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."
Well, no. You can reuse teh software as you see fit, sort of. BSD licensing is much superior in this aspect.
Well, yes. It only grants rights. It might not grant as many as BSD does, but it takes away no right granted by the copyright laws of the Berne convention.
Fellowship 9/11
Well, yes.
Without the license you have no right whatsover to use or distribute the code that would be covered by the GPL (assuming no other license has been applied). The GPL grants you the right to re-use in a limited fashion, but without the GPL you would have no right, so it is truely additive and a grant, just not the grant you want. If a piece of code wasn't licensed in any way you wouldn't be able to use it unless you wrote it.
However, I agree on the philosophical subtext. The BSD license does grant the developer more liberty to use the code in any fashion they choose, including later restricting rights if they so choose. The GPL does not grant as much liberty, so BSD is more free (as in speech) than the GPL, since you can modify the free (as in beer) status of the code with BSD, whereas you cannot with the GPL.
It is ironic that the GPL, which really rattels the libery saber, is out libertied by the BSD licences, which generally do no such saber ratteling.
--Shemnon
The paralegal got it 1/2 right. There is a difference between a contract and a license, however, the GPL is both.
A license is one thing : permission to use something that isn't yours.
A contract is a set of obligations for two or more parties.
a EULA is a license, given if you comply with the terms of the contract (pay, release code into the GPL).
The license is revoked if you fail to comply with the contract.
But the license is the permission, not the terms.
He is correct, that you would try to suesomeone under copyright law, rather than contract law, but this has nothing to do with which laws are applicable : both are.
However, the remedies available under copyright law are much more stringent, and therefore more useful.
Under contract law, pretty much all you can get are recouped losses, and a nullification of the contract.
In the case of the GPL, the losses are nothing, since nothing was paid, and the nullification of the contract just revokes the license. That gets you back to use of the content without a license, which is handled under copyright law.
This is precisely the point, a license is NOT a contract. It's a completely different thing under law. The fact that you failed to grasp this is why the GPL FUD keeps going, and why EULA are so effective and may not even be legal.
The fact that this is backed up by several quotes from lawyers, seems to have passed you by.
Where are my mod points when I need them!
If a first you don't succeed, your a programmer...
Making a derivative work of a software program IS NOT SOMETHING THAT CAN HAPPEN BY ACCIDENT.
Well, yes and no. It all depends on how you define "derivative work." This isn't explicitly defined for software in copyright law, so how the FSF defines may be different from how you define it, but neither of you would necessarily be incorrect.
Here's one example: GPL libraries. You write some non-GPL code, and then dynamically link it to a LGPL library. But unbeknownst to you, that LGPL library itself links to a GPL library (which silently relicenses the first library under the GPL). According to the FSF, you have created a derivative work of a second library, and must release it under the terms of the GPL.
It is this sort of thing that companies are worryied about. They know all too well that you can't cut and paste GPLd code into your own. They're not that stupid. But if they haven't spent the time to examine the licensing of each and every library and system call, then they'll be wise to be extra cautious.
As for me, screw them. The licensors that is. I'll do a cursory check of the licensing, but if anyone attempts to screw me over by wrapping GPL code in a LGPL interface, I'll hunt them down and force them listen to RMS sing the Free Software Song until their brains leak out their ears.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Perhaps Slashdot should add a link to Groklaw on the side of the main page, as it has done with certain other popular websites in the past (AnimeFu, Penny Arcade, Everything, etc.). That would make more sense, and it could replace the vacant spot left by the passing on of "The Filthy Critic."
--- Bwah?
The quote you give doesn't in any way contradict what the article says. This quote merely says that, when companies perceive that software subject to the GPL can only be distributed in a certain way, they may choose to distribute it under those terms rather than not distributing it at all.
What the article says is that, if they (accidentally or on purpose) do distribute GPL code under a proprietary license in violation of the terms of the GPL, they cannot be forced to release their code.
The important difference is what people (or corporate entities) choose to do, vs. what they must do. The point that MS et. al try to make about the GPL is that you could lose the right to keep your code proprietary. This, Ms. Jones contends, is simply not true. That doesn't mean that the GPL isn't a way to leverage companies into releasing code that they'd rather keep proprietary, however... which is what Stallman advocates in your snippet.
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?