When GPL Becomes Almost-GPL — the CSS, Images and JavaScript Loophole

New submitter sobolwolf writes "It has been apparent for some time that many developers (mainly theme designers) are split-licensing PHP-based GPL distributions, releasing proprietary files alongside GPL files with the excuse that CSS, JavaScript and Images are 'immunized' from the GPL because they run in the browser and not on the server. This is almost always done to limit the distribution of the entire release, not just the proprietary items (most extensions will not function in any meaningful way without the accompanying CSS, Images and JavaScript). Some of the more popular PHP-based GPL projects, like WordPress, have gone as far as to apply sanctions to developers distributing split-licensed themes/plugins. Others, such as Joomla, have openly embraced the split-licensed model, even changing their extension directory submission rules to cater specifically to split-licensed distributions. In light of all this, I would like to ask the following question: While it seems to be legal to offer split-licensed GPL distributions, is it in the spirit of the GPL for a project such as Joomla (whose governing body has the motto 'Open Source Matters') to openly embrace such a practice when they can easily require that all CSS, Images and JavaScript be GPL (or GPL-compatible) for extensions that are listed on the Joomla Extensions Directory?"

Comments

First world problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh the problems of the first world. How terrible they must be.

Re:First world problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Third-world problems are nothing either. You should see what's happening on Vorgon 3, my friend. Humans have it easy.

Re:First world problems

[hairyfeet]

Not to mention the whole thing is based on a lie, because there is no "spirit" of a CONTRACT, anybody that brings up that "spirit" shit might as well say "I don't see you doing what i want you doing"...well screw you buddy, should have put it in the damned contract.

Between RMS changing the GPL to target specific companies he doesn't like to those screaming the "spirit!" bullshit frankly the worst enemies of FOSS are the devs and users. If I was looking at software for my company i sure as hell wouldn't use GPL, after all what if i piss off RMS? Get my company dragged through the mud because i couldn't guess what the "spirit" was like trying to guess what munchies a stoner wants? No fricking thanks, I'd do like Sony and Apple and use BSD where its all in black and white and nobody is screaming about spirits like its a damned seance instead of software.

Re:First world problems

[king neckbeard]

Actually, there usually is a spirit of legal document, and it can differ from the letter. For example, the CTEA might be argued to fit the letter of the Copyright Clause, since continual extensions are technical limited times, but it certainly doesn't fit the spirit of the constitutional there, as it can't feasibly promote literary progress to reward authors retroactively. Two Justices were aware of this fact, but the majority was not, unfortunately.

While GPLv3 may not have been the most elegantly exectuable change, it was driven by 3 needs. A new technological means of circumventing end-user control, an increasing threat of patent lawsuits under a new legal means, and better compatibility with existing licenses. The changes you decry are the result of treating a license somewhat like software, making what will hopefully be mostly improvements and patch flaws, but this inevitably results in some regressions. Honestly, 3 releases in over 25 years isn't bad at all.

Re:First world problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Is your law degree from the University of Uranus?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith_(law)

Re:First world problems

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't hate the GPL, I just hate the politics behind it.

When something is GPL, the people come out of the woodwork to fork it, reverse engineer it and otherwise turn it into something it was not supposed to be. I've had this experience first hand, and quite honestly I'm not willing to deal with this again.

On the other side you have the BSD licence where redistributing the source is not a requirement, and you can pretty much keep it as it was designed to by telling people who fork it to change the name of the product.

What I'm getting at is that the spirit of the GPL is to keep software "open", not so much free. When software is open you can download it, compile it and add whatever tweak you need to it to make it work in your environment. You can do that with BSD and you can do that with GPL, but the latter would like you to contribute your changes back. This works up until you get into Patents.

As soon as Patents come into play the GPL is now unworkable, since those tweaks may violate patent licences. So this is why the "binary blobs" exist in Linux via shims to skirt the GPL licence.

This is also what happens with these split licence PHP/Javascript/CSS things. The font or image may be subject to CC SA, but not CC ND. So someone may produce a theme or plugin for a CMS like wordpress or Joomla, but the only part that is really open is the part that inter-operates with the CMS. The Javascript and CSS ... well let me just tell you this, I've DMCA'd people for taking my javascript because they didn't ask. If you want to learn how it works, I'm don't care, but if you outright copy it, that is not learning, that's stealing, and I never licence anything under the GPL. I will licence things under BSD if it's basically throw-away code. Otherwise it's "All rights reserved." As I said earlier, I won't deal with GPL projects because people will just fork it so they don't have to give their changes back.

Re:First world problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, how we dream of making it to the posh digs on Vorgon 3.
Do you know how hard it is to browse /. from the hydrocolonic acid ocean that is Cornholio 7?

Re:First world problems

[king neckbeard]

On the other side you have the BSD licence where redistributing the source is not a requirement, and you can pretty much keep it as it was designed to by telling people who fork it to change the name of the product.

Actually, you could do that with GPL code as well. Just use trademark law. Firefox does the same thing, which is why Debian ships iceweasel. Now, it might be a bit more complex if you are building your project off of someone else's GPL code, but in that case, you are likely the one who is "it into something it was not supposed to be."

What I'm getting at is that the spirit of the GPL is to keep software "open", not so much free. When software is open you can download it, compile it and add whatever tweak you need to it to make it work in your environment. You can do that with BSD and you can do that with GPL, but the latter would like you to contribute your changes back.

Actually, you don't need to share your contributions in you don't distribute your code.

As soon as Patents come into play the GPL is now unworkable, since those tweaks may violate patent licences. So this is why the "binary blobs" exist in Linux via shims to skirt the GPL licence.

Patents break everything everywhere. Where GPL patent clauses get messy is when you are shipping a product where you license a patent from someone else.

As for binary blobs, that's usually not tied to patents. Otherwise, distros from countries without software patents would ship with Nvidia drivers. Binary blobs are the results of non-free code. I believe a large portion of it is that the code is already under a restrictive copyright license for reasons like sharing a decent chunk of code with a proprietary windows driver, which they may not retain all the rights to. There's also fear that competitors will reverse engineer their products via this source code or similar such nonsense.

Re:First world problems

[greg1104]

I won't deal with GPL projects because people will just fork it so they don't have to give their changes back.

Forking a project doesn't change its license that way. You can complain about people who outright ignore the code's license, and those who bypass it via "reverse engineering" that's mostly copying code between projects. Those both happen, and that's a problem sometimes. But neither of those can be called forking.

Re:First world problems

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC, it was part of the terms to obtain Windows XP driver certification. That is why ATI had to stop supporting the free ATI driver.

Re:First world problems

[shentino]

I don't blame the GPL.

I blame unscrupulous companies trying to use patents to undermine the goals of open source.

And by the way, you completely misread the GPL.

The GPL says NOTHING about kicking changes back upstream. It only says you have to punt your source code downstream to your users.

It's to protect your users from getting locked out by proprietary software keeping the source code under wraps so that they can't change it. It says nothing about forcing you to let upstream freeload off of your work.

The difference between the GPL and BSD in that regard is that the GPL prevents you from locking your own changes down on YOUR users. There is no difference between them as far as your relations with your upstream goes.

As far as people making unacceptable changes, the GPL requires you to put notices on anything you change so that you don't get blamed for their bugs.

Stop spreading FUD.

Re:First world problems

[shentino]

The whole thing about source code for proprietary products is a load of bupkis when it comes to patents.

Patents are about what your code actually does, and not what its source code looks like.

Closed sourcing something doesn't protect it from infringing patents.

All it really does is make it harder for you to get caught.

