt that a lawyer that specialises in accident claims or defending violent crimes is going to have even heard of the GPL.
Even a lawyer that specialises in software licences / IP may (mis)interpret the GPL depending if they're on the SCO payroll...
If you believe your words are true, stand behind them.
If somebody gives out advice to strangers claiming that it's "legal advice" it opens them up to being sued by any crackpot (eg: SCO), probably because only a judge has the authority to decide what's legal and what's not.
geez, this is black-letter law, people. To argue there's a difference is something some uninformed paralegal would argue. The frickin' definition of a license is:
"a document that states some contractual relationship or grants some right"
Heck, even OpenIPCore says so:
http://www.opencores.org/OIPC/deflic.shtml
But until the GPL is proven in court,
The beauty of the GPL is that there's nothing to "prove in court". Copyright law trumps, and if you distribute binaries of GPL'd works (or derivatives thereof) you are in violation of copyright law, unless you have the permission of the copyright holder (which you can obtain by complying with the License). (That the GPL has never been tried in court is an indication of its strength -- any sane lawyer up against it has advised his client to settle rather than fight.)
As to being forced to release source, clearly you cannot be, you can only be compelled to cease violating copyright. In the case of devices that embed GPLd code (like Linksys), that means to stop distributing the device (until the code is rewritten). Most manufacturers would rather not do that, being in the hardware rather than software business, so they are likely to agree to release source if they are able to do so, but that's their choice.
(Unless, of course, they got stuck with code they didn't realise was under the GPL from a 3rd party vendor -- in which case the hardware mfg goes after the vendor for violation of contract (at least) or possibly fraud, and also refers the copyright holder to that 3rd party for copyright infringement lawsuit. And stops distributing the device unless they can get dispensation from the copyright holder(s).)
-- Alastair
There are many other OS licenses besides the GPL. If you run on Linux, likely the minimum you are doing is connecting to the kernel via system calls (either you rolled your own routines, or linked with libc). Linus has stated that this not covered by the GPL on the kernel and glibc is available under an LGPL license that explicitly allows such linking. Apache and PostgreSQL are not covered by the GPL, but by a BSD style license. Connect away...
.so style lib that one links against just to access the wire protocol?
The most interesting grey area for me is when you have a protocol where the GPL'd software acts as a server and the proprietary stuff is a client connecting via the protocol. If I write a driver that, on one side, uses whatever wire protocol MySQL handles, and on the other provides a standards compliant ODBC implementation, where is (or should be) the boundry between what must be released under the GPL and what can remain proprietary. Everything? Just the driver? Nothing? I assume my driver does not link with any MySQL GPL'd libs, but that I reverse engineered or maybe just read the code and provided my own implementation of the wire protocol. If I have linked the driver against a GPL'd lib that provides the wire protocol, then it might seem more clear cut.
Except that similar cases might arise out of CORBA style distributed code. If the IDL and the server implementation is GPL'd, then does the act of running an IDL compiler on the GPL'd IDL to create client stubs force me to release my proprietary client code that is linked with those stubs? Is this different from providing a GPL'd
FreeSpeech.org
In the offhand chance your software is found in violation of the GPL, you are not FORCED into opening your own source. It is a valid way to recieve a liscence, but if found guilty of not having one, thet courts cannot force you to open your code up, nor force you to GPL your code. The copyright holder can ask for money, or ask that you halt distrobution of infringing materials, and maybe ask for legal fees. As the lawyers have said, those legal remedies are plenty to stop most would be gpl thieves.
All this is of course assuming your bugaboo scenario involving a blurred distinction of 'using' and distributing derivitive works is somehow ruled on to make the above scenario continue in court.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
Now, would the database schema/design now be GPL or would it be proprietary? It isn't compiled or linked to any 'librarys'. It is just instantiated into a physical instance. So, it should not be GPL'ed should it? What about a bunch of PHP scripts you run on Apache...those aren't GPL'ed are they?
Are you copying or modifying Apache source code to makes those PHP scripts? No? Then no, they're not covered. (And anyhow, Apache isn't GPLed -- it's under a BSD-style license which is much friendlier to commercial modifications).
