First Draft of GPL Version 3 Released

njan writes "The first draft of version three of the GNU General Public License was released to the public this afternoon. Major improvements touted in version three include changes designed to mitigate the damage posed by new threats to free software such as software patents. One individual stated about the release: 'It is changes in law, not computer technology, that pose the principal challenges to the free software community. Chief among these changes has been the unwise and ill-considered application of patent law to software. Software patents threaten every free software project, just as they threaten proprietary software and custom software. Any program can be destroyed or crippled by a software patent belonging to someone who has no other connection to the program.'"

Comments

I'll stick with the MIT license.

[CyricZ]

I think I will continue to stick with the MIT license. It has plain, easy to comprehend terms. It's concise.

I appreciate the effort the FSF is making, but things may be getting out of hand. I know of many developers who feel the same as I do. They just want to create software, without having to get bogged down with legalities. Thankfully, licenses like the BSD license and the MIT license work wonderfully well for us.

Re:I'll stick with the MIT license.

[ZorbaTHut]

Some people don't want their code to be used in any situation. They want to guarantee that anyone trying to profit off their code will basically have to contribute in one way or another - the code can't just be copied and closed.

Personally I use both GPL and BSD for different projects, but saying "the GPL is too complex and that's why people should use BSD/MIT" really ignores the reason why many people use the GPL in the first place. I agree that we could use a simpler version of the GPL - but BSD isn't it.

Re:I'll stick with the MIT license.

[ibullard]

It's not stealing when you give it away. Some people don't mind giving their work away and the GPL isn't applicable for ALL development.

Re:I'll stick with the MIT license.

[AuMatar]

"They just want to create software, without having to get bogged down with legalities. "

And thats why they should use the GPL- to make sure it *remains* free, and that changes and additions to it remain free. BSD and MIT may be concise, but it doesn't make this promise. If you're going with them, you may as well just forget the license and go public domain.

Re:I'll stick with the MIT license.

[ibullard]

Yeah, BSD licenses sure have killed a lot of projects.
That's just five minutes of searching for BSD licensed projects, I didn't look for MIT licensed projects.

Re:I'll stick with the MIT license.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares? If your intention is *really* altruistic as "Open Source" claims to be (and not a hypocrit), then you won't care who uses it. Your original code is still available to anyone who wants to use it.

In other words, you want it to be "Open" but not "Open" to all. BSD is the true "Open Source" license. GPL and some of the others have too much politics and emotion tied up in them (as well as fair doses of hypocrisy). Software isn't a religion and shouldn't be made into one. If you've ever said "look at the problems religion causes" then I can't see how in the world you'd take the time to make OSS and such into a religion.

It should be renamed: "Right to F**k Me in the Ass" License.

Name one way where giving your code away so that others can see it can turn around and "f**k you in the ass". Even if someone did do what you propose, how does that invalidate your BSD licensed code that you put out? It doesn't erase it from history. It doesn't prevent anyone else from using it or modifying it. You simply have some emotional reasons for not wanting someone to use your code even though you want some others to use your code. Drop the emotion and you're life will be higher quality.

Re:I'll stick with the MIT license.

[hey!]

They just want to create software, without having to get bogged down with legalities.

Well, choosing to ignore the complexities of the legal system doesn't guarantee they ignore you. For example the MIT license has no disclaimer of warranty. Nor does it require the licensee to waive any potential claim of damages. In theory, somebody could take your software, modify it in a way that introduces bugs, then disappear, leaving downstream licensees with your name as the only starting point for a lawsuit.

It doesn't matter that it's not your fault. Unless you're like MIT with a substantial legal staff to scare them off, it'll be too bad for you. The BSD license would be a much better choice.

Like software, licenses should be as simple as they need to be to accomplish what you need them to do, but no simpler.

The MIT license ensures you get credit. Period.

The BSD license ensures you get credit, and that nobody claims that you endorse their derivative products, and that everybody uses the software on the condition of releasing you from legal responsibility for damages.

GPL ensures you get credit, that people release you from legal responsibility for damages, and that every downstream recipient gets as many rights as you granted your immediate licensees.

It's too bad that you have to understand any kind of legaleese to be a programmer, but that's life. Licenses are just the start of it. You have to understand a bit about copyrights, patents and trademarks too. If you work with source material that is not public domain, you probably need to have some understanding of contracts. We're not talking law school level stuff, but at least an informed layman's understanding.

