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."
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!
However, here in reality, whoever has the most money is most likely to win the court case. And lawyers write absolute trash all the time.
Our lawyer wrote a contract that stipulated we would deliver all data "instantaneously". And could not understand why that was a problem!
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?
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
"...but they do know how to write a document so it won't be destroyed by another lawyer."
As you said, the GPL hasn't yet been destroyed by another lawyer. The article gives a very eloquent reason why the GPL is difficult to destroy. If a software developer improperly includes GPLed software, either the developer says "The GPL gave me permission to include the software" or the developer says "The GPL is invalid". The first case leads to no problem with the GPL, whereas the second case leaves the developer with NO LEGAL PERMISSION to use the software. This could be a legal nightmare for the developer, if not just counterproductive.
And, I'm sure that, just as some lawyers have gone to medical school, some lawyers can code for just this reason: to challenge software licenses. In the end, what it comes down to is that if your lawyer is good enough, you can get around even the most flawlessly written software license. Just because the GPL isn't perfect doesn't mean you shouldn't use it, because no software license is perfect.
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.
Actually, it is, because the infringer still has a choice. Either they can agree to the GPL, in which case they have to GPL the derived code, or they can disagree with it, in which case they have to remove the GPL'd code entirely. The judge cannot force someone to agree to the license, the most he can do is force them to stop infringing by using the copyrighted code.
The suit the GPL'd code's author brings will be a copyright violation suit, because that's exactly what the infringer will have done. Used copyrighted code without permission. There's no contract for the GPL'd code's author to enforce. He hasn't gotten their agreement to the GPL. They can always agree to it or disagree to it, as they choose. It's just that whether they are infringing his copyright or not hinges on their agreement or disagreement.
- 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.
The GPL is tied up with Stallman's and the FSF's free software philosophy. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with that; just providing a possible explanation for the irony you mentioned. The GPL is designed around the idea that all software should be open source, and it does seem intended to cause more people to release more source code as time goes on. It also really seems to be effective in accomplishing this goal.
Though to tell you the truth, I never got the whole "free as in beer" thing. Beer is expensive, damn it, and when I use it up, it's all gone and I get a hangover.
Actually, it is, because the infringer still has a choice. Either they can agree to the GPL, in which case they have to GPL the derived code, or they can disagree with it, in which case they have to remove the GPL'd code entirely.
One of the defenses I've heard from GPL advocates regarding the SCO scandal is that SCO "gifted" their code because they didn't pull their Linux distribution right away. From what you're saying, it sounds like that wouldn't be the case. However, does that imply that SCO or any other contributer could pull their code since they choose not to abide by the license anymore, either?
This same system is used for proprietary binaries. They give you a pre-compiled binary or library with a set of headers for your code.
That said, the community has always looked unfavorably on binary-only drivers in the Kernel. They only tend to work for the major distros, and they also tend to lack the polish and peer review that goes into the normal bevy of OSS driver.
I for one don't understand why a vendor would only go halfway in supporting Linux. Release a patch and let the community support your device, or always be a day late and a dollar short trying to keep up with the developments in the system.
Ok. I do see one case: where the kernel "implements" a major function of the device in software. Even there a better approach exists. Simply provide the minimal communication hooks in the kernel itself, and devise a user-space program to perform the software control functions. The user space program can be as proprietary as you want, and it won't get stomped on as the kernel changes.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
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.
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?
r pr eterIsGPL
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInte
When the interpreter just interprets a language, the answer is no. The interpreted program, to the interpreter, is just data; a free software license like the GPL, based on copyright law, cannot limit what data you use the interpreter on. You can run it on any data (interpreted program), any way you like, and there are no requirements about licensing that data to anyone.
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.
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.........
but in long term reality GPL is freer? I disagree. For the rest of eternity the code you use under a GPL license you do not have title to will forever contain the restriction that it must be available under the terms of the GPL (actually it's not eternity, but it is until the respective Copyright Acts declares that the copyrighted work is now in the public domain. And with all the Mickey Mouseing going on with Copyright Law it basically is eternity, but I digress). When you use BSD code you can choose to licence the derivitive work under the GPL, which is to choose to continue the chain of life with fewer licensing rights than were previously had from where you got the software. It is a hastey generalization to say that the only thing you can do with BSD software is to make it proprietary. A presumption that is entirely wrong.
However, real questions of liberty are asked about the rights on has in the immediate time frame, not the possible freedom in the future that people may or may not have. You may dismiss it as "short term thinking" but the only real and substantial rights are the ones that can be exercised in the present. Ask a prisioner who will be released in 100 years, 100 days, or even an hour. They do not have the same liberty as a free citizen. What rights they may have in the future are irrelevant because at any moment they could be shanked and bleed to death.
But what you dismiss is the right of someone who is using BSD licences code to re-relase a derivitive work under the GPL just as freely as they can place it under a lock and key, so the BSD code in reality has the same potential "freedom" in the future as GPL code because the user can choose to place it under such a license, they merely are under no requirement too. But the option, nonetheless, exists. The user of the GPL, however, cannot place GPL code (or LGPL code) udner a BSD style license. Their liberty is restricted at the present time while the user of the BSD code can do everything that the user of the GPL can do *and*then*some*. So the rights of liberty that a user of BSD code are truly a super set of the rights the user of GPL code has, includeing the possibility to restrict future uses to share alike copyrights of the GPL code.
In guaranteeing the liberties of subsquent generations of recipt the GPL actually prohibits liberties to the most immediate recipient of the GPLed work. It is a liberty that when prphibited in the manner that the GNU licenses do that will never be grantable.
--Shemnon