This, truly, is one reason why companies fear open source. They're afraid of getting their hands caught in someone else's cookie jar.

Re:First world problems

[TheRaven64]

Forking does that, because the GPL doesn't require that you contribute your changes back only forwards: you must give the code to the people you give binaries to, nothing more. It's easy to fork a project, make some structural changes, and then release your version that has all of the code that isn't necessary for your use removed and other things that are annoying for anyone who doesn't have access to the rest of your system added. The code is still available, but the cost of merging changes back upstream is often greater than the cost of rewriting them from scratch.

This is fine according to RMS, because the GPL is not meant to protect the authors of the original code, it's meant to protect the users who receive products based on it.

Re:First world problems

[metrix007]

The spirit is meaninglessness, unless codified in the letter. Otherwise it becomes a dangerous game of interpretation.

Re:First world problems

[greg1104]

Yes, people can copy a program, modify it, and only release the source to users who get the binaries. That's usually a meaningless edge case now though. In your average case, where the source and binaries are being distributed via the web to anyone who wants it, the GPL terms will still compel release of the modified source code.

And in the case where people make large changes such that they can't be merged upstream, who cares? Let them hack up a private version and maintain that junk forever. I don't want crappy code like that anyway. Why get stressed about "oh noes, people will fork my code and ruin it and not share"...just ignore those forkers and move along. If your changes won't merge upstream, there's some bad news: you won't be able to pull from upstream either. People who haven't figured that out are going to fail at open source work anyway, better to ignore them altogether.

Re:First world problems

[hazah]

Yes, I'm sure you can get your complex ideas across to millions of people exactly to the letter the first time. You're my hero....

Re:First world problems

[steelfood]

Trademarks are expensive, both up front, and to maintain.

Re:First world problems

[king neckbeard]

True, but that nothing to do with this issue. You can rename any BSD or GPL project. However, you can also use trademark to force forks to have a different name if they deviate outside of certain criteria.

Re:First world problems

[hairyfeet]

THANK YOU. And you want moist and delicious irony, I get modded flamebait for pointing out how this "spirit" bullshit turns things into quagmires, and what is posted AS A REPLY TO ME? A dozen fucking interpretations of the spirit, none of which fucking agree!

This is the WHOLE POINT OF CONTRACTS, to have EVERYTHING spelled out in black white precisely so I DON'T have to play "guess WTF you want" so all these GPLers pushing this "spirit" bullshit are doing is making damned sure nobody trusts the GPL because you have to play "Guess WTF they want" because now its not just in the contract, you have to guess what the "spirit" of the contract is!

A perfect example is TiVo, they followed the contract TO THE LETTER, and then they get written into GPL V3 as a monster because they didn't follow the "spirit" which frankly is WTF ever RMS feels like this week, see how RMS said you could charge for documentation...until devs started not releasing docs as GPL (because there is no way to charge for anything you can just copy endlessly for free) then "Documentation wants to be free!". NO you loonie, a piece of data doesn't "want" anything, YOU WANT people to do WTF ever you say and when it turns out you suck at writing contracts you want to get all pissy that they can't guess what the "spirit" is!

Spirits are for movies and seances folks, NOT contracts, if you can't write a damned contract without pulling that "spirit" bullshit that is YOUR FAULT, write a better damned contract!

Re:First world problems

[metrix007]

No, of course you won't, but much like code you keep adding to and improving it. Simply relying on people understanding the spirit is...ridiculous.

Oh good grief.

[Anonymous Coward]

Lost on the legaleses.

Yes

[Desler]

is it in the spirit of the GPL for a project such as Joomla (whose governing body has the motto 'Open Source Matters') to openly embrace such a practice when they can easily require that all CSS, Images and JavaScript be GPL (or GPL-compatible) for extensions that are listed on the Joomla Extensions Directory?"

Yes, it is perfectly within the spirit of the GPL to add exemptions to the license terms. Plenty of GPL projects, even those from the GNU project, have exemptions to the GPL terms such as linking in GPLed libraries, etc. Stop being such a freetard.

Re:Yes

[Archangel Michael]

Realistically, I'm not sure how this is even a problem since one could create a CSS, JavaScript, and Images of their own, and have a working version. In the two cases above, Wordpress and Joomla, you can have fully working versions of these without adding in custom CSS, JavaScript or Images. These named types do not change the functionality, they are SKINS for the actual program. I'm not sure how OS advocates can claim GPL flows down to skins, being unlinked items not required for functionality of the core software.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with this. IMO, this situation is no different to computer games where the code is GPL and the artistic assests are proprietary (distributors have various restrictions in distributing unmodified and modified copies). It's not necessarily wrong for the art to be proprietary because if need be, it's normally easy to get programmer's artwork as a placeholder for a better art design in the future.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Realistically, I'm not sure how this is even a problem since one could create a CSS, JavaScript, and Images of their own, and have a working version. In the two cases above, Wordpress and Joomla, you can have fully working versions of these without adding in custom CSS, JavaScript or Images. These named types do not change the functionality, they are SKINS for the actual program. I'm not sure how OS advocates can claim GPL flows down to skins, being unlinked items not required for functionality of the core software.

This maybe the case for a theme or skin, but what about someone distributing an extension that will not function in any meaningful way without it's supporting css, images and javascript? If there are limits on distributing the CSS, images and Javascript it is actually the same as limiting the distribution of the GPL extension itself because it won't work in a meaningful way without the aforementioned files.

Re:Yes

[greg1104]

Joomla is acting like the library component here, because the extensions are using its APIs. If Joomla added an exception that said "you can use the Joomla API under conditions X in non-GPL programs", yes that would be similar to things like the OpenSSL exception. But if the Joomla is GPL and is serious about advocating that license for their own ecosystem, they shouldn't do that without a seriously good reason. One-off licenses with exceptions create legal headaches that make them less useful than ones using a standard license.

This sort of thing is a hack to cope with projects with bad license, not something you should be relying on for code where you can influence them to pick the "right" license--where rightness means aligning with upstream code license choices. All of the GPL-with-exception licenses are pragmatic choices, where crappy license terms are worked around because they can't be easily removed. That's not a model anyone should use if it's possible to avoid it, and it seems Joomla could avoid it here if they tried. That's why the spirit of the license is relevant for the right thing to do in this situation.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

It's normally easy to get programmer's artwork as a placeholder for a better art design in the future. There are plenty of libre CSS styles available on the internet and programmers can replace all imagery with programmer art, stock photos or new art.

Re:Yes

[Goaway]

Once could similarly create C program code oneself, so I don't see the need for open source.

Re:Yes

[Archangel Michael]

Extensions are PHP code. An extension's skin is CSS, JavaScript and Images. Replace the CSS, JavaScript and Images, and you haven't changed the code. It may not work as intended, but it will work. In fact, Mixed licensing for PHP and the Extension's skin seems reasonable, as one can easily replace the stock skin (CSS, JavaScript, images) with alternate versions.

In fact, editing CSS of Extensions (speaking to Joomla specifically, since that is what I know well enough), is one of the things that make it useful. Not all extensions fit the design of the site it is intended for.

Re:Yes

[AdamWill]

The main part of the cited debate is not about exceptions, though. Wordpress does not have a GPL exception for themes, and wordpress.org wants themes to be GPL. There is a third-party 'premium theme' site which requires people who submit themes to it to license them non-freely, of which wordpress.org heavily disapproves, and there is a big barney in the 'WP community' about who's right, who's wrong, who stole whose cow, etc.

