Slashdot Mirror
Misconceptions About the GPL
lisah writes "Misconceptions about the widely used GNU General Public License (GPL) continue to plague the free software user community and, according to the ITManagersJournal, 'the confusion is frequently based on misreadings, rumors, secondhand accounts, and what is convenient to believe.' In order to clarify some of the more common misunderstandings about the GPL, Bruce Byfield consulted with three experts: attorney Richard Fontana, one of the main drafters of the third version of the license; Harald Welte of the GPL-Violations project; and David Turner who is assisting with revisions of the license. Together, they help clarify the distributor's role in providing source code to customers, whether GPL is viral or unenforceable, and why some misunderstandings are really rooted in varied interpretations of the law." ITMJ and Slashdot are both owned by OSTG.
11. The GPL relies on copyright.
It'd be more accurate to say that GPL hacks copyright--if the GPL is unenforceable, then so is copyright. But without the existence of copyright, there would be no need for the GPL.
Actually it doesnt go towards the end user. The GPL is totally irrelevant to the end user. Now it does matter to other developers, but in all honesty the actual user of a project could give a damn. The GPL is not a EULA, because it has no relevancy to the user of the program, but rather dictates what people that want to involve themselves in other activities such as redestribution.
A chef having to give away his recipe because he used GPL spices...worst analogy ever. Reverse it and it would be correct because a developer is not going to take a small amount of gpl code and use that, they are gonna add their small amount of code to a largely GPL base. (well atleast 99% of the developers out there).
How does the GPL force a developer that chooses it as a license to do anything. They made a decision to use it because they like it as a license, they arent forced into using anything. The people that bitch about the GPL are developers that already decided against it, and because they dont use they somehow think it is an "unfair" license (to whom i dont know since they have already chosen not to use it)
I think developers need to get this concept in their head...just because the source is available, doesnt mean you have to use it, and doesnt mean you have the right to use it either. You simply have the option to use it.
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
Yes, Freedom stops when you start calling it a license. Anything that has restrictions or clauses by definition should not be called free. Other than that GPL has some good points, but it craps me off when people (with good intensions) call it free. A free license is NO license!
How the hell does it screw developers? There's nothing forcing you to use the GPL license on your own code unless you're including someone else's GPLed code in it. In that case, you're getting presumably good software for free, with only that one condition. If you don't like it, find some other code to use.
I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
It is like a chef having to give up his secret recipe just because he used GPL Spices.
The solution is simple then - the Chef can either use different spices, or make his own.
You don't like it, don't use it. Nobody is forcing you to incorporate GPL'ed code in your project, and nobody is forcing you to use the GPL for original works.
In this case it could be easier for me to buy a licence of program W which handles Z good enough and keep my program closed source, or non GNU
Then just do that. No one forces people to use the GPL. Unless you want to reap the benefits of other people's previous work. In that case then you have to follow the licensing terms, just as with any other license.
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
I like it. It reminds me that I have more rights regarding distribution of the software. The GPL as a click-through text doesn't limit me in any way, so there's no harm in accepting it. It only applies when the user becomes a distributor, and showing the license may help users realize that they can become a distributor.
I find it amusing how the article attempts to claim the GPL isn't viral, using the following arguments:
* Microsoft may have first called it that (therefore it must be false.)
* The GPL doesn't infect other software on the same computer. (DUH?)
If I use any GPL code in my application, even one line, I have to release my application under the GPL license. Throw all the pointless qualifications you want around it, like only if I release the application to the public, and I can still release it under other licenses, and all the related conditions that likely apply to 1% of real world cases.
As a developer, I believe that developers have a right to make a living from their code. I also know that so few people donate for free software that most developers who rely on donations have to do something else to pay the bills. At the same time, I like to release 95% of my work as open source, so other developers can use it, some of which may also be trying to make a living as a developer. The Apache, BSD, even LGPL licenses handle that just fine.
Trying to spin the GPL as non-viral is foolish - the free software community should at least be honest about their agenda. I'm not saying its a bad agenda, it just happens to be incompatible with mine.
If you are developing your code from scratch, you are free to other versions of it under whatever license you see fit -- the GPL is a non-exclusive license, so you are free to license your creative work in other ways at the same time.
If you are trying to use someone else's GPLed code, track down that person and try to get a non-GPL license from them. Is that so hard? It's exactly what you'd have to do to get access to someone else's proprietary code, except that you get to preview the source.