If you don't like this, sticking your head in the sand is not a viable solution.

Re:I'll stick with the MIT license.

[AuMatar]

ANd thats the problem with the BSD and MIT license- that they *don't* require changes to remain free. As such, they garuntee that those with money and resources will eventually throw enough money at the probem to obliterate the free versions, by taking all the useful stuff from them.

And yes, I know BSD and MIT is not public domain. But since you want to go BSD or MIT, why not just make it public domain anyway? All the BSD and MIT do is keep attribution, are you really that arrogant? If you don't care about the code's continued freedom, I can't see why you'd care if your name was attached to it.

Re:I'll stick with the MIT license.

[Cal Paterson]

You might be interested to note:

The FSF is dedicated to allowing people to create code that everyone is free to use, for any reason (save the restriction of freedom of others). This code must remain free for everyone in the future to benefit from. This is why is it Free Software, and not simply Open Source. The FSF percieve the ability to take BSD source and use it in closed-source software as a disadvantage of the BSD/MIT licences.

That said, the BSD/MIT licences do have advantages in some contexts. Bittorrent, OpenDocument and Ogg Vorbis are examples of things that are legal for anyone to include in their software, which allows everyone, even people who don't use Free Software to be able to interchange infomation, and this improves interoperability. (Even through Bram Cohen has regrettably since changed to a licence that is no longer DFSG-free). The FSF feel that releasing their source code into the public domain (or under BSD) would directly benefit large companies who have an interest in harming the software community's progress.

And I believe that the Windows iptables stuff was a lift of the BSD iptables, hence the fuck in the arse.

Re:I'll stick with the MIT license.

[Arandir]

But it will ALWAYS remain free under a MIT or BSD license! The idea that it can somehow be made non-free is a malicious myth started by the FSF. Someone can make *their* copy unfree, but they cannot make *my* copy unfree. No matter what Microsoft does, my copy of FreeBSD will ALWAYS be free.

Re:I'll stick with the MIT license.

[hao2lian]

"All the BSD and MIT do is keep attribution, are you really that arrogant?"
How is attribution arrogant? It's no less arrogant than, say, donating non-anonymously to a charity. For somebody who's spent hours to years working on something they've released to the public domain, I certainly wouldn't mind attributing them in my derivative work. Would restrictions like derivative work licensing or ability to use DRM be more arrogant?

"If you don't care about the code's continued freedom, I can't see why you'd care if your name was attached to it."
Not everybody values code freedom as highly, but that doesn't mean that makes them bad people or that makes them arrogant to want attribution or that makes them uncaring about their work.

it's difficult to read.

[skynare]

why is it so difficult to read?

Re:it's difficult to read.

[conradp]

By now you're redefining "ideologism" as "opinion" but there's a reason why they're not synonyms. "I think I might give some money to this beggar" is an opinion. "Let's kill the bloody people who have the nerve to oh gosh - actually WORK - and steal all their money and waste it on lowlife" is an ideology. The OpenBSD license is a bit like the first statement. GNU v3 is more like the second...

Actually neither of those statements sounds like an opinion or an ideology. If you change them from "I think I might" and "Let's" to "People should" then both sound like ideologies.

I think BSD and GPL both share almost the same ideology, "software should be free", but with different implementation paths. BSD says "software should be free, so I'm giving mine away." GPL says "software should be free, so I'm giving mine away, and ensuring that anyone who takes it also gives their software away."

The BSD license is like saying "food should be free" and then setting up one free food stand where folks can take all the food they want. I believe that it's very noble, admirable, and charitable to be sure. But it's unlikely to change the world. Rather it's most likely that a bunch of fat rich people will pull up with trucks, take all the food they can carry, and then go to the nearest market and resell it all.

How much of this...

[krewemaynard]

...will hold up legally, and how much of it is just hot air and rants?

"DRM is fundamentally incompatible with the purpose of the GPL, which is to protect users' freedom; therefore, the GPL ensures that the software it covers will neither be subject to, nor subject other works to, digital restrictions from which escape is forbidden." Sounds good and noble, but will it work?

Re:How much of this...