Obviously if you're the party licensing the software of which there may be derivatives, you have a perfect right to choose to use a GPL-with-exceptions license if you want to allow certain derivatives not to be GPL. I don't think anyone would question that (though of course the FSF would say you Ought Not To).

This is what happens

[Spy Handler]

when greed and incompetence get mixed up.

You wanna write free software, write free software. You wanna make money, write commercial software and sell it. Should be this simple... but I suppose some people who aren't good enough to do #2 still wanna make money, so they ride on the coattails of a popular free software and do crap like "dual licensing".

Re:This is what happens

[poetmatt]

dual licensing is a licensing issue. Nothing about free software prevents you from making money off it, that argument has never been true. Look at redhat.

Re:This is what happens

[Anonymous Coward]

Redhat doesn't sell software.

Re:This is what happens

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember 10 years ago I actually saw a retail boxed package of Red Hat Linux in a store in a small northern Wisconsin town, I thought it was funny.

Re:This is what happens

[LordThyGod]

I remember 10 years ago I actually saw a retail boxed package of Red Hat Linux in a store in a small northern Wisconsin town, I thought it was funny.

The software in the box was of course "free". The box itself, the manual, the support, and the media inside the box cost $39.95.

Re:This is what happens

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing about free software prevents you from making money off it, that argument has never been true.

Nice spin, Mr FOSS Shill, but the truth is that it is difficult to make money with free software, more so than commercial software.

Re:This is what happens

[flimflammer]

Nothing prevents you from selling it, but selling it is not realistic. Redhat is about the worst example you could possibly use.

Re:This is what happens

[Darinbob]

They absolutely did sell boxed packages of Linux. This was very important in the days when people didn't usually have decent internet connection speeds; and could still be useful today if stuck on dial up.

Re:This is what happens

[furbyhater]

What complete nonsense!

Free software and money aren't diametrically opposite, many programmers are getting paid in order to write free software (like, most developers of the linux kernel).
Stop spouting bullshit for the grace of the flying spaghetti monster!

Re:This is what happens

[Darinbob]

Companies have formed around developing and supporting free software. You just change the business model away from selling per-unit packages into selling services and support. There are even people who contract to create software who will then retain rights to software, minus the customer's tweaks, and release that as free software elsewhere.

There's a lot more to software than the original creation of it. The vast majority of all programmers don't write everything from scratch, instead they are modifying pre-existing software. They are adding new features, fixing bugs, integrating with other programs, customizing, etc. If so many companies are willing to pay people to modify existing software then there is indeed a large market to to pay people to modify existing free software as well.

Re:This is what happens

[b4dc0d3r]

If I make free software that looks terrible, and someone else pretties it up, complies with the terms of the license, and manages to sell a product, good for them.

This is really no different from the debates around proprietary blobs in open source. Some people want freedom as a matter of principle. Some people want it for simplicity, so that you know any drop-in replacement is distributable.

And of course there are those who simply don't want to keep track of who has which rights - and let's not forget those who post code with no license, thinking it is public domain.

I don't see a problem here. Especially when someone can take a free thing and add enough value to it, without writing code, that people are willing to buy a free product.

WordPress has decided to enforce their philosophy by restricting people who contribute a product that, some can argue, enhances WordPress. And restrict them from interacting with the WordPress community. That is a difficult situation, to restrict contributors because what they contribute isn't free.

If these people are only selling interoperable components, WordPress would have no teeth, and could only object in text. But the only power they have is to restrict outside interactions, which may boost popularity or use of their products.

Joomla actively welcomes outside sellers, going on the other side of the fence. I think the point is, if Joomla is apparently okay with it, why do you take the position that Joomla is wrong?

Re:This is what happens

[poetmatt]

really? why? They did so successfully. They literally sold box cds as indicated. They are selling their software, even if people are paying for support.

Re:This is what happens

[poetmatt]

hilarious troll is, well, pretty hilarious. I don't even use redhat, though I think they have a decent UI - certainly better than ubuntu.

Re:This is what happens

[ShanghaiBill]

it is difficult to make money with free software, more so than commercial software.

I have seen no evidence that this is true. Most people that start a free software business fail. Most people that start a proprietary software business fail. But among the people I know, the failure rate for the former is lower.

Re:This is what happens

[sobolwolf]

If I make free software that looks terrible, and someone else pretties it up, complies with the terms of the license, and manages to sell a product, good for them.

Selling the product is not the problem, restricting the distribution is. Are you going to be happy if someone takes your terrible looking product then essentially limits it's distribution because they have just prettied up some css and images? What if this new product becomes more popular than yours, what if this new product starts making lots of money while your project dies in obscurity?

What you are saying is that it is ok for someone to essentially use all your hardwork and give you nothing in return, ie not allow you to use their work. Will you feel like continually upgrading your product while the person that can make pretty css and images makes a killing off it and you make nothing?

On the other hand if the images and css were GPL, you would be able to integrate the work back into your product, thus your enhancements would benefit the other developer and the other developers enhancements would benefit you. Basically you will then have a symbiotic relationship with the other developer as opposed to a parasitic one. It is my view that split licensed GPL / proprietary distributions are indeed parasitic, they take and give nothing in return.

I don't see a problem here. Especially when someone can take a free thing and add enough value to it, without writing code, that people are willing to buy a free product.

WordPress has decided to enforce their philosophy by restricting people who contribute a product that, some can argue, enhances WordPress. And restrict them from interacting with the WordPress community. That is a difficult situation, to restrict contributors because what they contribute isn't free.

I think you are confused about this. Nobody is restricting anyone from selling the product - WordPress actually hosts commercial GPL themes on their main site. The problem is limiting distribution, something I feel is wrong due to the reasons I outlined above.

Re:This is what happens

[flimflammer]

The cost of their boxed units was to cover the cost of manufacture the packaging, manual, and accompanying service contract. The software itself was inconsequential to the cost.

They don't sell Redhat. They sell support for Redhat.

Re:This is what happens

[flimflammer]

This isn't flamebait, mods.

Re:This is what happens

[Anonymous Coward]

the flying spaghetti monster!

You disrespect the Flying Spaghetti Monster by not capitalizing. May you be strangled by the wrath of a thousand noodles.

Re:This is what happens

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr FOSS Shill,

Normally I'd suggest this is an oxymoron.

However in parent AC's case, I think ordinary garden-variety moron is a better fit.

Re:This is what happens

[Anonymous Coward]

well he isnt a troll (obviously because you dont reply to trolls, thats what they want). are you saying its not more difficult to make money with free software than proprietary software? what companies do this?

Re:This is what happens

[timmyf2371]

Selling the product is not the problem, restricting the distribution is. Are you going to be happy if someone takes your terrible looking product then essentially limits it's distribution because they have just prettied up some css and images? What if this new product becomes more popular than yours, what if this new product starts making lots of money while your project dies in obscurity?

I'm not seeing the issue here.

The distribution of the original product and code will not be limited by this scenario, nor will the opportunity for buyers to buy it, if its the best product on the market.

If the product dies in obscurity because it isn't pretty enough, perhaps the developer needs to brush up on his or her design skills, or hire a professional.

Re:This is what happens

[Anonymous Coward]

"Momma, what's a... 'selection bias'?" he asked, looking up from his Cheetos Snack Pack.

"It's what happens when you never leave the basement, sweetie. More Mountain Dew?"

"Oh, so it's a good thing, then! Yeah, can you also make sure to buy more Hot Pockets when you're at the grocery store, too? I ate the last 3 this morning."

"You bet, sweetie. Anything for my little momma's boy!"

Re:This is what happens

[kthreadd]

Redhat doesn't sell software.

They sell subscription to software, which in practice is selling software. You go to them, you pay money, you get software.