Are you using Linux kernel (as opposed to libc) headers to compile your C app? No? Then no, it's not covered. (The only time you'll generally need the kernel headers is if you're, say, writing a kernel module or somesuch -- and Linus long back made some exceptions for such modules making licensing even more lax than usual).
Like Apache, the PostgreSQL license is BSD-style, is without many of the GPL's restrictions -- but even if it *were* under the GPL, unless you're actually compiling PostgreSQL code into your app, no harm no foul. (The libpq *headers* are what you'd want to be careful of -- traditionally, though, those would be licensed under the LGPL rather than the GPL proper, so you'd be fine).
I'm reminded of the stories little kids tell about how a woman gets pregnant by letting a man but his toungue in her mouth, or using the same water fountain, or so on. Your code won't become a derivative work by sitting on the toilet stall next to a GPLed app -- you need to actually do the deed.
Licenses are easy to understand here.
1. Killing is illegal under the law.
2. No one is allowed to kill. (ignore any justifiable homicide defenses for now)
3. James Bond would, like everyone else, not be allowed to kill anyone.
4. Her Majesty the Queen, whom (theoretically) made it illegal to kill, grants James Bond a "License to kill" thus giving him permission to do something he normally would not be allowed to do. (presumably so long as 007 had to kill them to further his duties.)
Same thing with the GPL, only without the hi-tech gadgets and gorgeous women. (Ceren excluded, of course.)
Copyright law hinges on the notion of derivative work. A painting made from a photograph, or a photo of a sculpture, have been found to be derivative works. I'm curious about precedent for a work in a traditional fine art medium like collage. Then there are examples like Warhol's Campbell Soup cans or the four-color separation of an iconic Marilyn Monroe image.
But the situation isn't even that clear in software. KillerApp 2.0 is generally a derivative work of KillerApp 1.0. It starts with the same code, modifies some of it, adds a little bit, and so on.
However, the GPL asserts that merely linking with some code makes that other part of the work "derivative". This point, I think, is not so clear. KillerApp doesn't use any of the code of KillerLib. The authors may never have seen it. They don't modify it in any way. KillerApp may not even depend on the library in the sense that it couldn't be made if the lib weren't available. (Perhaps there are multiple implementations.) Meanwhile, the KillerLib authors have never seen the KillerApp code. They couldn't pick it out of a SCO lineup. Their coding conventions are different. The app code doesn't resemble the lib code in the slightest. How is one "derivative" of the other?
Besides, that sword cuts both ways. If merely linking KillerApp to KillerLib makes the app a derivative, then it would also make the lib a derivative work. That doesn't seem sensible.
On the other hand, you can't make a copy of a typical statically-linked app without making a copy of the binary library code linked into it. But to split a legal hair, I'm not convinced the problem here is that the app is "derivative", so much as that you're simply making an unauthorized copy of the (binary) library. The combined work (executable binary) is perhaps derived from both the app binary and the lib binary, but that doesn't mean the app code is derived from the lib code. The distinction between source and binary is crucial in this case.
I think the posters that gleefully claim ownership of work that has become derivative through linkage are perhaps mistaken. (Consider the recent Linksys fuss, for example.) That view certainly hasn't been supported by legal precedent yet. Luckily, the GPL can still stand on the basis of simple manufacture of copies.
The article correctly points out that under no circumstances do you gain rights to some else's code, even if they're screwed up while using yours.
The GPL is not about ridding the world of proprietary code. The GPL is simply about protecting code from commercial abuse. Anything else that comes about from the GPL is secondary and not the thrust or the intent of the GPL.
Try to realize that part of the reason the GPL exists (and has been successful) is to NOT have outlandish licensing restrictions.
I certainly hope that no developer chose to release their code under the GPL with the assumption that it was "viral"...it simply is not.
That would be an interesting followup topic: which (if any) developers released GPLed software believing the licensing was viral?
I was disappointed with the word "accidental" because the misconception or FUD as you call isn't associated with this rare case.