[Spy Hunter]

Note that they are not forbidding GPL DRM software. Instead they are forbidding you from suing people who try to break your DRM. If your DRM actually works (i.e. is not breakable), then you should have no problem with this. However, we all know that actual working DRM is technically infeasible. If you disagree with this clause of the GPL you are admitting that DRM is impotent without constant police-state enforcement. Basically, this change to the GPL exposes DRM as the fraud it has always been.

Cut the "any later version" option

[Bromskloss]

What keeps me from using the GPL is the "any later version" option. How do I know that GPL version 17 wont give every user of my software a right to come by my house for a free lunch? Or a car. You know, unless most significant software, everything in this world isn't free as in lunch. That holds for example for most lunches.

Re:Other issues

[Otter]

There is a proposal in it that would discourage or disable the use of GPL software for DRM, by stating that software under the new GPL cannot constitute an "effective technological protection measure".

I'd be curious to see what an objective lawyer has to say about the enforceability of that clause. Being an "effective technological protection measure" seems like a matter that can't be waived, any more than my signing a stipulation that I wasn't born in August affects my birthday.

Because it's a legal document.

[pavon]

The same reason that code is hard to read by non-programmers, or medical papers are hard to read by people without medical training. The law, like any field, needs precise language to communicate. Many words have special legal meanings that are subtly different from common speech (or not so subtle if language has diverged over time). This is necisarry for the same reason that you can't use plain english to write code - plain english leaves to much open for interpretation. When you write legal documents, you want the judge interpreting your document, should it ever go to court, to read it the way you intended it to be read. The best way to do this is to use the accepted legal terminology.

Re:Because it's a legal document.

[slux]

That may well be the case but I see it very problematic that normal citizens are unable to understand what exactly the laws their government imposes on them are saying. Or that they are forced to accept legal agreements written in the same language every day.

Legalese should really strive to be readable and understandable to the point by the average person. If indeed what you are saying is true and there is really no way to state these things in a clear and logical way then some kind of measures should be taken to ensure that everyone can get the help they need in interpreting the arcane mumblings of the law.

Re:Because it's a legal document.

[Sloppy]

I know how you feel. Not everyone is expected or required to be able to read a computer program or medical paper. But everyone is expected and required to obey the law.

Re:Argh, bad text layout...

[Harik]

Because it's designed to be read in a text terminal, with source code
which is also generally (gasp) 80 columns.

I know some of you new Eclipse/Visual Studio DOT NET guys love 30000
character lines, and don't get me started on perl, but for the projects
I work on having long lines is a drawback. And has email REALLY improved
since the mid 90s? I force HTML to downconvert to text and strip all the
bullshit markup before it hits my inbox. No blinky pictures, no flash
graphics, no webbugs, no <FONT SIZE +5000><FONT COLOR=BLOOD RED>
<BOLD><UNDERLINE><ITALIC><BLINK><MARQUEE> tags.

Those of us with functioning braincells and an attention span greater then
a gnat miss the email of the 90s.

TiVo

[metamatic]

Well, it'll stop those fsckers at TiVo from using Linux in hardware devices that are locked down so you can't read the data or modify the software without serious hardware hacking.

Incomprehensible

[undeadly]

The new GPL is, well, "wordy", bit not all that clear. And to be quite frank, I understand that I don't understand it.

The new GPL have the following:

This License gives unlimited permission to privately modify and run the
Program, provided you do not bring suit for patent infringement against
anyone for making, using or distributing their own works based on the
Program.

So patent law mixed with how I use the software, and privately at that. Can I use GPLv3 software in a company (it's not private, usually)? Can I modify it, but not distribute it outside the company? If I don't do this privately, but as a "corporate" person, then it's not private, so I can do what I want (of course not). This is just in the beginning of the new license, and it goes on and on and on and on etc.

Really, why not make a license that I don't need to be a lawyer to understand?

Re:Incomprehensible

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, it would have been a good idea to make a license that a lawyer would understand. The converse (as seen here) is rather bad for enforceability.

Re:Other issues

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a proposal in it that would discourage or disable the use of GPL software for DRM, by stating that software under the new GPL cannot constitute an "effective technological protection measure". Thus it would always be possible for other programs to get at the same data without falling under the DMCA.

I read that a little differently. Because the license, picked by the original copyright holder, categorically states that it is not a technological protection measure, it can't be used in software that has the protections of the DMCA. This isn't so interesting.

