Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GPLv2 Libraries — Is There a Point?

Posted by kdawson on from the spirit-of-the-license dept.

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?"

8 of 585 comments (clear)

  1. GPL Fanatics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    I think the point is that there are a bunch of wankers who want to impose the GPL on everybody, knowing that linking your code against it will infect your codebase. There's nothing wrong with using LGPL which allows linking and protects the openness of the library's codebase.

    1. Re:GPL Fanatics by beelsebob · · Score: 0, Troll

      Well, that's entirely fair enough. He is quite within his rights to want this. What he shouldn't do is claim that it's open source, if it's really a "bring your own source".

    2. Re:GPL Fanatics by Daengbo · · Score: 1, Troll

      The question then becomes why aren't you using FreeBSD. (Hint: the answer is deeper than "It doesn't do what I want it to.)

      --
      Put identity in the browser.
    3. Re:GPL Fanatics by Eivind+Eklund · · Score: 0, Troll

      Sure sounds like freedom to me.

      It means when IBM incorporates JFS, or hires kernel-hackers, that those changes benefit every last linux user.

      Let me present you with an even freer license, which I've unfortunately had some problems with getting people to use software under: The sex-with-your-wife license. It means that whenever Joe Blow use the SWYWL-licensed software, *every last Linux user gets to have sex with Joe Blow's wife*! Sure sounds like freedom to me.

      This was written to illustrate two points: YOu're really taking away freedom, and whenever you change the license, you change the likelihood of people using that software. This happens with the GPL, too. And it means that by licensing under the GPL, you lose contributions from companies like Whistle (first Multilink PPP in *BSD, the Netgraph stack in FreeBSD), Justin Gibbs (the entire SCSI stack in FreeBSD and the Adaptec drivers), and Oracle (supplied manpower for the rewrite of the BSD VM system, delivering a system that beat Linux for a decade and a half until the FreeBSD VM maintainer decided to support with the VM redesign for Linux 2.6). And of course my own very modest contributions as part of making an appliance a decade ago.

      Because when we make proprietary stuff based on a free codebase, it makes sense to give a bunch of it back. When you deny us the ability to create proprietary derivates - we don't use your codebase, and we don't contribute to it. The extra code you get is the code that would have been written *anyway* (it has a large enough incremental value to be written for pure use value) but would have been kept proprietary for strategic advantage if it was written. That means that the strategic value must be higher than the combination of maintenance costs, morale boost for the employees, and community goodwill. Most code isn't - it's plumbing.

      And for this, you give up the ability to have people invest in software for special interests. You could, for instance, have a free application that perfectly well served the seeing - but needed substantial modification to work for the blind. A commercial developer could take on that risk, and then sell the end result (with the added value that it is usable for the blind) to the blind. This would add value for the developers, and it would add value for the blind. The developers wouldn't do this out of the charity of their heart if they couldn't earn money on it - it wouldn't be possible to invest as much time. So, by GPLing in this example, you're denying the developer the freedom to make a derivative - and you're denying the blind the freedom to actually have a usable app at all.

      So - you can argue for the GPL - but please keep to the truth: It is taking away freedom, significant freedom, to attempt different goals.

      --
      Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
    4. Re:GPL Fanatics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      You, sir, are a dogmatic idiot.

  2. What stops you? The FEAR OF GOD !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    He, disguised as a rotund portly beast by the name of Richard Milhouse Stallman, fights the never ending battle for truth, justice, and the commie way !!

  3. Re:The point is by bkhl · · Score: 0, Troll

    That would not be the effect of invalidating the GPL. The alternative to accepting the license is that you are not allowed to redistribute the product at all. Something you would know if you were familiar with this thing called "copyright".

    I too personally hope some countries will abolish copyright, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.

  4. Re:Step 2: lawyers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Shutup faggots