What every developer asks is "if I include gpl in my code will I have to distribute parts of my code that doesn't use or has no relation to the gpl code I used?". The answer is yes. That's where the viral "FUD" comes from. All you have to say no to kill the fud. but if it is really YES, then it is viral. case closed.
did you forget to take your meds?
My company does not allow any LGPL code in our products.
What if you put an application together using Open Source tools. Let's say your application uses Linux as the OS, and PostgreSQL as the database.
What if you put an application together using Microsoft(tm) tools. Let's say your application uses Windows(r) as the OS, and SQLServer(r) as the database.
Now, would the database schema/design now belong to Bill Gates or to you?
It's really the same question. The GPL is irrelevant to this issue. The GPL (or any license) only kicks in when you've violated copyright. Exactly what kind of action counts as a copyright violation is up to your nation's legal system, and the license author can't change that.
(The licensor can losen restrictions if she wants, by promising to ignore some kinds of violations. But she can't toughen them)
You steal code from a project you are liable for damages. Now lets take the bsd vs novell. Novell stole bsd code by removing there licence. Now this is where things get strange but true. In the Opensource world code is the cash of the world. So to pay opensource is to pay in code. What happened to Novell was a judge ruling to pay for the damages Novell had to hand over the code ie cash was not really a option due to the fact that eaching programmer would have to recieve a share ie a verry complex solution the simpler solution was to have Novel pay the lawers on the other side and give a way all the linked code as payment. The source of the freebsd project.
Now this is where viral comes from. Note Novell refused to adminit they had nicked code so the judge thew the book at them.
Basicly the test case has already happend if you remove the licence the question is what happens if you disobey it minorly.
Perhaps you're taking a different definition of "infectious" than I have.
Realize that what follows is just my humble opinion; I have a great amount of respect for the open source community. However, I feel that this article didn't really clear up the concept of a "viral" GPL; the pro-GPL comments on /. haven't helped either ;)
As I understand it, a product (ie: set of software components) packaged together with a single component licensed under the GPL, must therefore be a derivative work, and must be licensed under the GPL. More to the point, everything that talked to the GPL component must therefore be GPL; If I understand correctly, this can quickly propogate throughout a system / product line architecture, if something like a GPL hardware driver were to be used. Realize that certain components which do not communicate with or depend on a GPL component (or derivative) need not be released under the GPL; GPL and proprietary code can co-exist in a project, if done so carefully.
It has been suggested that removing the original GPL component suddenly makes everything fine; realize that's not the point. By using that single GPL component, then I must distribute my product (that is, potententially 1%-100% of the product components) under the GPL! The alternative is to expend resources (time/money/development) to replace the components. This could be an unexpected lose-lose scenario for an uninformed project manager.
I argue that the GPL is infectious, although relatively painless to cure (swap the components). Either way, this information should be presented / known at the outset of a project considering the use of GPL'd components.
IMHO, the article did not address a "Viral" license misconception (ie: that everything that uses or relies upon a GPL component must released under the GPL). rather, it exposed ways to avoid the concieved shortcomings of GPL:
Here's my new ball. Play with it my way, or go home; take your pick.
So, it stands that if you use GPL code, you have to distribute your project under the GPL; if you don't want to follow the GPL, you have to remove any GPL code from your project. Just common sense, but not necessarily common knowledge. Comments and clarifications are welcome on this matter!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Just to avoid confusion, Postgresql is released
under a BSD license.
Gee, Darl.. you have a lot of usernames around here. Funny, that.
Again, the advice is from someone admitting to not be a lawyer and seeking to contradict actual lawyers. If my boss took that advice he would truly be an idiot. Please, can someone show me the value?
Here is:
TILE 17 - COPYRIGHTS
CHAPTER 2 - COPYRIGHT OWNERSHIP AND TRANSFER
Sec. 205. Recordation of transfers and other documents
(e) Priority Between Conflicting Transfer of Ownership and
Nonexclusive License. - A nonexclusive license, whether recorded or
not, prevails over a conflicting transfer of copyright ownership if
the license is evidenced by a written instrument signed by the
owner of the rights licensed or such owner's duly authorized agent,
and if -
(1) the license was taken before execution of the transfer; or
(2) the license was taken in good faith before recordation of
the transfer and without notice of it.