If the author want to license his code to you in a non-GPL way, well, it's his creative work -- he can do what he wants. Start from scratch or find another vendor.
Or, duh, you could fork the project and release a version that didn't have the clickthrough.
That is stupid.
:)
Unrestricted freedom includes not having freedom in itself, by definition it is a paradox. The GPL excludes this paradox, making it free. It is a restriction on freedom disallowing freedom to be restricted, which basically gives/promotes freedom, not restricts it.
Easy, isn't it?
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Yeah, this is exactly the nonsense that stupid PHBs worry about. They think that if they use Linux in their organization, say, as an Apache web server to serve up static "about us" web pages, they have to give the rights to their own proprietary software, which has nothing to do with Linux, to the community. I just don't "get" where the heck people come up with this nonsense.
They're business types. They're looking frantically, trying to find out where the scam comes in; where the dirty tricks are hidden; what the hidden catch is. That's what they are. That's what they do.
These guys are the types who live by the Poker Mantra: "If you're sitting at a table, and you can't tell who the sucker is, get up. You're the sucker."
They can't figure out the GPL; they don't see who the sucker is, and so they walk away. Remember, their culture is all about profiting at someone else's expense; giving someone something for nothing, without planning to screw them over somehow later, isn't something they would do, so they assume no one else will, either.
Doesn't the "No Warranty" section apply to the user of the software, in addition to the distributor? Having the user acknowledge that they understand there is no warranty for the software is useful and desirable.
That != freedom. Not for the users (can't have this or that bundled), not for the developers (can't use modified GPL code without complications), and not for the software itself (can't be part of something it may want to be).
If I'm ever going to release any open-source software, it'll be either in public domain or, if I'm too greedy, BSD.
The OP is is saying exactly that the GPL does not line up with this set of goals. If I'm trying to make a *tool* that will always be available, then I will use the LGPL because that *tool* will always be available and usable.
By a developer making his libraries "free" only under the GPL (and not a more free license like the MIT/BSD or even LGPL), then he's forcing anyone that wants to use this shiny tool to also make their software free under the same restrictions. That is why the GPL is "viral" -- not because it "infects" any software that it is stored next to -- but rather because GPL code is useless unless you're working on other GPL'd code.
Sometimes the GPL feels about as enjoyable as enforced communism to me.
I just don't feel very "free" when working under the GPL (and I have contributed to several GPL projects). It's just that something more along the lines of the LGPL would be my license of choice when creating a tool that I want to be available and free and useful to others for many years to come.
If anything that I've said is a myth, then please debunk it -- I would genuinely appreciate it.
--clint
Mainly from RMS's GPL v3, which turns distributing data via the internet into having to give up the programs you used to create it, which you have written by yourself.
Global warming is a cube.
It would be nice if the FSF actually noticed trends that damage people's understanding of the GPL and did something about them. For example, many programs place the GPL in the role of a click-through license. This makes no sense whatsoever, and leads people to think that the GPL is a EULA and that it applies to *users* of GPL'd sofware. On top of that, it lends credence to the notion that click-through licenses are worth something.
Another example is MySQL. They don't understand the GPL, in fact it seems to be a willful misunderstanding. They claim that any application utilizing MySQL as its SQL database is combining the two applications into a new program and thus either a) becomes subject to the GPL or b) must purchase a commercial license from MySQL. Gee, what could make them want to interpret it that way? Yet while MySQL is flaunting this definition all over the place, the FSF has done nothing to correct them.
Don't the "tools needed to make the source code useful" include a compiler? And you'd probably need an operating system to run that, perhaps some sort of kernel. Does a distributor of a GPLed program need to be prepared to set up a development environment to make the source code useful for "any third party"?
This may seem like a purposely obtuse interpretation, but as someone with very little knowledge of the GPL, I'm given pause the experts say under the GPL it's not enough to prove source code, but to "make the source code useful to anyone." I'd be very reluctant make my company subject to anyone's concept of utility.
Actually, one line might be considered fair-use excerpting...
Seriously, if you don't want to GPL your application, just don't use any GPL code in it. Why is that so hard? Nobody whines about not being able to incorporate pieces of Microsoft Office into their code. The only difference is that you gan ogle the beautiful source code of GPL applications, so that it's more of a temptation.