Re:This is what happens

[Anonymous Coward]

... and do crap like "dual licensing".

I think you are mixing something up here. AFAIK "dual licensing" usually refers to a projects that offer the software under a free license (most of the time the GPL) and also offer a commercial license for those who do not want to comply with the terms of the free license.

This article is about mixing licenses within the distribution that make the whole package non-free.

Re:This is what happens

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're used to installing things from optical media instead of downloading online (and considering many people wouldn't know the difference between whether they were downloading a virus and downloading an OS), it isn't such a bad idea, either.

Re:This is what happens

[serviscope_minor]

I remember 10 years ago I actually saw a retail boxed package of Red Hat Linux in a store in a small northern Wisconsin town, I thought it was funny.

Why is that funny?

I bought a boxed set of Redhat 5.2 for £50 in 1998 or 1999, which consisted of several CDs, some a fantastic installation manual and some other books.

The software in the box was of course "free"

Free as in speech not beer. I actually bought it mostly for the software and a bit for the dead tree manual and I knew that it wa otherwise free. That was very, very very worthwhile given the internet access at the time.

Probably the best £50 I ever spent.

Re:This is what happens

[sFurbo]

Why would that be? I thought you were allowed to sell GPL software, as long as you do not restrict the buyers redistribution?

Re:This is what happens

[TheRaven64]

The vast majority of software companies sell Free Software. Free Software just means that the person receiving the code has a set of rights to use, modify, and redistribute it, which is the case for most bespoke software, which is what most software companies (and, indeed, most software developers) sell.

It is difficult trying to combine selling commodity off the shelf (COTS) software with Free Software, but fortunately for 'FOSS Shills' COTS software has never been more than about 10% of the total software market.

Re:This is what happens

[poetmatt]

and that...what? That's supposed to be a bad example?

there's nothing wrong with that. The end result is that people are "buying" redhat.

Re:This is what happens

[poetmatt]

It was never more difficult, just a different method. Free software refers to the freedoms of the software, not the cost.

google is an easy example here.

Re:This is what happens

[Anonymous Coward]

Newsflash - selling support only works for a very small amount of software, namely enterprise software that is complex and critical.

If open source was so compatible with making money, then why would so many businesses be proprietary and be allergic to it? They have skin in the game and if open source was a better business model they'd choose it in a second.

Re:This is what happens

[poetmatt]

Selling support works for a very large amount of software. Even *microsoft* does it. So your argument is invalid. Meanwhile, I can easily tell you why businesses want proprietary.

On a basic level it's an impulse fear/fear aversion to a lack of control. they think that OSS is going to get them sued, or that they can't control what happens with it so they may lose something.

Data vs code

[magic maverick]

The GPL has never been about data (e.g. the Doom WAD files), but just about the code.
The fact that so many themes and what not are violating the principles of separation of content and presentation and interaction (HTML, CSS, and JS) is a problem. But, if they weren't doing it, then it wouldn't matter if the JS and CSS were Free or not. Because the content would be usable without the crap.
Personally, I just say, don't use themes that aren't all Free. Solves the issue for me.

Re:Data vs code

[exomondo]

Is it immoral - in the GPL ideology - (or not in the 'spirit' of the GPL) to have non-free works of art (images, audio, video, etc...)? I mean I know the business model pushed by GPL advocates is around paying for support, improvements and documentation but such things don't really apply to works of art like that or even to software products like games.

Re:Data vs code

[king neckbeard]

Stallman doesn't generally see non-free art as inherently immoral, as art is usually not functinoal. He does, however, think their copyright lasts too long. So, he probably wouldn't have a problem with the non-free artwork, but he would have a problem with the non-free Javascript (I believe he even considered obfuscation to be non-free). I'm not entirely sure on the CSS, but I would lean towards him not approving, especially if more advances CSS3 features are used.

Re:Data vs code

[Charliemopps]

I see non-free art as non-art. Bach only ever accepted payment for a single piece of music he wrote. He spent the rest of his life lamenting that mistake. If only more artists had his integrity.

Re:Data vs code

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe he even considered obfuscation to be non-free.

What about Javascript written in the style of a perl developer? Is that obfuscated or ..

Re:Data vs code

[king neckbeard]

I'm sure he applied a mens rea approach, so if your code was intentially not human readable, you are clear, but if you just write bad code, having to deal with said code is punishment enough.

Re:Data vs code

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it immoral - in the GPL ideology - (or not in the 'spirit' of the GPL)

What makes you think that?
Just because you think that GPL should be interpreted one way doesn't mean that whoever used GPL for his/her project thinks the same.
If they used GPL then I will have to assume that they meant for it to be used literally and that the "loopholes" are intentional, otherwise they should have used another license.

GPL isn't some kind of shortcut you can use to stamp on everything and think that it solves all licensing problems. Before you tag a license to your sources, read the license carefully and make sure that it says what you want. If the BSD license suits your project, use it. If GPL suits it, use it. If you think that GPL is too permissive, write your own or find one that suits you better but do not assume that everyone else wants to use the same license that you do.

Re:Data vs code

[hedwards]

Bach was paid to perform several music related jobs during his lifetime. The work he did composing his works was ultimately related to that.

It's unrealistic to expect people to provide work for free, and then expect them to work 2 or 3 jobs to pay for things like food and shelter. On the bright side, if they're any good, there are probably plenty of lusty ladies that come with the territory.

Re:Data vs code

[bbelt16ag]

I take it you have never been an unskilled american have you? this is pretty much the norm anymore if your not the select few who have some skills.

Re:Data vs code

[Anonymous Coward]

If people find they can't earn a living by making music, then they need to make money doing other things. If they stop making music because of other life commitments, then so be it. There will never be a time when there is a complete cease of new music as a result of nobody being paid for that.

Re:Data vs code

[exomondo]

What makes you think that?

I'm just curious because 'images' is one of the key elements in this story and works of art are so often used in products like games.

If they used GPL then I will have to assume that they meant for it to be used literally and that the "loopholes" are intentional, otherwise they should have used another license.

I agree.

Re:Data vs code

[hedwards]

How do you make a living through music if you refuse to sell any or even attempt to sell any?

Re:Data vs code

[hedwards]

Your point being? Unskilled workers don't work 2 or 3 jobs to give away something for free.

Also, I have never been unskilled because I busted my butt to get skilled. I wasn't born like that.

Re:Data vs code

[murdocj]

I see people who want money from me for stuff as lacking integrity. People should just give me stuff. If only more people had Bach's integrity.

Re:Data vs code

[jmcvetta]

Performance?

Re:Data vs code

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not wrong to sell music on a CD or through the Internet; it's not wrong to negotiate a commission or ask for pledges in the model of Kickstarter BEFORE making music; it's not wrong to perform music in front of an audience and ask for an ticket fee. What is stupid is complaining to the public not to share published data - yes copyright law restricts the public but this law is a social restriction and not a natural one.

I'm a proponent of free culture, I believe that the public should have liberty to share public culture; and I will refuse to recommend any culture that restricts public sharing.

Re:Data vs code

[chthon]

After graduating, he held several musical posts across Germany: he served as Kapellmeister (director of music) to Leopold, Prince of Anhalt-KÃthen, Cantor of Thomasschule in Leipzig, and Royal Court Composer to August III.[4][5]

Re:Data vs code

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes him think what? It was a question, not a statement.