Suppose I contribute my copyrighted software code files to Linux
under the nonexclusive GPL license. Let's say Linus accepts my files
of code into the kernel.
Later I transfer my exclusive copyrights in writing to Microsoft Corp.
If you're using my kernel code and you don't have a copy of that GPL'd
code signed in writing, what's to keep Microsoft from suing you for
infringement of their code?
You always own your changes, unless you explicitly sell or give them to someone else (which is a requirement for contributing code to FSF projects, but not for distributing modified versions yourself). Nothing you create is GPL unless you put it under the GPL. That's the main idea of copyright law.
On the other hand, for a derived work, it's not going to be very useful by itself. If you want to distribute a work derived from a GPL work, you have to distribute the derived work under the GPL; you have no other permission to distribute the original which you modified.
If you create a derived work, you have to accept the terms of the GPL for the original, since you aren't allowed, under copyright law, to even modify a copyrighted work without distributing it. But you don't need to apply any license at all to the derived work, according to the GPL, unless you actually distribute it. You are merely required to license it to anyone who you distribute it to, not to the general public, or, in fact, to anyone at all.
So, in your example, even if you had integrated your work directly into Apache, even if Apache were actually GPL, you still would be able to keep all of the source secret, provided you didn't distribute your application, but rather ran it exclusively yourself (possibly allowing co-workers, paying customers, or the general public to use it online).
In any case, a database schema you create yourself is not a derived work; it's entirely your creation. Same for scripts you write from scratch. You can apply to these any license you'd like, including offering the same or different people multiple licenses.
It goes one step further, they have to change what is already out there.
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
Is a Viral Community?
Minor nits--the GPL device driver is not a good example. GPL code copied from the Internet and inserted into your proprietary app is a much better scenario. The reason is, the binary proprietary code can be made to coexist quite nicely with binary GPL code. it's only when you link proprietary code against GPL'd code that there's a problem.
But the big issue is that while, with that caveat, your assessment is technically correct but still not a good characterization. Compare two scanarios: You take Linux, insert your own code, and now your have JoeNux. The derivative work, JoeNux, must be distributed under the GPL.
Now let's take another scenario. You have the source code to Windows, you insert your own code, and now you have JoeDows. JoeDows may not be distributed at all, because your license from Microsoft for the source code (if you have one!) doesn't allow you to distribute derivative works on your own terms.
The difference between the GPL and standard proprietary software licenses is not its infectiousness, but that it allows you to redistribute derivative code at all. You can't make a derivative work from Windows--period!
The time and money spent rewriting GPL code out of your derivative work is nothing compared to what challenges your company would face if you tried to sell a derivative version of Windows!
This is hearteneing because SCO is in a CONTRACT dispute with IBM. They do not have a copyright over IBM's work. This is siginificant because the only remedy they have is to go after IBM, they have no right to sue Linux users for a contract violation because the Linux users are an independant third party not bound to SCO as IBM is. And even if SCO found some obscure part of their contract with IBM which allowed them to claim copyright to IBM's work, they cannot assign a license other than the GPL for existing work. They can claim damages, but they must first mitigate the situation, which they have expressly avoided, and systematiclally refused to do. This has been re-hashed many times, but the legal distinction and allowable remedies between contract and copyright law reinforces an already obviously logical proposition, that SCO cannot charge Linux users anything and even in the most optimistic scenario, SCO still does not have a leg to stand on.
The contract/license difference acts like a firewall between the SCO/IBM 'contract' dispute and the GPL license. Certain ports are simply blocked and the only way SCO could get in was if we used a Windows firewall analogy.
If Groklaw's interpretation is correct and the phrasing of the GPL is that watertight, where does this leave those who misrepresent it?
If it's as straightforward as it seems then any suitably qualified person, e.g. a lawyer should, upon reading it, be able to understand it's true meaning. It then follows that if a suitably qualified lawyer representing a proprietry software company fails to inform that company that their claims about the GPL are untrue they are failing in their duty to advise their clients that their claims are incorrect and possibly constitute fraud in a legal sense.