You're not going to lose the rights to your software if you invoke GPL code with it. You're not going to lose the rights to your software if you use GPL code to make it (e.g. gcc and emacs don't tarnish your C code). You're only going to have to GPL your code if you actually incorporate someone else's work into it.
This is a great statement. I would like to see the liberals here on /. use it and apply it to politics and this country. If you don't like this country and/or the laws and president, then don't live here. Nobody is making you live here. That's a great attitude. You have an option in everything in life. In fact, why does everyone here hate Microsoft? If you don't like it, DON'T USE IT. Wow, this can apply to a whole lot of things I see people whining about here on /. Let's practice what we preach, but I know there's know way /. ers will ever actually apply what they say to what they don't like.
To combine two previous posts: This is not the normal case. The normal case is that you want to take a GPLed program, and change one line, or a hundred, but most of the program is the GPLed original. It's 99% theirs, not 99% yours. And that, in all such situations, robs your argument of it's moral force.
But what if it's really as you say? You've got your program, and you want to add one GPLed line? Yeah, you're right, it's going to make you GPL the whole thing. (Yes, I just admitted that your point was correct.) But so what? As someone else already posted (in reply to the chef using the GPL spices in his/her recipe), if you don't like the terms, don't use the code. You wrote the whole program yourself, but you can't rewrite that one line that you have to copy from GPLed code? Right. Sure. Either you are capable of rewriting the line (in which case, do it and stop being lazy), or you didn't write the of the program (in which case the situation as presented is just an academic exercise rather than a realistic scenario).
At a previous job, we had a huge code base - literally a million lines. We wanted to use GPG to check the signatures of some software that we were supplying over the internet to our installed base (didn't want them running something that didn't really come from us). But we didn't want to GPL all million lines of ours. No problem - we ran GPG as a separate executable, invoking it with a system() call and checking the return code (IIRC). Of course, this meant that we had to make the code for GPG available, but that wasn't a big deal. This is one way to handle the "adding a little GPL" scenario in the real world.
The GPL is effectively a poison-pill license, not a viral license. It's saying that you can only write GPL code using a GPL base; a "viral" license would force the GPL on other code.
For example, people use Apache code modules to support GPL projects and products. If the GPL were viral, the Apache code would have to be redistributed under GPL. The GPL is a poison-pill in that you couldn't take that GPL code and merge it in to the Apache code base; only the original author or their legal representative could submit that code under an Apache license.
Of course if my understanding is wrong, then every web application out there running on Apache or using Apache libraries needs to rip out all GPL code or rip out all Apache code. Never mind all the other relevant licenses like Mozilla or BSD.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
The biggest problem I've seen with GPL is that static linking your (completely NON GPL) code with a GPL library seems to make the entire program subject to the GPL. While dynamic linking to DLL's doesn't. This has always been the biggest sticking point with using libraries under full GPL (not LGPL) as part of a piece of software. I've had to avoid using many useful GPL libraries simply because the platform I'm on required static linking.
If they would straighten this out in the license I think GPL software and GPL licenses would see a LOT more use. Having a distinction between static and dynamic linking (particularly given all the different ways you can link code these days) makes usage rules much more confusing. A non GPL program shouldn't be subject to GPL unless it's source code actually contains stuff copied from GPL sources. Simply static linking with a GPL library shouldn't make you GPL too.
This is really the only objection I have to GPL, all the other terms don't bother me at all.
Milo from Kangaroo Koncepts
Your answer is way too simplistic and doesn't address the issue at all. It works great if you live in one world (OSS) or the other. This comes from what is appears to be the common belief that ALL software should be OSS. As long as you believe that to be the case, your answer seems appropriate because you have decided to live in only one world.
The perspective of those of us in the Free Software community is that all software should be Free Software.
Unfortunately -- that is not very reflective of reality. That approach keeps people away from OSS because it's effectively an ALL OR NONE proposition for them. They either buy into the idea that everything should be OSS, or they stay away.
It may keep some small number of developers away, but if they're only interested in using our code against us, I don't see how this is harmful.
I avoid engaging in any OSS projects for that very reason. If you want to the benefits of others works, there is a cost associated with it. GPL just makes that cost your software where Proprietary Software usually has some fixed cost associated with it (ie the cost of the software). GPL is definitely not free.
If by free, you mean lawlessness, then you're correct. As a society, we live with rules. The GPL says "If you want to work with us, here are the rules you have to follow.". Proprietary software also has rules, rules like "You must pay us money." and "You must sign this non-disclosure agreement about what you see." and "You must sign this non-compete clause."