Re:Data vs code

[fonske]

When I observe the immense difference my daughter made in her first year of school with the rest of her class, I cannot agree anymore that "hard work" will get you skilled.
My wife and I honestly don't gave our daughter a headstart with making her read or learn her to count, unlike some others of her class.
We are both engineers and we didn't even put our weight in just yet - you bet we will confront her upfront with what we think our interesting "deliverables".
One of the milestones to me at her 6 years of age was her looking closely to ant colonies and grabbing for worms when I am working in the garden.
It might help ofcourse when my wife and I explain to her that spiders are welcome in our house to cut down in the population of other insects - OK, I'm talking about the garage and the cave, not the living room.

Re:Data vs code

[Anonymous Coward]

HTML and CSS together might already be Turing complete: http://lemire.me/blog/archives/2011/03/08/breaking-news-htmlcss-is-turing-complete/ . Jury looks like it might still be out, but if not now, then soon.

We laughed at "HTML coders" once. Turns out they were just prophetic.

HTML is code.

Re:Data vs code

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Come paint my house for free.

Re:Data vs code

[hedwards]

And not working hard is likely to get one skilled?

Because that's what you're implying here and that's complete horseshit. Sure, working hard isn't what makes a person skilled, but you'd be hard pressed to find anybody that's become skilled without working hard. Usually when it appears not to be the case, it's because you're not noticing the hard work involved, or they have the audacity to enjoy the work.

Most of the time when there's work going in and skill not coming out, it's because they're working at it the wrong way or they're working on something that they're not suited for in the first place. I have a hard time believing that there's a large number of people out there that couldn't become highly skilled at something given sufficient hard work. Now, it might not be something that's generally recognized, but it would be something.

Also, age 6 is way too early to be making those sorts of determinations. It's not until at least age 8 that you can reliably tell the difference between a minor learning disorder and somebody that's just a late bloomer. And even then it's questionable as to how much of that is the student and how much of it is an inappropriate learning environment.

Re:Data vs code

[hedwards]

Then you should provide works for free.

That's the thing, getting skilled in musical composition and performance takes a great deal of effort, and expecting people to just give it away for free, is unrealistic. That's time that they could spend on other tasks, that would pay. Now, they might write and play anyways, but it's not likely that the quality would be as good, as they'd likely have to bump that for other things like chores and work.

Re:Data vs code

[Anonymous Coward]

Your point being? Unskilled workers don't work 2 or 3 jobs to give away something for free.

Also, I have never been unskilled because I busted my butt to get skilled. I wasn't born like that.

Ah the old, "I could do it, so can anyone!" argument...

Yeah, not even worth the bother.

Re:Data vs code

[fonske]

I work my ass off myself and never get "quality learning time" (like schooling) from the bosses but eventually understood the difference between slaving and acquiring skills.
Working hard can help when you have good teachers - a hard lesson for me to learn in my late thirties during Karate training.
Anyway, the point I tried to make with my previous pathetic exposé about my daughter is the observation that my (40'ish) and younger generations are creating a huge divide in the skill arena by marrying in to the girls we met at university. Like some breeding selection we never really were looking after in the first place.
Skill-wise it is a game changer and I am not sure I am in peace with it - because I was taught, just like you, that working hard ought to get you skilled.

Re:Data vs code

[Anonymous Coward]

Crap. Now we have to worry about the 'halting problem' in a *markup* language?!

Re: Data vs code

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have to worry about the halting problem in any language. Hell, Magic: The Gathering is Turing-complete. It's not really a big deal to a practitioner.

No

[Anonymous Coward]

If I create something I'll license it how I please. If you want me to force me to license it a particular way, fuck you.

Re:No

[Desler]

THINK OF THE FREETARDS!!!

Re:No

[king neckbeard]

Okay, but if you are violating the license of someone else in doing so, you have considerably less room to talk. If you do everything from scratch, you aren't going to face a lawsuit.

Re:No

[jo_ham]

Okay, but if you are violating the license of someone else in doing so, you have considerably less room to talk. If you do everything from scratch, you aren't going to face a lawsuit.

But that's the point - it is not violating the licence. You may not like it, but it;s not in violation of the licence. This is the "Tivo problem" all over again. What Tivo were doing wasn't against the GPLv2, so something was done to shut all that down, and we've ended up with GPLv3.

I'm sure there will be more "but that's not what we meant! you're using it wrong!" wailing from the sidelines and we'll have a GPLv4 that will put a stop to it.

Re:No

[king neckbeard]

I'm not saying whether or not it's violating the license. I'm not familiar enough with exactly how this working or the minutia of the GPL to make that kind of statement. The comment I was replying to didn't express any concern about minutia, but instead seemed concerned that someone might restrict him from restricting others.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like allowing "offensive" speech is one of the prices we pay for having free speech, having "offensive" licensing terms is one of the prices we pay for having the option of free software.

Original poster upthread specifically stated, "If I write it, I'll license it however I want." If you don't like the license terms a developer chooses, do without the software and choose an alternative that's licensed in a way you support, or write your own version of the software. (Note that this is exactly what you'd say to a developer who objected to the terms of a license you chose for software you wrote.)

Your desire for a free copy does not entitle you to take a free copy. Your desire for GPL software does not entitle you to force others to use a particular license.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

What Tivo were doing wasn't against the GPLv2

That has never been tested in court. It was definitely against the intent of the GPLv2, but in a court room you have lawyers arguing the exact meaning of words.

The GPLv2 clearly says that you need to include with the source any build scripts and other things needed to create the binary. And since you can't create the signed binary without the signing key, in my oppinion it is clear that what Tivo was doing was against the GPLv2 (and yes, I've read the GPLv2).

However, Tivo has lawyers, and lawyers bend the rules to mean something else, and apparently, if you squint just the right way, the GPLv2 can be read as not requiring the signing key, even though it is necessary to build a working binary.

The FSF lawyers looked at the arguments, and concluded that it might be possible to convince a sufficiently retarded judge that there was a loop hole there, and decided to pre-emptively close the hole with the GPLv3.

Re:No

[jo_ham]

So, the FSF's lawyers couldn't argue the opposite point with the GPLv2, you know, legally? Or is it only Tivo's lawyers that can "bend the rules to mean something else".

If the GPLv2 was written in such a way that what Tivo was doing was in breach of the licence, why the need to change it?

Ah, the "retarded judge" argument. Right, I've seen this one before. How does it go again? Oh, right, any judge who makes a decision you disagree with is "retarded", I remember!

No, it's not.

[multiben]

Whether or not it's legal is a different matter, but the spirit of the GPL is clearly the proliferation of open source software. Split licence variations have always been very much a compromise on the ideals of the GPL. The line gets muddier when GPL'd software relies on third party extensions to operate effectively. However, at the end of the day, if you're a developer and you don't like the idea of split licence models, then don't develop code for them. There are thousands of other projects out there which are pure GPL.

Re:No, it's not.

[Desler]

Whether or not it's legal is a different matter, but the spirit of the GPL is clearly the proliferation of open source software.

And the source code is still being proliferated as GPL. Just not the art assets. So taking your logic, according to you id Software is violating the spirit of the GPL by not GPLing their WAD files for Doom, correct?

Re:No, it's not.

[hedwards]

The artwork is not part of the code base and only interacts with the code base in the most technical of ways.

The javascript is arguably supposed to be included, but that would be dangerous as it would mean that you couldn't link against GPL libraries without turning that code into GPL code, regardless of whether or not you're changing the GPL code.

Which is probably not what most people really want.

Re:No, it's not.

[Ost99]

Categorizing javascript as art might get earn you a new shirt and a nice padded room without a view.

It all depends on whether the javascript (or CSS) is a derivative work of the platform code or not.

Re:No, it's not.