Should the lawyer inform the company only to be ignored that would then put the company in the position of having knowingly made false/ fraudulent claims in the pursuit of money e.g profit or to use another term "obtaining funds by deception".
Maybe sending a registered delivery copy of a plain language step by step explanation of the GPL interpreted by a lawyer would put them in a position where falsehood becomes potentially damaging in law.
On the plus front, top marks to Groklaw who are carrying out a superb job of undermining SCO's defenses.
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
That's not what Stallman and the FSF say.
Again, the advice is from someone admitting to not be a lawyer and seeking to contradict actual lawyers.
Which actual lawyers is the article seeking to contradict?
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
Technically the libraries are LGPL and that is what makes it possible for you to link with them in your application. If gcc libraries were GPL your software would probably be GPL. That does not apply to the use of Postgres, PHP, Perl etc since they are as stated tools used to create or run your software and you can use any license you desire for your software.
in my life God comes first.... but Linux is pretty high after that
Francis Smit
I've seen people mention several ways of fixing things if you find that you've used some GPL'ed code, but someone once pointed this out a while ago and I haven't seen it show up here:
You can license a piece of code to multiple people, under multiple licenses.
If a company finds themselves with GPL'ed code, can't they just go to the author and ask them to sell them a license to use it in proprietary software?
I didn't name them, she brought them up. If there are no lawyers to contradict, why write the piece?
From section 0:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
That is the answer, but doesn't straightforwardly answer your question. Or rather it answers it with a resounding, "Maybe."
If you use a compiler, and the output of that compiler includes copied bits and pieces from the compiler, then that result is pretty clearly a derived work and would be GPLed. If you use a compiler and it doesn't include bits and pieces, then that result is not GPLed. Without looking at the output of the compiler, you can't actually tell.
The GPL FAQ addresses this explicitly. While it might be nice if they talked more about what GCC specifically does, it is clearly implied that the copyright holder thinks that the output of code compiled with GCC is not derived from GCC. Even if that opinion is wrong, I suspect that a good lawyer could make a case that you were acting in good faith based on the representations of the copyright holder, and get you off the hook. Furthermore the answer given speaks volumes about the attitude of the FSF on this issue. Even if they found that they had a case, I think that you could trust them to be fairly reasonable in their pursuit of it.
Note that the discussion of Bison shows exactly how easy it is to have a standard tool unexpectedly make its output into a derived work (though you are OK with Bison because they made a special exemption for it).
As always, IANAL and this is not legal advice.
The best thing to do would be to contact the licensor directly and see if you can work out terms that they are agreeable upon such that they can grant you a unique license/contract for use. The best outcome would be that:
.02 cents. That said, if we can strike the necessary balance betwix GPL/Profit I tend to think that the software world will revolutionize much more rapidly...
a) the GPL'd coders get to [reasonably] dictate the terms that you can use the code that they worked hard on - ie. he/she/it/they can ask that you kindly donate x% of profits to the FSF and y% of the profits to them directly or some combination thereof. Hopefully, this would result in a balance between the "freedom" nature of [GPLd] open-source and the financial support required to maintain the civil liberties/rights of the very coders and consumers that compose the end product.
b) you can distribute your app commercially (Step 3: PROFIT!)
c) the overall community can benefit from the balance of GPL coders that will want either monetary contribution, community contribution, civil liberty-FSF & EFF contribution, etc. with the commercial needs of business operations (which would directly affect the FSF, GPl, etc). The better the company does with the overall product; the better the company can contribute to, assist, develop, rationalize and overall make open-source a very VALID business model.
Please keep in mind that this is just my
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
This isn't news to anyone. Do you have a better method of preventing people from posting and moderating in the same thread? "Post Anonymously" only keeps your name out of the public spotlight. That's it.
Now go in the closet and hang yourself and beat off until you're blue in the face.
Actually, derivative work is a gray area of the law.
In order for the FSF to achieve its goals, it defines derivative work as any work including the original in portion or in entirety. This means a statically linked binary is a derivative of the library - and they'd like dynamically linked binaries to be a derivative of the library too.
Of course, you can define derivative work as a library that includes the original library, but not a program that includes the original library. Or anything else you like.
