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.

Comments

Still I really dont like it.

[jellomizer]

Even after RTFA, I still feel that by choosing GPL I am giving up my freedoms as a developer. This type of freedom goes in one direction towards the end user (which is a good thing) but the developer gets screwed, by forcing his software to follow a strict set of rules. Incorporating GPL sections of GNU Code could put you in violation. In theory even if you do not plan to widely distribute your application you still need to follow the rules.
It is like a chef having to give up his secret recipe just because he used GPL Spices. At least with software patents I can normally buy the right to use the software the way I want to use it.

Re:Still I really dont like it.

[Secret Rabbit]

Damn straight! That's why I call the GPL the assholes license ie If you use my GPL'd library in your program, then you have to GPL you stuff as well. Sure, this gives some measure of assurence that the code can be fixed by a 3rd party and the "improvments" can be considered for inclusion in the main trunk, but the same is true for the other OSI approved licenses as well; the GPL is not special (see non-compliance below).

Hell, RMS brags about readline forcing open some software packages. So, what measure of assurence do I have if I use a GPL'd library, that if my stuff "can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then the GPL does not apply to it".

So, it basically screws developers that don't want to deal with this political baggage.

The whole problem with this political movement is that RMS has made it an "us v.s. them" thing. Sorry RMS, but a couple developers writing code in there free time, cannot compete with all those corps.

Another *very* large problem is that there is the mentality in the open-source arena that the GPL is the only license, among other non-sense. And the FSF is doing NOTHING about correcting it, b/c this mentality furthers its own political agenda.

So, we have a bunch of kids running around licensing there code under the GPL with it in there heads that the GPL is the /only/ license. Most of the rest have it in there heads that the GPL does what it can't possibly do, like force people to comply with the GPL.

A good example of non-compliance is the whole Sony (I believe it was Sony) thing awhile back. They used [L]GPL'd code in there software and didn't tell anyone. Sure they got caught, and that was held up and the poster child for how the GPL works. BUT, the problem is that if Sony got caught for this /one/ thing, how many times did they *not* get caught? How many other companies doing the same thing and not getting caught?

It is naive to thing that the GPL works when it clearly does not. Not to mention that if the corps in North America really wanted to effectively kill open-source, they could. All they'd have to do is lobby and grease the right pockets to get the "proper" laws in place.

Re:Still I really dont like it.

[minuszero]

You don't like it, don't use it.

Not to have any personal dig, as this appears (unfortunately) to be the prevalent opinion, but that is equally an incredibly arrogant and to me saddening point of view.

It is my understanding that some of the principles trying to be upheld by the free software movement is that of a community. A place that is friendly and helps out one another.

"Don't like it, don't use it" doesn't fall into this category at all, and i think it a shame that people use it so often. It's not nice and it's not helpful.

The whole point of open source, in my mind, is that it's there for others to use. If they feel they can't use it because of the license, then that seems to indicate the license is flawed. If the code is out there, and someone has been nice enough to release it then i shouldn't have to write my own all over again.
"they could just make their code open source too?" Well what if it's some commercial company with something they need to keep proprietary because of competitors? Not that that should matter, they should be allowed the choice anyway (some people call this thing 'choice', 'freedom').

Point is, one doesn't want anyone to take advantage of the open source code without giving back to it in some way. That would be unfair.

So perhaps we need a compromise.
If someone wants to use the code for free, then they have to release theirs for free as 'payment' - just as it is now.
But perhaps add another option: If someone wants to use the code, but not release theirs, then let their 'payment' be a small fee for it - just like proprietary licensing.
that sound fair to me, a bit nicer too, and I came up with it in 5 minutes...

It's like giving up the keys to your house

[bmongar]

      Using the GPL is evil, you forever give up your right to make money off of any code. It's like giving up the keys to your house, actually I think there is a clause that allows anyone to make copies of the keys to your house to use to come and go as they please.

It's amazing some of the things people beleive.

Re:The GPL is Viral, deflection not withstanding..

[rumblin'rabbit]

Ahh...I see. So you're referring to your practise of seeking out people with colds, deliberately coming into close contact with them, and then complaining when you have a cold too?

No one's complaining about anything, moron. I'm not making any judgement here at all about what is or is not proper behaviour. I'm simply saying that referring to the GPL as "viral" is not a bad analogy.

Go pick a fight with someone who actually might disagree with you. And quit being a prick.

This does't sound like freedom to me...

[pulse2600]

Taken from "Why you shouldn't use the Library GPL" - Later renamed, "Lesser GPL" (boy, if that doesn't sound like some real icky propoganda), written by RMS:

"If we amass a collection of powerful GPL-covered libraries that have no parallel available to proprietary software, they will provide a range of useful modules to serve as building blocks in new free programs. This will be a significant advantage for further free software development, and some projects will decide to make software free in order to use these libraries. University projects can easily be influenced; nowadays, as companies begin to consider making software free, even some commercial projects can be influenced in this way.

Proprietary software developers, seeking to deny the free competition an important advantage, will try to convince authors not to contribute libraries to the GPL-covered collection. For example, they may appeal to the ego, promising "more users for this library" if we let them use the code in proprietary software products. Popularity is tempting, and it is easy for a library developer to rationalize the idea that boosting the popularity of that one library is what the community needs above all.

But we should not listen to these temptations, because we can achieve much more if we stand together. We free software developers should support one another. By releasing libraries that are limited to free software only, we can help each other's free software packages outdo the proprietary alternatives. The whole free software movement will have more popularity, because free software as a whole will stack up better against the competition."

I can't believe developers out there follow this crap. It's worse than fundie religions. Limiting libraries to "free software only" is just that - limiting. It limits the potential of free software. It potentially limits my choice of software to "free" or "non-free". I'll tell you what gives me freedom - when I see "free" software ported for use on my "non-free" OS, linked to whatever it requires in the OS to work. I'd like to use Linux as my primary OS, not just for "free" software, but I can't because of shit like this. The quoted statements are only one example of the attitudes in the "free" software community that restrict it from being so much more widely used and accepted. I would totally abandon my "non-free" OS if the developer(s) of my one or two "non-free" apps could do what "free" software developers are able to do with the "non-free" OS. Having the best of both worlds is freedom.

The response "Let the commercial non-GPL vendors release their code or purchase the rights to the free code under a separate license agreement." is not valid. If Microsoft wanted to purchase a license to use someone's GPL'd code in their closed source, would they be successful, or would they hit the brick wall of "Viva La Stallman! Viva la revolution!!!"? Or maybe MS would have to pay 2 billion dollars while someone else gets the right to use it for free. In other circles, this would constitute unfair, anti-competetive practices. Gee, what does that sound like?