[devman]

You can't link against GPL libraries unless your code GPL. You can, however, link against LGPL libraries and not be GPL or LGPL. Allowing non-GPL software to link is the entire reason LGPL exists and why libraries like glibc use LGPL.

Re:No, it's not.

[b4dc0d3r]

I don't think you understand. "don't develop code for them" is not possible when your product is a website, which uses separate files for script, images, and styling. It is not embedded, and the images can be replaced with ones that have the same name, and possibly dimensions, without changing one bit of your code.

The scripts can be replaced with others of the same name. Unless you are using inline styles, your CSS can be replaced, all without violating any copyright.

Just download this package, unzip it over your existing install, and enjoy, after paying me money.

That was my point, but I'll continue beating this horse a bit more.

This is the core of the whole issue here. Firefox can't be distributed with alterations, so you get the proprietary parts, including the name, replaced with IceWeasel. Mozilla doesn't have a legal claim other than stop using our proprietary name. For a Joomla or WordPress theme, they don't have that protection, because you have a theme *for* the website outside of the GPL protected bits, and the rest of the package is still legally GPL compliant.

You chose to develop for a platform where you don't have a choice. WordPress has chosen to restrict what people can do in places where WordPress does have control, but it's not in whether to develop a split licensed model.

Re:No, it's not.

[gbjbaanb]

its more the fear of the GPL, where you use something like a css file and suddenly all your website has to be licenced under the GPL too because of the GPL requirements in the CSS files' licence.

This is usually the reason things are dual-licenced, to try and clear up the kind ofd confusion ordinary people have with using GPL software.

Personally, I think it might be time to change things a little to keep with the spirit of GPL without affecting your right to make your own software and release it (or not) as you like - a licence where the software you receive is most definitely OSS, and any changes you make to it must also be re-released as free software, but anything you create that uses it doesn't have to be. (the GOSPL licence? Gnu Open Source Public Licence)

I know there are things like the LGPL that try to clear this up, but they rely on the GPL project source being pretty much self-contained.

I guess it is hard to describe the concept of all these files are free and must stay free, and any additions to them that are required for them to keep working must also be free, but not any additional source that is solely needed to make your application work.

ie. when MS took the BSD tcpip network source and put it into Windows, we can say this was a good thing as if they had to make their own, they'd have made it ever so slightly incompatible or just broken with respect to other tcpip stacks and we'd be running all kinds of horrible hacks to keep Windows and Linux running side by side on a network. (in much the same was as WCF SOAPv2 services do not interoperate with Java or PHP SOAPv2 services). Buit when MS made improvements to that code, as it was BSD licenced, they didn't have to share those improvements with everyone else. Hence we need a half-way house, where the changes to the free source must be shared, but without turning all of Windows into GPL licenced code (you wouldn't really want to see it :-) )

I think such a licence would do wonders for OSS as it'd get used a lot more in industry,making it much more popular. It would also help our industry actually have standards that were standard!

Re:No, it's not.

[gl4ss]

..it's only an issue when a product uses gpl because they have to because they used gpl code when making it - but they want something they can sell so they bundle it up with something. that's against the spirit.

if they had done the whole thing themselves then they can release parts of it as they wish.

Waaah! Waaah! Waaah!

[Anonymous Coward]

Quit crying and go ask your mommy for money so you can ask a lawyer the only fucking question that matters:

IS IT LEGAL?

Open source vs. Free Software... again.

[Anonymous Coward]

This essay comes to mind when reading the last couple sentences of the summary: http://www.thebaffler.com/past/the_meme_hustler

There is a distinct difference between Open Source Software and Free Software. tl;dr: Free Software has ethics, but Open Source is more of a corporate-driven ideal that is not really on the side of the users. Given that the GPL was written for the express purpose of Free Software (not Open Source!!!) I'll invoke Betteridge's law on the last question of the summary and say that no, split-licensing is not in the spirit of the GPL, as it attempts to retain rights from users. This is the main problem that the Free Software Foundation has with advocating "Open Source" over "Free," and is why some projects that herald Open Source as some kind of tech-panacea are in fact not much better than their proprietary counterparts.

HTML is a container

[Anonymous Coward]

I have asked FSF about this specific issue.

They basically consider HTML as a container, like a ZIP archive. So, the "bundling" that occurs when HTML is combined and rendered to the browser is not considered a derivative work in the eyes of FSF, just like if you bundle GPL files with non-GPL files in a ZIP file, the contents of the ZIP do not all fall under the GPL.

This means that when things are combined in to an HTML file, even if parts of the HTML file are GPL, the entire resulting document, is not GPL.

I find this view inconsistent, and disagree with it, but it's their license, so who am I to judge. Mind, if my view were followed, then things would be quite different on the web. So, their view is probably the "correct", and most certainly "pragmatic" view. I just think it's inconsistent.

Now, how that applies to externally loaded files (like JS and CSS) is not clear to me, but I assume the same rules apply. In a normal program, were you to link them together, the entire finished product would be GPL. But not under the auspices of the browser environment, apparently.

I think if the "HTML is a container" view is the correct stance, then the included files would also be immune to the GPL for the same reasons.

Re:HTML is a container

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, That doesn't smell right to me either...

Re:HTML is a container

[Ost99]

AFAIK the GPL only applies to linking. The JS and the server software are not combined to form one program in any sensible definition of linking.

BUT if the non-free javascript / css itself is a derivative of the javascript or css it replaces, it becomes GPL.

Re:HTML is a container

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL does not cover program output (except under very special circumstances).

So the PHP script may be GPL, but the HTML document it spits out is YOUR data and is not automagically "GPLed". There's no direct link between the PHP script and any CSS or images. So the FSF is absolutely correct that there's no "linking" (in the derived works sense).

Likewise, AJAX scripts generally communicate through inert data passed over a defined API -- this is the classic situation where the GPL does not cross program boundaries.

Re:HTML is a container

[Anonymous Coward]

HTML isn't a Turing-complete language (and CSS3 is a non-issue). HTML is supposed to describe the markup of a given page and isn't really used to process a user's computing: it can be considered as a user interface to a larger system. The issue arises when users start using web sites that rely on non-trivial amounts of Javascript or any server side (PHP, Ruby, Perl) code in order to process the user's computing. If this is the case, then the user falls into the Javascript trap.

Re:HTML is a container

[b4dc0d3r]

I see your point, as you design HTML (or whatever generates the HTML server side), images, and scripts as one whole product. The page works consistently, and if something needs fixed, it could be in the page, or css, or image, or script. It is a whole as a product, as a creation, as a science or useful art.

What happens is this - a user grabs your free distribution, and bundles a zip file you can unzip and overwrite the original files with a new theme. As you said, bundling files in one zip does not make everything GPL.

Your images are not being modified, your code is not modified, and only the on-disk version of your distribution is modified. That is not a derivative work. The end result is not as you intended, and your bug fixes may break the theme. But you have no responsibility to ensure patches are compatible with third parties. And you are providing something that end users can modify, if they like, as long as they follow the license terms.

If you are drawing from a database that the users can change, your output is not always going to match what you coded. The resulting HTML contains both your contributions, and the users' content modifications. So the HTML container that gets sent to a browser, along with the dynamic content, CANNOT be considered covered by the GPL unless you only serve static HTML that the user never changes.

In other words, I can understand the "work as a whole" argument. But the license, and the law, and everything except peoples' individual philosophies say this is legit.

The FSF has a philosophy about freedom, which includes the freedom to replace CSS, JS, and images, with drop-in replacements. This is consistent. If the user can change text that gets served up, why can't they change an image which gets served up?