I still believe that GPL is viral in nature because there is no proportionality associated with it. If you apply a small set of code to an existing open program, I can understand the requirement to keep it open. But if I were to take a program the size of OpenOffice and use a couple interesting chunks of code, I'm technically in the same situation. So whether the GPL code contributes
This gets back to the original point, which is that the GPL is designed to help create a library of Free code that can be used by any Free Software developer. You're saying "I can't steal just a little bit." and indeed, you're right, you can't, by design. You also can't mix that proprietary code into Free code.
I know the immediate response to that is "then don't use it, you have a choice" -- which is what I do, but it doesn't change viral nature. Version 3 of the license doesn't seem to address this issue and it is one of the big reasons why anyone thinking of using any GPL code needs to think about it carefully because it remains an ALL or NONE proposition. To me, that's what makes it viral in nature.
Fiften, or even ten years ago, people with that perspective may have been able to be convincing, and they argued for the BSD license. There are plenty of people in the BSD community would agree with you, and find that the GPL is too restrictive for them. If that's what they, and you, believe, then you have all the rights to go ahead and use what you feel is a more appropriate license for your work. But since then, in the ~20 years of the GPL, there is now far more code available under it than under the BSD license, including code from buisnesses.
I think a major reason for that is the exact reason that you've pointed out as a "viral" quality- that is that with the GPL, no one can get a leg up on the original developer. It's "Come and join us." or "Sorry, we can't help you.". If Sun had a license which allowed you to as you wanted with OpenOffice.Org, then they'd be at a disadvantage against you.
It's a shame that you don't use our work and contribute to the community, but that's your choice.
I have never liked the term viral applied to the GPL, not because I want to hide the fact that you have to license your modifications under the GPL, but because it was deliberately chosen for its negative connotations, and isn't really an accurate description of how the GPL works anyway.
The main criterion for something being viral is that it is self-propagating. It goes and injects itself into your body (or computer, or software) without permission. The GPL doesn't do this. You choose to use the GPL in exchange for putting your code under the GPL, or you choose not too.
Secondly, viruses are almost always regarded as a negative thing. Not only does it sneak in behind your back, but it makes you sick, slows down your computer, brings networks to their knees and sends your personal information out to shady people. Neither I nor thousands of other free software developers consider releasing software under the GPL to be harmful to us.
People have been burned by writing large pieces of software that used GPLed code in it, without understanding what their obligations under the GPL were until they had already made a significant investment into using it. It is a shame that those misconceptions occur, but it wasn't because the GPL tricked them into it. The FSF and other free software developers don't want to dupe their users into doing something that they don't want. We want them to make informed decisions about how they use their code.
The use of the word viral to describe the GPL feeds off of misunderstandings to create the appearance of malice where it doesn't exist, and that is why it shouldn't be used.
In every instance I've been involved with in the past 20 years or so of professional programming, this statement is 100% wrong-- at least from the commercial angle. We've gernerally got an application that is filling a particular need and we're looking to add functionality to the already 100's of thousands to millions of lines of code we've already written. The first thing we do is look and see if anyone has already solved the problem, and if so if we can use it; if we find something and it's GPLed, we can't use it. Adding an extra 10,000 lines of GPL code written last year to our legacy system in use for the past 10 years and now suddenly our legacy app is a derivitave work of the GPL code is out of the question. Which means that we end up either looking for (or buying) an alternative if we can't work out a deal with the original copyright holders (which so far has been nigh on impossible-- we've gotten exactly one license from a GPL project that we needed to use). If that fails, we end up writing our own code, which now is by default non-free.
While I'm not disputing the quantity of GPLed software out there, I know that many of these projects are giving up help just because of the license. As an example, in one case we had determined that we'd need to allocate at least 3 people to implement a particular feature that a specific GPL project already had (mostly) working. I contacted the project "leader" and tried to negotiate a different license for the use of their project that involved a cash payment and allocation of a full time employee for a year to help bring it up to spec. We were unable to come to terms not because of any desire on their part not to, but because they used code that was also GPLed. No one was ever able to locate every one of the copyright holders to get permission and so it never went anywhere.
Don't take the above as a gripe-- whatever license you want to use is fine by me-- if I can use it I will, if not I won't, no skin off my nose either way; I'm sure I'll be able to get my job done with your product, your competitor's project, or I'll become your competitor if I need to.
rob.