The issue of the Linux kernel and the syscall interface was solved by saying that using the syscall interface does not constitute a derivative work.
Dennis Kucinich: the only presidential candidate who voted against the PATRIOT Act
Not every presidential candidate was a member of congress at the time the PATRIOT Act was voted upon.
Scenario:
I write all the code in my proprietary program (my product) except for a singular and specific library which is GPL'd (call it Library Z) and suppose, just in case someone asks, that Library Z makes up less than 10% of the total lines of source and/or the total binary size of my producct (I dunno why this would matter, but I threw it in anyway). Can I then sell my product in binary only form and provide only the source code for that particular library (Library Z) and put in the documentation that I use said library and the source for that library is provided without violation of the GPL? I am providing the GPL'd source (for Library Z) for download free to anyone who asks. I am not providing the source to the rest of the product (which I wrote) nor am I placing the source that I wrote under the GPL license.
If this is a violation of the GPL, then how exactly is it a violation of the GPL? Also, if it is a violation of the GPL, what must I do to be "right" with the GPL regarding my product? If the answer to the previous question is that I must also provide the source code for my entire product, then how is this not considered viral?
is she hot?
You distribute the same "package" of binary + source that you recieved. Maybe in theory you can sell your Windows CD without the licence certificate too (then all he needs is a licence, now if he happened to use a warezed key, that's not your problem). In reality, they need to stay together. Just as a GPL'd program + source (or at least an offer thereof).
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
This is just a copy-and-paste of this page. It is only a part of the text, and I don't see any attribution in the parent.
to seperate the kernel headers into two classes, one which can be included by non-GPL apps, and a "deeper" one that can only be used by GPL'd apps.
The former would be dual-licensed (LGPL perhaps) and interface the latter.
This may have a side effect of making it easier to produce binary modules, etc. that are compatible across wider ranges of OS/distro versions in the future, since the meta-API would probably be 10 times stabler.
Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
It doesn't matter.
This kind of distinction should be hashed out in court. My personal belief is that use of an API does not constitute GPL violation. The new code written that uses a GPL library does not, in it's total body, actually contain any derived code. The act of building it into a binary may integrate it, but that doesn't mean the author created a derived work. The only part the author created are the modules made from the code he compiled. If he had to, he could just offer to refer them to the download site for the API he used, and that should be enough.
Anyway, all of these details should be argued in court, where the current state of the art in API design, Computer Science, and interpretations of Copyright Law can be dessimated. Arguing dynamic linking is retarded if JIT compiling becomes the new whiz-bang thing. Who says the GPL won't be applicable to the source code of toolkits in the future after the time of dlopen has past?
If you act in good faith, this shouldn't have to happen. You _know_ what I mean, developers.
Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
not withdraw the product, buying themselves some time to code their own stuff to replace the disputed parts. Or relicense, orwhatever. The penalties/actions for copyright violation are not set in stone or anything... especially when the plantiff is willing to cooperate.
I mean, just because someone chooses the GPL for protection doesn't mean that person is unreasonable.
PS - Any code analyzed in court could be sealed evidence to prevent dilution of IP.
Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
You cannot ever ever create a commercially profitable software franchise since you have to give it away for free as well as give any competitor your full source code.
I do believe that if you receive the binaries only (on a CD), you can then sell (but not redistribute) that CD. Redistribution (meaning distrbution of a copy) is not a right that is granted to you under First Sale anyway, so the GPL can give you that right with restrictions.
If gcc libraries were GPL your software would probably be GPL
That's just wrong. What you mean to say is that if gcc libraries were GPL, you would not be allowed to redistribute the software unless you GPLed it. The very important difference, IMHO, is that the GPLing does not happen automatically.
The GPL, its underlying politics and intentions sux0rs BFT.
Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.
When a Roman freed a slave it was called manumission. The slave really became free, with the all rights of a free man, including owning slaves himself.
When Lincoln emancipated slaves during the Civil War, they did not become free in that sense. Yes they were no longer slaves, but they could not themselves become slave owners.