You are right, HTML is a container. And the zip file example is a great one, because inclusion does not make something GPL licensed just because everything else is. It could make it unclear what is covered, unless you put the extra files in a non-free section of the zip or otherwise demarcate the two. Why is HTML a special container that makes everything in it covered by the GPL, when a ZIP does not behave that way, and you explicitly coded the HTML content to be dynamic?

Re:HTML is a container

[LordLucless]

They basically consider HTML as a container, like a ZIP archive. So, the "bundling" that occurs when HTML is combined and rendered to the browser is not considered a derivative work in the eyes of FSF, just like if you bundle GPL files with non-GPL files in a ZIP file, the contents of the ZIP do not all fall under the GPL.

The thing is, the FSF has absolutely zero say in what is and is not a derivative work, unless that definition is enshrined in the license that people use.

Barring that, the only definitions that matter are those of the lawyer sending you the cease and desist, or the judge presiding over the case after you give said lawyer the finger. Unless the law considers HTML as a container, you can still be screwed over.

This is why the GPL is dangerous - it's complex, it's complexities create ambiguities, and the interpretation of the its ambiguities are in the hands of an authority completely divorced from the creators of the license. That's why every man and his dog is using far simpler, non-GPL licenses these days (BSD, MIT, Apache, etc).

Re:HTML is a container

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's, to me, where the conflict arises.

In many cases, you have an "HTML Template" that is GPL'd. In many typical use cases, that HTML Template is the "source code" used to create an output, the final rendered page. So that means that the HTML template is somehow stripped of its GPL status during its processing. This is in distinct contrast to the GPL status of, say, C source code who's status is NOT stripped through the compiling process. It's "derivative work" is still licensed by the GPL.

Now, I'm not talking about a piece of code that generated pages wholesale. But I am talking about a piece of code that takes a "GPL source file" (i.e. the template), performs work on it, and then creates output. Just like GCC can not encumber closed source code solely through processing it, the license status of the processor is not the question here. It's the license status of the data that the processor is operating upon.

A GPL zip utility can not change the license status of its inputs, but for some reason, in the case of HTML, this is possible.

This behavior, to me, is inconsistent with other interpretations of the GPL.

Re:HTML is a container

[phantomfive]

AFAIK the GPL only applies to linking. The JS and the server software are not combined to form one program in any sensible definition of linking.

It applies to derivative works, in the true legal sense of the term "derivative work."

The FSF has suggested that programs aren't a derivative work if they aren't linked together (like, a kernel and userland, for example), but that is not a legal certainty. The idea of 'derivative work' is still not clearly defined by congress, and court cases may end up determining whether javascript and server software are a single program.

Re:HTML is a container

[diamondmagic]

The view is not inconsistent; the output of software programs is plainly not copyrightable (that is, there is no new copyrightable work being produced, only the component works that may go into it, which retain their respective licenses).

Re:HTML is a container

[julesh]

It applies to derivative works, in the true legal sense of the term "derivative work."

It *also* applies to anything that is combined with GPL code to form "a larger program". This could be interpreted as anything linked (and in GPLv2 this was explicit; GPLv3 is [presumably intentionally] more ambiguous, e.g. to cover interpreted or run-time linked programs).

Re:HTML is a container

[Ost99]

CSS, images and javascript (if the code itself is not derived from the platform source) is no more a derivative work than a photo frame is a derivative work of a (specific) photo.
Both can change the look of another work without changing the original work - both can, with minor adjustments, be used with other works.

I don't like what they are doing, but I don't understand how any sane interpretation of copyright laws could find this to be considered infringement.
If this somehow creates a derivative work, then all browser-plugins that change the way any webpage looks or behaves is also infringing.
Adblock -> gone
In browser spellcheck -> gone
Screen reader for the blind -> gone
Firebug -> gone
Selector gadget -> gone

'Open Source Matters'...

[Anonymous Coward]

you didn;t finish reading the entire motto...

  'Open Source Matters to some one else.'

CentOS v Redhat = same thing?

[i.r.id10t]

So.... is RedHat Linux non-Free since you can't redistribute their proprietary images/icons/wallpapers/etc ? After all, isn't CentOS the same code base, compiled the same way, with the same configurations, etc. but without RedHat's logos, etc?

Re:CentOS v Redhat = same thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is this:

(most extensions will not function in any meaningful way without the accompanying CSS, Images and JavaScript)

When you offload core functionality into a part not protected by the GPL, you're only using the GPL in name. RHL does not do this.

What we need

[Anonymous Coward]

is a country declaring the GPL void according to its laws.

GPL "Infection"

[LordLucless]

It's people like this poster who promote the whole "infectious" GPL crap that Microsoft et al have been capitalising.

This behaviour ("split licensing") is perfectly fine, legal and moral.

The GPL is all about preserving access to code. If you use GPL code, you have to publish that code. If you make changes to it, you need to publish those changes as well. This is to stop people "proprieterizing" GPLed code by making a few incompatible changes and releasing it.

The GPL doesn't mean that if you include a GPL library, you need to open source your whole project. But people are afraid it does mean that, due to people like the poster, and Microsoft's FUD. If you want to know why people are shying away from the GPL, and view it as a threat, look to the article submitter.

Re:GPL "Infection"

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody is debating as to whether it's legal, the question is whether it's acceptable under FOSS principles. And the answer is no, it's not. Moving functionality outside the original codebase so you can make it proprietary is very much not in the spirit of the GPL.

Re:GPL "Infection"

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody is debating as to whether it's legal, the question is whether it's acceptable under FOSS principles. And the answer is no, it's not. Moving functionality outside the original codebase so you can make it proprietary is very much not in the spirit of the GPL.

And the correct response is to fork the project and replace the functionality that was moved with GPL code.

Re:GPL "Infection"

[Anonymous Coward]

"The GPL doesn't mean that if you include a GPL library, you need to open source your whole project. "

Sorry, yes, it does mean that, as long as the library uses GPL proper and not LGPL.

Re:GPL "Infection"

[Anonymous Coward]

Soo... you're supporting organized crime then?

Because you just acted as if imaginary property was real.
Like paying a developer *once* for his service, but acting like it had to be re-developed every single time, while actually only giving out infinitely abundant and hence infinitely worthless copies, yet every single time taking real actual money that took real actual work to make.

"proprietary" software is 1. a blatant lie, and 2. a blatant crime. You are actively, deliberately, and systematically stealing *real* money from people, while sitting on your fat asses and doing *nothing*, yet bitch when somebody doesn't fall for your bullshit, doesn't care if you're too stupid to adopt the same service business model that every plumber and nearly every other job in the history of mankind used, and copies your *imaginary* "property".

You know what? If you want to rip us off by giving us mere *copies* of the result of the hard work of others,
then mere *copies* of the money from the hard work of *others* is what you gonna get!

Fuckin' cocaine-snorting bastards! All of you!

Re:GPL "Infection"

[Anonymous Coward]

>The GPL doesn't mean that if you include a GPL library, you need to open source your whole project.

Um yest it does. It means exactly that, although the exact definition of "include" is open to a little debate. This is why the LGPL license exists, to allow library use without infection.

Re:GPL "Infection"

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL doesn't mean that if you include a GPL library, you need to open source your whole project.

