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."

Comments

Re:Main GPL Misconceptions

[Anonymous Coward]

So, by your definition, pre-1960s America didn't deny rights to any minorities. Rather, it just granted rights to anglos, so there was nothing wrong with it.

Sounds like you have fallen for the second misconception I listed.

Re:"The GPL is a License, Not a Contract"

[glrotate]

That would suggest, like the lack of consideration, that the GPL isn't enforceable, not that it isn't a contract.

Re:You're confused about who the GPL gives freedom

[Grizzlysmit]

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.

Depend how you look at it, basically the difference is that the BSD licence and similar; grants people the right to "Steal your" code, to me thats not really giving the developer more freedom unless he wants his code "stolen".

As far as I'm concerned the BSD licence sucks, and GPL rules.