Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Viral GPL Misconceptions Elegantly Explained

Posted by simoniker on from the outbreak-of-gnu dept.

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."

2 of 527 comments (clear)

  1. "The GPL is a License, Not a Contract" by glrotate · · Score: 0, Troll

    "IANAL. I am a paralegal,"

    No wonder. A license IS a contract.

    1. Re:"The GPL is a License, Not a Contract" by tigga · · Score: 0, Troll
      The fact that I distribute my code under the GPL does not prevent me from distributing it under some other License. I retain Ownership of my code, and I can permit its use under whatever terms I like. I could sell Microsoft or Linksys or whoever a seperate license to code that I also released via GPL.

      I think GPL does not allow relicensing code under any other non-compatible license. So even if you allow other parties to redistribute your code with any other license, they should comply with GPL anyway. If you put your code under GPL it means you given up on it, you still have you name on it, but you do not have any more rights then anybody else.