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."
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.
Donate to it! Pamela is FAST approaching sainthood, support her site.
Remember that it was written by an OSS hippy, not a lawyer.
I've never heard Eben Moglen called a hippy before, interesting perspective you have there, but I'm afraid he's definitely a lawyer.
The real Ralph Yarro posts as Anonymous Coward. Anyone else is an impostor.
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.
Remember that it was written by an OSS hippy, not a lawyer.
Bzzzzzt! Wrong. It was written by Eben Moglen, professor of law and legal history at Columbia University. I have no idea whether he is a hippy (although I would tend to doubt it), but I have little doubt that he's a lawyer.
It only grants rights, it doesn't take them away
Well, no.
Well, yes. Read the GPL. It grants you rights to do things that otherwise you could not do under copyright law. If you can't do things with the software, it's because copyright law won't let you do them, not because the license itself won't.
Someone you trust is one of us.
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.
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.
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.
No, The resultant software does not have to be GPL'd. For one thing the libs are under the LGPL, and secondly what you develop with the compiler is not restricted.
If a first you don't succeed, your a programmer...
That's another GPL misconception. The GPL does not prevent anyone from selling GPL'd work:
In other texts, RMS explicitly encourages the sale of GPL'd code. The key point about putting work under the GPL is that those who distribute it (for no fee or for a price) cannot prevent the recipient from also selling or giving away copies.
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
No, you can't do that. You either have to ask the original copyright holder of the contributions permission or re-create the contributed code. Otherwise you would be violating the copyrights of the creator of the contributions. What you do with your own code is of course your own business.
If you look at MySQL for example, they ask every contributor to sign the copyright of the contributions over to MySQL AB. That way they can offer commercial non-GPL licenses and a GPLed version.
Moglen didn't write the GPL. Stallman did, but had it reviewed by lawyers (this was before Moglen joined FSF).
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
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)
The concept of a derived work is not explicitly defined
Copyright law appies. The term "derived work" is pretty well defined both by legislation and case law.
shouldn't this carry over to any code which utilizes system calls in Linux?
There's a clear (and written) exception in the Linux license that permits user programs to make system calls without being affected by the GPL. That is, after all, the function of an OS. Binary modules go beyond normal system calls, however. (Furthermore, glibc exists for plenty of other kernels besides Linux, including BSD and proprietary.)
3. The GPL has many bizarre concessions and terms, such as requiring those who distribute GPL software to distribute it by mail at anyone's request, charging only the cost of media.
Lots of licenses have what seem to be bizarre terms. In this example, though, that offer need only be made if you don't distribute the source along with the binary -- and the term is not specifically the cost of the media, but "for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution,". I.e. it's okay to charge for shipping and handling too, just don't make it a profit center.
-- Alastair