However, when you remember that derivative works are similarly bound, you realise that the end effect is that any organisation who wishes to attack reverse-engineers with the DMCA is forbidden from building their copy protection on top of any GPL 3 software.

I don't think this is about opening things up, I think this is about giving companies an ultimatum - either give up on abusing the DMCA, or you can't have any of our source code.

Re:Other issues

[dgatwood]

On the issue of distribution, am I the only one bothered by the vagueness of this line:

The output from running it is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a work based on the Program.

What in the world is that supposed to mean? Based on the source code of the program? Does inserting XML markup constitute a work based on the program, then? Because those tags were part of the program source code? This is really, really vague in a legally scary way.

I'm also a little bothered by the language that anything with a user interface must have an about box with copyright notice. What if the original didn't? Shouldn't it say that this information must be preserved, rather than saying that it must contain one? It's also a little troubling to think about how this could affect web services, since user interface isn't defined in a way so as to exclude it. This still doesn't explicitly clear up that issue.

Re:No more GPG encryption

[Josh Triplett]

No; this draft includes specific language handling that case: "a code need not be included in cases where use of the work normally implies the user already has it." In other words, this only covers cases where you don't have the key, such as devices which check signatures on their firmware binaries.

Re:The slippery slope begins...

[Bogtha]

No, this draft doesn't limit use in any way. The restrictions are when you want to distribute copies or use the software in derivative works. I quote from the draft:

This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the Program.

NOW it's political?!?

[Mateo_LeFou]

Did you see any earlier versions of this thing? btw political is good.

Re:Other issues

[Bogtha]

What in the world is that supposed to mean? Based on the source code of the program? Does inserting XML markup constitute a work based on the program, then? Because those tags were part of the program source code?

No. In some rare instances, programs actually output part of themselves as part of normal operation. I think Bison is the canonical example. This is different to mere string literals that form part of the output.

Current versions of the GPL have the same thing in them. It's frustrating because it seems intended to assure the reader that output isn't restricted - in fact it cannot be restricted by copyright - it would be like Microsoft holding the copyright to anything created with Word. Unfortunately, there's a minority of programs that function in this odd way, so they have to be mentioned as an exception.

Re:great; now GPL software is prohibited on Window

[QuantumG]

Except, ya know, that the license then goes on to say

As a special exception, the Complete Corresponding Source Code need
not include a particular subunit if (a) the identical subunit is
normally included as an adjunct in the distribution of either a major
essential component (kernel, window system, and so on) of the
operating system on which the executable runs or a compiler used to
produce the executable or an object code interpreter used to run it,
and (b) the subunit (aside from possible incidental extensions) serves
only to enable use of the work with that system component or compiler
or interpreter, or to implement a widely used or standard interface,
the implementation of which requires no patent license not already
generally available for software under this License.

Re:Other issues

[cpt kangarooski]

It's muddled right now. First it says that any DRM applied is not the type of DRM protected by the DMCA. Then it says that what it means is that permission is granted for circumvention. That's not the same thing, though I think it should have statements indicating that the licensee is agreeing that any DRM is ineligible for protection and that alternatively, permission to circumvent it is given.

Of course, this doesn't help enough, IMO. Let's say that someone released a movie under the GPL, and that it was on DVD and encrypted with CSS. Even though everyone has permission to circumvent it under the GPL, and the author is stating that CSS -- as used there -- is unprotected, this doesn't help. Third party movie studios can still claim that CSS is effective, and that a tool used to decrypt CSS, being just as able to circumvent the DRM on their movies as on the GPL'ed movie, is unlawful under the trafficking provisions of the statute. Thus, by using a commonplace DRM system, even though a person is releasing a work under the GPL, the DRM is still effective in keeping people from circumventing it even though they have a right to do so.

Better for the GPL to simply deny licensees the right to use DRM of any kind on relevant works.

Re:The slippery slope begins...

[Anonymous Coward]

> So "freedom for users" has now been redefined to "freedom for users, except for one group of users that we don't like". I'm curious to see who the second group is going to be...

That "one group" you're talking about are not those who use the software, but those who redistribute it or modifications to it. And they only freedom they lose is that of taking away freedom of those who merely use the software.

I, for one, will not miss my freedom to enslave if it is lost.

