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.
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?
Umm... nothing?
If you're writing your application from scratch without using anybody else's libraries, you're free to release it under whatever license you like, even if it happens to talk to a GPL'd client plugin thingie, and even if you wrote that GPL'd client plugin thingie around somebody else's GPL'd library.
Why do you imagine that somehow there's a problem here?
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
The point is that enhancements to the library stay LGPL. I did this myself. I needed to modify LGPL libraries for the purposes of my application. I modified the libraries, and I am redistributing them under the LGPL. My main application is distributed under BSD license, and uses the LGPL libraries. The libraries make perfect sense separately (and in fact, I have people using them for reasons unrelated to the application I built). I think that, out of courtesy, and probably out of need, you need to make sure that the libraries are available separately.
This is exactly why the LGPL was created. Or sometimes you will have a GPL lib with the linking or classpath exception. You will find most libs are licensed under these, or even more permissive terms.
Therefore, if the lib in question is explicitly licensed under normal GPL, it's the author's wish that any apps that use it must be GPL compatible. I think it's only fair to follow the author's wish.
Doesn't the license basically stipulate that you must release your code under the terms of the license? That doesn't necessarily mean you have license your code as GPL.
This is actually a common FUD discussion that occurs between developers who use MIT/BSD license for their code, and are afraid to link to GPL libraries because it might force them to release their code as GPL. I'm pretty certain that as long as their code is available under the same terms as GPL code, they can license their code however they wish otherwise. It just means if a GPL nut comes a knockin', they'll have to provide the code as if it was GPL'd.
Correct me if I'm wrong (and I often am).
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.
You can't make a linked wrapper library since the GPL wrapper would be GPL too. See: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#GPLWrapper However it sounds like you are talking about a service based wrapper. Then I'd say it depends on how integrated your service wrapper is with your main program. If you use separate processes but lots of IPC and shared memory then I'd think you app is to tightly integrated making it a derived work. If you make a network based service then I'd say you are legally clear even if you'll probably piss off the library author. See: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#NFUseGPLPlugins You could also make your app GPL but put a lot of the functionality in non-free plugs, see: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs Of course you could also just release you app as GPL and not worry about it. What is stopping you from using the GPL?
My Hello World is 512 bytes. But it's also a valid Fat12 boot sector, Fat12 file reader, and Pmode routine.
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
RMS and others, (The community) possibly are there to stop you.
Probably some people have some creative interpretations of what it means to link against a GPL library, also. To call such things at least a gray area if not outright violations.
If/when they find out, they might point to your software as an example of bad practice, or put you in the "GPL Violations hall of shame", or some such.
This is especially interesting with respect to scripting languages... If I write a PHP script that utilizes mysql_* function calls of PHP, which can only be invoked when PHP has been linked against the Mysql Client library....
Is my PHP script essentially linked against the GPL'ed mysqlclient library, and therefore, (if I distribute my PHP script commercially without source) a GPL violation?
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
You are correct. The answer is no. If the LGPLed library dynamically calls the GPLed library, then it is the FSF's position that the LGPLed library is a derivative of the GPLed library, and thus the work as a whole may only be distributed under the GPL. Please see this section of the FAQ:http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLWrapper.
For your specific requirements, I'd advise touching base with them - they have an advice service for these types of questions.
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.
This reminds me of our experience with mysql.. they changed the license of their drivers (the jdbc driver, in this instance) to GPL from LGPL a while ago, and also affirmed a legal position (at least in their marketing materials) that using the now GPL library would require any application dynamically linking/loading it to also be GPL, with the exception of being able to buy licenses to a separate non-GPL'd commercial instantiation of the library. (They also conveniently hired the guy who had been maintaining the previously freely useable LGPL version).
.war archive that was trivial to install (just copy it into tomcat/webapps or whatever (well, and run the database creation script to set up the tables for it) and it was good to go. After the license change he was unable to distribute a fully packaged pre-working .war file with the necessary drivers for client databases. (Oracle was propriatary, but free to distribute).. he had to write a specialized install script that the customer could use to unpack the .war, install the mysql jdbc driver, and repackage it, where the script required the client to affirm that they were using a legally licensed non-GPL version of the jdbc driver from mysql to be able to install/link it. This took the liability off of him ...The liability for having the temerity to want to talk with a basic software infrastructure service (such as a sql server), without GPL'ing his little niche app.
In theory, of course, someone else could re-invent the wheel and create another fully LGPL JDBC driver for mysql.. (I was ever-so-mildly tempted to do start work on that myself, out of spite and irritation, but didn't have the time).
Needless to say, after talking to the lawyer we had to switch our entire infrastructure over to postgresql. On the bright side, I found that I rather preferred postgres as a more comprehensive and functional sql anyway. (No more having to do manual tricks for multi-merges, etc). Still, it seemed like very bad faith to switch the license like that right out from under people who had already been using it, all in the hopes of further monetizing mysql. (Yes, the earlier license applied to the old versions of the driver... which happened not to work properly with newer versions of mysql).
I once talked to someone else else who makes a a bit of money on the side selling some piece of booking software. Unfortunately for him, almost half his clients were deploying his software in mysql shops. His software was a drop-in
I'm all for the GPL. I love it! I've used it myself in a few things I've developed. I love all the good it's brought, etc, the idea of openness, a publishing and peer-reviewed manner of developing code, all that.
But I still find it very obnoxious to make a piece of library glue GPL. That's exactly what the LGPL is there for. Logically, it's not a derivative work of mysql if you use it for processing sql transactions (making no modifications or redistributions of it of any kind) any more than a file you create in the gimp is a derivative work of the gimp.
---
the pen is mightier than the sword, the sword is mightier than the court, the court is mightier than the pen.
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.
What he was saying is that Linux is working now because of the GPL during its development.
Of course most end users don't give a rat's ass about the GPL, but it is this GPL which allowed one modification made to Linux to be used anywhere. Without it, we would have an IBM Linux, a Red Hat Linux, etc. In this case, why not stick to Unix ?
The GPL does not guarantee that someone has to give you anything back. In fact, there is no reciprocation requirement at all.
I can, for example, take your GPL'd work, make some changes, then sell it to my customer. I am required, by the rules of the GPL, to give my customer the source, and they are allowed to do whatever they want, including give it to others, but if they paid $1,000,000 for it, chances are they're not going to do that. You have no right to demand the changes I made, or even a copy of the program from me.
This is a common myth around the GPL, that it enforces a reciprocation agreement. It doesn't. In fact, licenses that have such agreements are not compatible with the GPL.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
They might. Or, they might consider the code to be critical to their business and not want their competitors to have it.
The point is, the GPL does not guarantee what many people seem to think it guarantees, particularly in the "must give changes back" situation.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
"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
Not quite right.
Now it's right.