Slashdot Mirror
GPLv2 Libraries — Is There a Point?
PiSkyHi writes "I understand that if I build an application that links with a library that is licensed under GPLv2, I must also make my application GPL2. I can see that value in this for an application. But for a library, what's to stop me separating my program into a GPLv2-compliant client app that talks to the rest of my (choose my own license) application?"
I think a reasonable test would be to ask: is my program still mostly useful even if the GPLd helper/plugin is removed (modulo the specific removed function)?. If so, then I think it could be argued that your program is NOT a derivative work and that the GPL helper is governed the same as, say, a GPLd user application bundled with a commercial Unix/OSX distro. Personally I don't think it should matter how exactly it communicates with your code - what makes launching a process any different from a function call here?
Conversely: artificially doing contortions with your software to move essential libraries out to a separate app is not only in bad faith, but it doesn't work around the license at all. And if you ever had to argue otherwise, anyone turning up your slashdot story would not probably work in your favor.
IMHO the GPL, even v3, needs some work to clarify this question and also to close the hole for the software-as-a-service industry to modify GPL code without reciprocating.
There is nothing wrong with you not using my code if you do not like my conditions, either...
I understand that if I build an application that links with a library that is licensed under GPLv2, I must also make my application GPL2
That is NOT correct.
The criteria is 'derivative work', not 'link to'. Linking is sometimes a rule of thumb in this area, but it isn't decisive.
Note that 'derivative work' is a legal term, not a technical one. So before you try to circumvent the GPL in this way, consult a lawyer.
Quite aside from the legal meaning of the GPL, you could always ask the authors what they intended. If they want to prevent proprietary applications from using the library, as promoted by , that should influence your decision.
IMO, if the internals of your application are dictated by a GPL'd library -- *regardless* of how that library is linked, integrated, called, or plugged in -- your application is a derivative work. To separate them, put the library aside. Do a proper design. Gather scenarios you need the plugin to support. Document them. Write a new API. Document it. Collect some alternative libraries. Verify that you were not unduly influenced by the GPL'd one.
Or, you know, GPL the application.
There is nothing wrong with you not using my code if you do not like my conditions, either...
So much for being open and free.
I tend to find myself in agreement with the OP. More and more it seems like the GPL is not a license designed to promote free and open source software but instead comes across as a "I'll scratch your back but then you are legally obligated to scratch mine" contract. I realize this probably stems from an irrational fear of proprietary software -- fear that F/OSS code will get eaten up and essentially stolen if there wasn't the backing of the GPL. That combined with the attitude of "for-profit companies shouldn't get something for nothing" isn't very endearing and it's no surprise Microsoft can sell the idea that "the GPL is a virus". The truth is that they really aren't hitting too far from the mark, except, perhaps, with respect to intent. I do think the GPL authors mean well and lack the malice that Microsoft seems to be suggesting exists.
It seems like anyone that really values and supports F/OSS would prefer LGPL or BSD style licenses. Allowing derivative works to remain closed source isn't a detriment to the open components and it really does look better to closed source companies. This should lead to more people adopting and using F/OSS, both open and otherwise. That's good, isn't it?
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
I've always found that position funny...
Some people share something freely, with the requirement that anyone building atop it does likewise. They're zealots.
Other people require you to agree to a contract before looking at their program. Disallow reverse engineering. Disallow redistribution. Disallow extension, enhancement, improvement, porting, circumvention. They're normal.
Dude, what?
'Free' is not a magic word that means something absolutely, there is no $DEITY-given dictionary which provides a canonical meaning for the word. Whether I call it 'free', 'open', 'shared', 'blue' or 'pretty' is completely irrelevant: what is relevant is what users and developers are allowed to do with the code and under what conditions.
This silly bickering about what kind 'free' is freer was boring already decades ago...
I realize this probably stems from an irrational fear of proprietary software -- fear that F/OSS code will get eaten up and essentially stolen if there wasn't the backing of the GPL.
What's irrational about that?
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
I don't really see what's wrong with that. Isn't the normal way economic transactions work in a market economy with copyright laws something like: if you want to use use a part of my copyrighted work in your own, you have to get a license from me, usually involving payment?
I see using the GPL as sticking with that as the default, but making a special exception that if you give blanket permission to the general public to use and distribute your own code, royalty-free, in both original and modified versions, then you may use my code royalty-free under the same terms. But if you want to stick to the normal copyright model, then I will also, and we can agree on terms in the usual manner.
Basically I don't see how someone who uses the normal approach to copyright licensing in their own products could possibly object to me asking them to negotiate a license in order to use my code as part of their product.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
The fact that it can't happen. If you BSD license project A, and company M takes it and makes closed source project B with it, project A is *still* available from your site for free and open. Your code has not been magically closed, the only thing that is closed is *their* code which they used to make their project different from yours.
If that's not very much, well, they've not got very much to sell then, have they.
The fact that it can't happen. If you BSD license project A, and company M takes it and makes closed source project B with it, project A is *still* available from your site for free and open. yada yada.
We've been through this a million times before. The company has now stolen the time of the guy who wrote the free code in the first place, or at least the guy may feel like that. It's also possible that they extended his file format or network protocol with proprietary parts, harming interoperability and the users of the free version by impeding the network effect.
Some developers care, some don't, some care or not depending on circumstance and goals of the software project. None of these positions is more irrational than the other.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
That's entirely fair enough then. I have nothing against people using the GPL because it's genuinely the model they want. I have something against people claiming to be open when doing so.
No it hasn't. That guy was kind enough to give it away in an open way. This is the *point* of open source software, to be generous, and let everyone benefit from your work.
The guy might quite reasonably want to restrict use to other people who want to share code for free. Like if I run a "bring a bottle" party I am not too upset if everyone brings something, even if some drink more than they bring. I would not like it if someone went round collecting the bottles and selling them at the local market though. If you don't want to come because "it's not really a free party then that's up to you - but don't complain about me making my own rules.
In theory, yes. In practice, however, it seems volunteers and companies contribute a lot more to GPL'ed projects than to BSD'ed ones, otherwise we'd be arguing for the "Year of FreeBSD on the Desktop" instead of Linux.
That's just because we've already seen the "Year of FreeBSD on the Desktop." It's called Mac OS X.
But seriously, you'll have to provide a citation with your assertion that companies contribute more to GPL'd projects than projects of other licenses. The only major GPL projects with corporate contributions that come to my mind immediately are Linux and MySQL. On the other hand, many, many non-GPL projects with corporate contributions immediately come to mind. All Apache projects, postgresql, ffmpeg, BSD, memcached, OpenOffice.org, QT, postfix, bind, all Mozilla software, webkit, need I go on?
The sad truth is, the actual value of the GPL is a lot less than everybody thinks. It doesn't protect code from suddently becoming non-free because 1) corporations can't do that anyway, and 2) companies that do use non-GPL code tend to give back their improvements anyway, even though they are not legally obligated to do so. They may do it to keep good karma amongst developers rather than a strong believe in Free software, but who cares? What then is the value of the GPL? I propose it has negative value, considering the incompatibilities it introduces (ZFS anyone?) and the needless complexity it brings, but of course that's just my opinion.
This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
"usually". Not always. My point is simply that the original author claimed it was "free from abuse by those who want to take and not give anything back". That's simply not true.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here