Captcha: unrest

Re:The ISSUES are incomprehensible

[ivoras]

Oh not again about the "BSD is bad because MS can steal BSD-licensed code" :((

Here it is again: THAT'S PRECISELY THE POINT! Don't you think people who put their code under the BSD license know it?

The license is liberal because:

• maybe the software is made on an academic institution and it wouldn't be fair to restrict it (as the GPL does)
• maybe the author writes the software for fame not for fortune (mostly closely tied with previous point - academics tend to make software that will increase their academic status [hint: BSD unix] and maybe land them consultant jobs)
• maybe the author is a really good guy
• maybe the author is really optimistic and thinks that if the companies can use quality BSD-licensed code they wouldn't have to develop their own crappy versions (hint: MS)
• ...

Re:Other issues

[SquadBoy]

The DMCA is evil evil evil. Don't get me wrong there.

But...

Doing this in a "Free Software" license is just fucking stupid. Yet one more reason to use a BSD style license.

Clearly the GPL is becoming a "free if we like what you are doing and you are in step with our agenda" license.

Re:Other issues

[pavon]

True, but consider this example. You want to join a club. Their membership contract states that members of this club cannot have been born in August. You can't sign the contract and then say that you are a member of the club, and therefore your birthday is no longer in August. The fact that your birthday is in August would prevent you from joining the club, and thus from recieving any of the advantages that membership brings.

This is the same thing. If the software you wrote is an "effective technological protection measure", then you cannot release it under the GPL. Furthermore, this implies that you cannot link against any other software released under the GPL.

If you were to attempt to use GPL software (say an encryption library) to create a DRM package, you would be in violation of the GPL. At that point, you would be forced to stop using the encryption library in your package, and could be liable for damages.

At least that is the way I read it on first glance.

Re:Other issues

[sepluv]

Note that that statement is immediately followed by:

distribution of a covered work as part of a system to generate or access certain data constitutes general permission at least for development, distribution and use, under this License, of other software capable of accessing the same data.

IMO, that means, by distributing the work under GPLv3 you state that you give others permission to circumvent any effective technological measures (as well as stating that the work does not contain anyway).

Re:Other issues

[Anonymous Coward]

You are wrong. Contracts can be unilateral. One party binds themself to a promise to perform or to refrain from performing in exchange for performance.

See Bilateral vs. Unilateral Contracts

I don't understand why people on Slashdot insist upon arguing with a lawyer about the law. Do you challenge NBA basketball players to slam dunk contests as well?

Re:Other issues

[cpt kangarooski]

I think you're misunderstanding me.

Let us say that Alice makes a DVD encrypted with CSS. Bob makes a different DVD encrypted with CSS, and which is licensed under the GPL. Carol makes and distributes copies of DeCSS. And Dave wants to use Bob's work pursuant to the GPL.

Dave can circumvent CSS in order to decrypt Bob's DVD, per the GPL. He can arguably even make a tool (such as DeCSS) in order to do so, provided that he keeps it to himself. But Carol cannot make or distribute versions of DeCSS because Alice will sue her (and win). This means that if Dave is unable to make his own DeCSS, the fact that he is legally allowed to circumvent CSS is moot because he cannot do so as a practical matter.

Therefore, I suggest that the GPL state that works covered by the GPL may not be DRM'ed at all. This doesn't extend to all the works Bob has made or will make, which is where you seem to have gotten confused. Bob would be free to make one DVD with CSS which is not under the GPL, and free to make another DVD under the GPL, but without CSS.

Since it's not safe to assume that Dave will be able to meaningfully take advantage of his rights under the GPL, vis-a-vis DRM'ed works, I think the appropriate thing to do is to make sure that the GPL and DRM are exclusive of one another.

This also means that if Dave makes his own version of Bob's DVD, he could not add DRM to it (which might block Bob as well as other users).

Fundamentally, I think that allowing GPL'ed works to be DRM'ed is contrary to the goals of the GPL.

Re:Other issues

[cpt kangarooski]

And I'm saying that if you have GPL'ed DRM'ed software, then it might as well not be GPL'ed because people who use the same DRM and not the GPL will sue people who take advantage of their rights under the GPL.

It's better to avoid the problem and ensure that GPL'ed software is honestly free by not allowing it to be DRM'ed at all.

Re:Other issues

[cpt kangarooski]

Nah, it's basically an admission. I don't think it's dubious in that respect, since non-effectiveness will be treated as a fact from the get-go.