I see BSD licences as parallel to maunmission. Derived works may be closed source, with oppressive licencing. I see GPL licences as paralleling emancipation, because derived works cannot become closed.
Is BSD or GPL true liberty? You can guess my opinion by the way I've spun the issue.
Which brings up a really good point. If company X aquires my GPL'd source code and makes $Y million dollars from their product which essentially consists of 40% of my code, shouldn't I be able to get 40% of Y out of them? If so, they're doubly fucked. I can get 40% of all the profits they've made since they aquired my source and I can withhold that source from them forcing them to pay whatever the hell I want (as long as it is less than what it would cost for them to reimplement my source). Even if they choose to reimplement my source I can hound them till the end of their days claiming that their reimplementation is significantly similar to my source code. For every feature they implement I can point to similar features in my product and cry shananigans. I can demand access to their source code to prove that they havn't violated my license (again) and then I can use my intimate knowledge to improve the features of my own source code. If I get caught, who cares? It's not like they can sue me for 40% of my revenues, I don't have any!
All in all this spells disaster for any company that even thinks about touching GPL software. That's why so many companies refuse to give their employees permission to work on Free Software. If they're working on proprietory software and they're working on Free Software, the chances are they are writing software that's remotely similar.
How we know is more important than what we know.
If I buy a Debian CD from CheapBytes, I can sell that CD to you without having to distribute the source; that's a first sale right.
But I have no first sale right to _make a further copy_ of that CD and sell the copy to you. The only way to get a lawfully made copy of a work under the GPL is to get it from someone who has agreed to the GPL, i.e., who is providing source (or someone who got it from someone who agreed, and so on).
If the GPL were intended to require that everyone who distributed GPLed software had to also distribute source code, you would be right that it would require more than just copyright law. But the GPL is only supposed to apply to those who make and distribute copies of GPLed software, and in that case, copyright law is all that's necessary.
There's a fourth option, that probably is the first option for a lot of businesses: Approach the author and see if they can buy a commercial license.
It does not *cost* you money.
It might make you *less* money.
Big difference.
You will, however, benefit from some free development (programmers are expensive).
Pingular's Mother Is A Filthy Crack Whore
Willfull Ignorance
The OSI approved SleepyCat license is used with a number of software projects including XAO Apache Web Services and the very widely used dual licensed Berkeley DB software products. The WayBackMachine has a WinterSpeak interview from 2001 with Sleepycat President & CEO, Michael Olson on How to make money with the GPL ...
With just a few very limited exceptions SleepyCat license payment may be required should one "redistribute" the Berkley DB software, even when just done internally.The OSI approved Reciprocal Public License (RPL) while used infrequently is reportedly more viral than GPL, actually extremely viral per Technical Pursuit which dual licenses Tibet potentially requiring payment under TPL Biz licensing when not in compliance with RPL.
Are there other projects, licensing & circumstances of note that might be similarly surprising or problematic to OSS/FS users ???
The use of Free tools and creating a derivative of a Free tool are completely different. Perl is released under the Artistic License. However, Larry does not require that every Perl script be similarly licensed. But if I take the source code for the Perl language and modify it, then those modifications must be kept private (ie, not distributed at all), or released under the same (or similar) license (I'm not an expert on the details of the Artistic License)...
I use vi to write most of my programs (which happen to be database programs). I'm not required to release my programs under the BSD license (that's what vi is released under, right?)
This is A Good Thing(TM), since otherwise all windows programs would be owned by Microsoft (VC++/VB/ASP/etc.), Borland (Borland C++), etc. Each of those tools is property of the company which developed it. The use of the tool is allowed under a license which you receive upon payment. Works you create with those tools are yours, UNLESS they involve building upon/extending the tool itself (which is typically forbidden by your license).
For toasters or VCRs, maybe it's not a problem. For companies doing things like cable/satellite boxes, it is a problem - they really really don't want to have to release code, for a whole variety of reasons. Even mention releasing code to places like DirecTV and they'll start to hyper-ventilate. :-)
... interesting to debug.
