Bruce Perens On Combining GPL and Proprietary Software

jammag writes "Combining GPL and proprietary software is ever more common, especially in the world of embedded devices like cell phones. But the question is: how to combine them legally. As sticky as the issue is, there is an answer, as self titled "open source strategic consultant" Bruce Perens explains. The proper procedure entails fully understanding what type of open source software you're using, and knowing why you need to combine these disparate licenses. The problem, he notes, is that many companies don't know or care about doing this legally. 'They're used to just "clicking yes" with no regard to what they're committing themselves and their company to.' Hopefully Perens' guide can be read by more company execs — resulting in fewer lawsuits going forward (but we're not holding our breath)." update 21:31 GMT by SM: Bruce wrote in to make sure we knew he was not a lawyer, even though he is weighing in on a legal issue; updated to reflect.

Comments

Hi

[Bruce Perens]

I'm here at my desk, if anyone has questions :-)

Bruce

Re:Hi

[Bruce Perens]

Any comments about the applicability of the LGPL? It used to be very popular in embedded systems.

LGPL, especially the current LGPL3, is a good license to use when you want people to combine your work with proprietary software, and software with incompatible licenses in general. Sometimes you don't want this. My latest (unannounced) product is dual-licensed, so I need a "modifications must be free software" license like GPL or GPL3, so that the proprietary folks have an incentive to buy a commercial license. That way, I get to provide Free Software to folks who want to make Free Software with it, and commercial license fees from the folks who don't want to make Free Software pay for me to do it.

Bruce

Re:Hi

[Greyfox]

Early on a lot of us were quite happy posting as Anonymous Cowards and only made user IDs so we could filter Jon "Columbine" Katz out. If Bruce's snapping point was after the second or third story and mine was only after that fucker managed to draw a parallel between a video game and the tragedy at Columbine, it would explain both why his user ID is so high and why mine is that much higher.

Eventually Jon Katz stories were found to be against the Geneva Convention, which is why there is no longer an option to filter him out. It's actually illegal to post a Jon Katz story now. They were going to use them at Gitmo for a while, but Dick decided that was a little too evil. They went with shocking guys' junk with jumper cables instead.

Re:Hi

[Bruce Perens]

No problem. But let me explain what I think the real situation is when you link BSD and GPL stuff together. Say you do so. You then continue to accept BSD-licensed modifications to your program, and operate in general as a BSD-licensed project. So that you can grant to others all of the rights that they expect from BSD-licensed software, including the right to link in software under GPL-incompatible licenses, you put a note somewhere that developers will notice. The note says "IF YOU ADD SOFTWARE UNDER A LICENSE THAT IS NOT GPL-COMPATIBLE, YOU MUST REMOVE LIBREADLINE."

This, IMO, is not a big deal for a BSD project. You can't combine GPL software with just anything, and this has not changed because the GPL software was linked with some BSD software.

The situation is different if the GPL software is a critical part of the program that can't be removed easily. But that is not libreadline. And I would not expect a BSD project to put GPL software in that role.

If you want to talk about one-sided situations, I'd point first at the situation in which proprietary software developers use BSD code without giving anything back. The GPL is intended to prevent just this sort of situation.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:Tried and failed

[Bruce Perens]

The FSF were the wrong folks to do this with, because they do not want to help you make proprietary software. I will help you make both Free and Proprietary if you wish, and I'll make sure they don't get mixed in a harmful way. I charge for the service - I've got to make a living. You also need an attorney, if you don't yet have one. Part of the time I'd be working with your attorney, and part with you.

Bruce

Re:IANAL

[Bruce Perens]

Does anyone know why we always give those "IANAL" disclaimers?

In the United States, it is not legal for anyone but an attorney whom you have retained, and who is admitted to the applicable Bar Association, to give you legal advice. Thus, people like me make clear that they are not attorneys, and that our advice, although it concerns the law, is something less than legal advice. It's your responsibility to check it out with your lawyer. I would be happy to talk with your lawyer, too.

Bruce

Re:GPLSoftware in Consumer Products

[Bruce Perens]

JMRI's web site has the findings in the JMRI case. Very educational reading. Groklaw has a lot of this stuff for relevant cases.

Bruce

Re:The silly multi-processor workaround

[afidel]

15.204(b) - A transmission system consisting of an intentional radiator, an external radio frequency power amplifier, and an antenna, may be authorized, marketed and used under this part. However, when a transmission system is authorized as a system, it must always be marketed as a complete system and must always be used in the configuration in which it was authorized. An external radio frequency power amplifier shall be marketed only in the system configuration with which the amplifier is authorized and shall not be marketed as a separate product.

This part has been interpreted by the lawyers as including the software of the system since it includes things like the ability to boost the power on the internal amp beyond the tested and certified configuration in most cases. I believe ETSI has similar language.