My concern is that I don't think this part of the GPL will actually work. I think it will backfire in that people can take GPL'ed software, apply DRM to it (or their modifications of it) and effectively prevent anyone from making future modifications to it despite the fact that it is GPL'ed.

We'd be better off!

[CyricZ]

We'd all be better off if Microsoft took even more code from open source projects. Why is that? Because it could very well increase the quality of their products.

How does that directly affect you, you may ask? Well, first of all it may reduce the number of Windows-based PCs that can be compromised, and used to send the spam that clogs up your mail servers or your inbox.

Second of all, it may lead to the adoptation of open source developed software and open standards. This allows for better interoperability between Windows and non-Windows systems. For those of us running massive heterogenous networks, anything that eases interaction between different systems is a blessing.

On the web services loophole

[bitspotter]

Interesting that in the rationale, they decided against taking action to close the web services/remote execution loophole.

It's doubly interesting that, while they made some changes to combat DRM, they said nothing at all about Trusted/Treacherous Computing, which is the foundational layer enabling most modern DRM.

I think that's good, because I believe you can use the latter to combat the former, just by leveraging existing terms in GPLv2, combined with the public's natural interest in retaining privacy.

Re:Other issues

[NutscrapeSucks]

I don't know if I see it that way. (hang on for typical /. car analogy) If the law says automobiles must have 5MPH bumpers, Ford can't just hand you a piece of paper that says "You agree that this is not an automobile". Either it is or it ain't, legally.

Better would have been "You agree to waive enforcement of your rights to use this software as an effective technological protection measure".

I do agree this does nothing against trusted-boot DRM systems, like Tivo, where the enforcement is entirely outside the GPL software.

Re:Other issues

[Bombcar]

"Please note that since source code will be available for any GPL "technological protection measure", it will be very much ineffective."

Not necessarily.

GNU Privacy Guard source is available but you'd have a hell of a time decrypting a message without the private key and passphrase. Truly usable DRM (i.e, the best of the evilest) would be perfectly save if the source is public. The keys would be the important thing. Then all you need is hardware that is Trusted(TM).

Re:Web services?

[mysidia]

It also potentially opens the door a little wider towarsd OSS license proliferation. At this rate: I fear there will ultimately be just as many OSS licenses as major OSS software projects.

Re:Other issues

[cpt kangarooski]

I don't know if I see it that way. (hang on for typical /. car analogy) If the law says automobiles must have 5MPH bumpers, Ford can't just hand you a piece of paper that says "You agree that this is not an automobile". Either it is or it ain't, legally.

It's a little different.

Parties in a suit can stipulate as to various facts. This means that they agree, and therefore the court doesn't have to look into that fact. For example, if you sell me a car, and I sue over some defect that causes me injury, we might stipulate that some parts of the car are not involved, or are in their original condition. The case would then be restricted to just those areas that we are in disagreement over.

This would work the same way. A copyright holder can't sue for circumvention unless they claim that there is an effective TPM. If they've already stipulated that there isn't, it shuts them down right there.

It's not really equivalent to your analogy, since there's no requirement that works are encumbered with DRM or that it is effective. It's not like a regulation for safety purposes or something where there is an interest in protecting customers from themselves (if they agreed that they wanted to buy an unsafe car).

In any event, I'm sticking by my guns in that I think that the GPL should be totally exclusive of DRM. They're not reconcilable, and frankly, the latter should be wiped out. There is not a middle ground or acceptable compromise, IMO.

GPL and linking

[mewphobia]

Does someone mind explaining to me the deal with GPL and linking? AFAIK, you can only link GPL'd programs to GPL'd programs.

But what is the inherent difference between linking and communicating with a program in another manner?

If my code communicates with a GPL program via tcp/ip, or via function calls the only logical difference i can see is speed?

Linking Issues

[Anonymous Coward]

When I write my program and my program is dynamically linked, I have no control over which libraries it will be linked against. If it links against a GPL'd library, do I have to make my program GPL? What if I developed it with a GPL'd library, but it can link against a corresponding proprietary library? How about if I linked against a proprietary library, the only copy of this library being my own, and everyone else links against a GPL'd library; does my application need to be GPL'd? Is it up to the user to check that none of his proprietary programs link against GPL'd libraries?