In particular, one of the companies in this market doesn't even give source code to people developing products with them, just a binary library. Makes it
In your first case, it seems clear cut. You don't need a GPLed web browser to use a GPLed web server. I don't see how there could be any confusion at all.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
By using that single GPL component, then I must distribute my product (that is, potententially 1%-100% of the product components) under the GPL!
This is nothing to do with the GPL. Since you are using someone else's software in their product copyright law gives them a say in how you can distribute the resulting software. If their licence stated X amount of money per item then your minimum price has just become the sum of such royalties. If that is more than the maximum amount you want to sell it for then you have a problem. If you don't like the licence you can always negotiate with the copyright holder. You will be in an even weaker position in such negotiations if you don't try until you have been caught infringing copyrights though..
The alternative is to expend resources (time/money/development) to replace the components.
In some cases that might be a cheaper option than the "price" of using someone else's code. In other cases the "price" of applying a GPL compatable licence to their own code might be trivial compared with that of "reinventing the wheel".
So, it stands that if you use GPL code, you have to distribute your project under the GPL;
You don't have to distribute your project also the GPL only requires you to make source code available to people you distribute binaries to.
if you don't want to follow the GPL, you have to remove any GPL code from your project.
Actually you have two other options:
Ask the copyright holders if they will agree a different licence with you.
Hope you don't get caught.
I didn't name them, she brought them up. If there are no lawyers to contradict, why write the piece?
Hm... yes, there is one law firm she cited as advising their clients that the GPL is viral and could cause them to lose their code.
The quote from the link she included is "Your employee could grab a piece of open-source code off the Internet and you no longer have a proprietary product. Your $50,000 software package is now worth zero."
Does that sound remotely accurate? You download something and it makes your product automatically OS?
Are you really going to fault someone for contradicting this assertion?
Even lawyers can be wrong. The firm's clients, however, should either follow their attorney's advice, or they should find a new attorney if they think they're being mis-served. Of course, without an article like this one, how would they ever have an inkling that what this attorney said is hogwash?
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
Here's another question:
Suppose you have a GPL game engine which uses various graphics files for displaying images, and a script file that it interprets for the plot. Could a person create a proprietary game where he distributes his own copyrighted graphics and script files along with the engine and its source code?
I would tend to believe that the answer is 'yes'. However, I've heard arguments that since the engine is interpreting the script, it's as if the script is combined with the engine, and must therefore also be GPL'd. (Note that the script could be a binary file compiled from source.)
Thank you. That's exactly what I was trying to say in another article, but everyone thought it was flamebait.
The ONLY reason developers seem to choose the GPL over BSD is that they want their egos stroked. They can't stand the thought of someone using their code without attribution everywhere. They consider it "stealing". They cannot possibly conceive of giving it away for free (as in speech).
It's sick.
Has anyone else noticed that the slashboxes need a bit of a revamp? The Mozilla slashbox has been broken on and off for a while now, it often lags several days behind the source. Isn't at least some of that supposed to be automated? Shouldn't headlines from mozilla.org automagically be pumped into the slashbox?
Also, why not a 'Kernel' slashbox with a summary of current releases and test releases so we don't have front-page announcements?
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
You are confusing cause and effect, motivation and implementation.
The main motivation in writing the GPL is to allow copyright holders to keep their software open and free for as long as the copyright lasts. Stallman has made it clear that he hopes one effect of a lot of people doing this will be the end of proprietary software, and a different business model around software. It seems that a lot of people agree with this idea. Of course, you always say that the people who agree have been duped, so I won't try to convince you otherwise.
So if I may boil your point down one more time...
The article is good because it questions established lawyers, though one should still follow one's own lawyer's advice if one feels they are well served to do so.
Wow, such bold statements, all made without putting her own money on the line thanks to the IANAL disclaimer. Look, when she is ready to put her business in jeopardy, not just everyone else's, I'll take her seriously. Until then she has as much credibility as any random person posting things on the interweb.
I got this when I logged out: Slashdot only allows anonymous users to post 10 times per day (more or less, depending on moderation). A user from your IP has already shared his or her thoughts with us that many times. Take a breather, and come back and see us in 24 hours or so.
Now that I'm logged in, it appears I can post AC. Now, let's see if I can reply without AC.