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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
Hrm. I hadn't heard of this PathFinder GPL violation before, but a few minutes with Google paints an entirely different picture to the "GPL Zealots vs the Virtuous PathFinder Guy" that your story painted.
From here it seems that rather than "many actually demanding" a GPL release, it was very few people even hinting at a GPL release, and no actual demands were made. In any event, only the iTerm authors can make demands and even then they can't demand a GPL release.
For the most part, people were just exploring the possibilities in a mostly civil manner. If I was forced to polarise the discussion I would say the most significant minority of comments were anti-GPL trolls; typically saying things like "GPL BAD BSD GOOD" and other nonsense.
Later, the author of PathFinder apologises and admits it was an honest mistake. Many subsequent comments are then repeating that the mistake was honest so they should try and find a solution where everybody walks away happy. Nobody wanted to crucify the PathFinder guy... at least, not that I saw.
So I don't know where you got this entirely negative opinion of "GPL Zealots" from. My view is that the mistake was honest, the mistake was admitted, the iTerm authors seemed content to find an equitable solution, there were the typical anti-GPL trolls, and no actual demands for a "GPL release" were made.
Now contrast this with intentional violations of the GPL where the violator refuses to comply. For example, easyRDP.