... is that the GPL is pro copyright because it's a license. Wrong! The success of the GPL is the ultimate proof that all those arguments like ... "copyrights are pro creator, pro business, an incentive, protection, pro commecial..." ... are lies, frauds, and scams. Copyrights like any coerced monopoly or any personal "right to sue" for market share will slow business, hurt individuals, are predatory rather than protectional, and are a disincentive to creation and productive behavior. The GPL basically fought fire with fire. The greatest victory of the GPL is that it broke the software industry copyright cartel and is forcing them to compete off of merits and service rather than off of threats and control.
It may keep some small number of developers away, but if they're only interested in using our code against us, I don't see how this is harmful.
This gets back to the original point, which is that the GPL is designed to help create a library of Free code that can be used by any Free Software developer. You're saying "I can't steal just a little bit." and indeed, you're right, you can't, by design. You also can't mix that proprietary code into Free code.
I resent the notion that I'm simply trying to "steal just a little bit". My point, which you obviously missed, remains that you either have to subscribe to it 100% to participate in any way.
If I take a piece of code, make it better, return that change to the OSS community, I still can't use it in my software without make it GPL as well. So now that leaves ME at a disadvantage because there is no proportionality to the give and take. Because of that, I just avoid that game all together. At least the LGPL offers a more reasonable solution, in that sense. Sadly, it has the stigma of GPL with it. This ALL or NONE of GPL makes it more cult-like than many are comfortable with.
The fact that the "myths" are trying to be discounted shows that the GPL community wants to go mainstream, but like a certain political party, it feels that the idea of bringing the two groups together is for the other side to simply join them where they stand.
The reason "viral" is inappropriate and doesn't make sense, is that all other uses of the word "viral" in the history of the word, mean something completely different. A virus infects other, unrelated things.
This new, radical concept of "viral" invented by Microsoft, is talking about infecting a derived work. Well, guess what: if you make a derived work of almost any of Microsoft's products (such as, say, Microsoft Windows itself), your derived work is going to be even more restricted. In fact, it's probably flat out unauthorized and could get you sued.
Yet MS Windows doesn't get tagged as "viral" even though its license is infinitely more restrictive. Did the same person who called GPL "viral" call his own product "superviral to the point of lethal?" No. Did he say, "it's viral, but less viral than 99.9% of the software out there?" No. It's pretty damn obvious that the word is intended to be merely pejorative without being an enlightening or accurate analogy. If GPLed software is less "viral" than 99.9% of the software out there, then applying the word as though it were somehow distinctive and unusual, isn't intellectually honest.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
using GCC for your own commercial apps is impossible then, because you have to include libraries and headers, which are GPL'd.
Though I'm sure it will shock you, you are not, in fact, the first person to have considered this issue. The FSF has thought carefully about it and addressed it.
The copy of the GPL included with gcc includes the following notice with respect to the gcc runtime library and several others (with slight, and appropriate, variations):
thus this instantly "infects" your code, forcing you to make it GPL'd as well. as soon as you "include strings.h" or io.h or whatever, bingo. or if you use one of the libraries (glibc comes to mind)... oopsy!
Actually, those headers you mention are part of glibc, not part of gcc, and all of glibc is distributed under the LGPL license, which does not require the resulting derived work to fall under the GPL or the LGPL.
ok, so I write a commercial app with 10 million lines of code, and I happen to use a little 100 line GPL static library - then all my work is suddenly derivative?
Yes, it is, but that has nothing to do with the GPL. Copyright law says that if your work incorporates another copyrighted work, the result is a derivative work, and it doesn't say anything about the relative sizes of the two pieces. If the library you use is under a license that grants you permission to use it, then you're fine. If it doesn't (e.g. it's proprietary), you absolutely can't use it. If the license grants you permission but only under certain conditions, then you're fine as long as you meet the conditions. In the case of the GPL, that means your app has to be distributed under a GPL-compatible license. In the case of the LGPL, you just have to distribute source to the library.
Realistically, though, if you wrote a 10 million-line program you should be perfectly capable of writing your own version of the 100-line library and avoiding the issue entirely. If that 100-line library is so hard to write that you can't create your own, well, you need to re-evaluate the value of that library, regardless of its small size, because it's apparently a bigger chunk of work than you're giving it credit for.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.