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?"

Comments

Step 1: see GPL

[seanadams.com]

The GPL is not explicit on this, it's just that linking is the established rule of thumb. Last I checked, the specifics of multiple processes vs linking are only mentioned in the FSF's FAQ, so it's only a guideline for interpretation.

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.

Re:GPL Fanatics

[msuarezalvarez]

There is nothing wrong with you not using my code if you do not like my conditions, either...

Re:The GPL Problem

[minsk]

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?

Re:GPL Fanatics

[Knuckles]

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?