Have you actually read the GPL? It actually says as much. The LGPL is slightly more forgiving, in that it's OK to not GPL your whole project as long as it's possible to recompile the library you use and use the modified library with your program. (in other words, you can't statically include)

I'm all too familiar with this shit, due to writing a free but not open source game. There are things I wouldn't mind including, like cracklib to tell people how strong their passwords are, but I can't because that would mean that I'd have a non-statically included library, which takes a game that you can just download and run and turns it into something you can't run if you have the wrong version of the library. (I can't statically include it because that would violate the LGPL.) ...and the really sad thing is that, while researching the license for cracklib, I find they changed it from GPL to LGPL because they thought that doing so would allow anyone to use it, and they wanted it to be used as widely as possible. Unfortunately, like you, they were apparently ignorant of how the GPL actually works.

The GPL absolutely is viral. Take, for example, the GNU's comments on the Microsoft Public License: "This is a free software license; it has a copyleft that is not strong, but incompatible with the GNU GPL. We urge you not to use the Ms-PL for this reason." Why is it incompatible? Because it requires that code released under the license remain under the license. Thus, you can't change the license to GPL, and so it is GPL-incompatible.

Unfortunately, though, a lot of people are like you and don't realize what they're doing when they choose the GPL license. They just like open source and all they know is that the GPL is the open source license, so they choose it. It's disgusting enough that I created my own license, the Antiviral License, since, after running into so much code that I can't use in my closed-source projects, the last thing I want is for the code that I do release to end up being relicensed under the license that has prevented me from using so much other code, and thus, essentially promoting that license. A lot of GPL code starts out as public domain or BSD code and just gets relicensed by someone who likes the GPL. (I found that to be the case when looking for MD5 code. The code in the GPL utilities prominently displays the GPL license, and no mention of where the code came from, even though it's just some public domain code wrapped up in an executable with some command line options. It was particularly amusing since the public domain code in question was largely a copy of the code in the RFC which was labeled "all rights reserved." Anyway, here's the code I wrote, which is AFAIK the only actually free MD5 code in existence.)

Re:GPL "Infection"

[Anonymous Coward]

You are an idiot.

Re:GPL "Infection"

[LordLucless]

No, you don't. You're another one who's just as at fault as the submitter.

1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.

and, in the section on modifications

Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.

In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.

If you don't modify the code of the library, you can redistribute it as much as your little heart desires. And most of these theme authors aren't going to be modifying the jQuery library the package with their little themes.

Re:GPL "Infection"

[devman]

code that links against a GPL library can only be distributed under the terms of GPL. You're thinking of LGPL which allows non-GPL code to link, and only requires distributing changes to the LGPL library. That's the entire reason LGPL exists and why libraries like glibc use LGPL, otherwise only GPL code could link glibc which would be bad.

Re:GPL "Infection"

[LordLucless]

Yes, yes it is. Because you're atatcking a strawman. Nobody is "moving functionality outside the original codebase so you can make it proprietary". TFA is discussing how theme authors create a theme for an OpenSource platform (for example, Wordpress) bundle an open source javascript library (for example, jQuery) with their theme, but then don't open source their own javascript, CSS or HTML.

Re:GPL "Infection"

[dfghjk]

"The GPL is all about preserving access to code."

No it's not, it's about something else entirely. Otherwise, Tivo-ization would not be an issue.

GPLv3 addresses Tivo-ization not to preserve access to code but to gain access to hardware. You have to give me what I say or you can't play with my toys. It's not about free code, it's about RMS getting what he wants. It's always been about that.

"The GPL doesn't mean that if you include a GPL library, ..."

It would if RMS got his way. RMS once asserted that including a header file was sufficient. You are in need of an education, your ideology doesn't match reality.

If you want to talk about preserving access to code, the BSD license does that directly. Once released, code under that license is accessible for eternity. Can't get any better than that. It's not good enough for GPL people because they want the license to control what happens to FUTURE code, and increasingly to the future hardware that runs it. It's not about code, it's about getting everything in the future for free as well.

Re:GPL "Infection"

[dfghjk]

"Moving functionality outside the original codebase so you can make it proprietary is very much not in the spirit of the GPL."

But it is in the spirit of hypocrisy. Oh, you actually wrote the code? Well, I'm going to tell you what to do with it anyway.

People who own the copyright get to do as they please, as GPL people are so fond of pointing out when it suits their interests. Don't like it? Write your own.

Re:GPL "Infection"

[king neckbeard]

Page header is comic sans. Try being a little less blatant in your trolling next time.

Also, all licenses are 'viral' in the sense you use here. The difference is that certain licenses have very few symptoms, such as the BSDL, and others are less prone to spread, such as a typical proprietary license.

Re:GPL "Infection"

[dfghjk]

"The GPL doesn't mean that if you include a GPL library, you need to open source your whole project."

You should read what the FSF says about that: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL

Re:GPL "Infection"

[LordLucless]

You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice; keep intact all notices stating that this License and any non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code; keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program.

Javascript libraries (which is what this article is talking about) are not linked or compiled with the HTML/CSS that is packaged with them.

Re:GPL "Infection"

[LordLucless]

Javascript libraries (which is what this article is about) are not compiled or linked with their accompanying HTML/CSS files.

Re:GPL "Infection"

[LordLucless]

From GPLv2

Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.

In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.

It's only with GPLv3 that RMS jumped the shark and tried to take everyone else's stuff. Prior to that, the intention was clearly spelled out in the GPL.

Re:GPL "Infection"

[LordLucless]

You're wrong

Re:GPL "Infection"

[ChunderDownunder]

define 'linking'. Yes, I know the traditional sense...

The implied context is that a website is the sum of its parts. HTML/CSS/JS/images are all load by the browser, which parses each URL embedded in the html document and invokes an interpreter for each, whose results are combined to form a web page, with the JS dynamically manipulating the DOM produced from the HTML.

A lawyer for the prosecution would argue that this runtime combination constitutes a derivative work. Just sayin'...

Re:GPL "Infection"

[LordLucless]

To which the lawyer for the defence would respond, with a quote from the GPL:

Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.

In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.

Seriously - this is the reason nobody wants to use the GPL any more. They don't want lawyers taking their stuff away from them. This attitude is poison to the adoption of the GPL, and is why pretty much everything I use these days is BSD or MIT licensed (including every javascript library I know of - jQuery, Prototype, MooTools).

Re:GPL "Infection"

[w_dragon]

If you link against a library you create a derivative work. A derivative work must remain open source if the work it is based on is GPL. When you link you do a lot more than just aggregate a library with your code, you include symbols from the library into your code. This is why the LGPL exists. IANAL, but several corporate lawyers have assured me that linking GPL code into any product we don't want to open source is a bad idea.

Re:GPL "Infection"

[Anonymous Coward]

Page header is comic sans. Try being a little less blatant in your trolling next time.

:)

Also, all licenses are 'viral' in the sense you use here. The difference is that certain licenses have very few symptoms, such as the BSDL, and others are less prone to spread, such as a typical proprietary license.

Not at all. The GPL is the only license that redefines "derivative work" to mean "anything that happens to lie within the same executable," and the only reason to do that is to be viral. (Of course, the fact that they had to redefine what a derivative work is brings into question the enforceability of that provision, but whatever.)

Re:GPL "Infection"

[LordLucless]

Tell me how including jQuery in a zip file with some HTML and CSS includes symbols from the library into the code.

Re:GPL "Infection"

[Microlith]

It's only with GPLv3 that RMS jumped the shark and tried to take everyone else's stuff.

What part of the GPLv3 implies that he's "[trying] to take everyone else's stuff."

Re:GPL "Infection"

[LordLucless]

The removal of the quoted paragraphs.

Re:GPL "Infection"

[Anonymous Coward]

jQuery introduces symbols into your Javascript code, which is why it's MIT licensed and not GPL.

But we should be clear that's not what we're talking about. The Javascript client-side code and the GPL server software generally share no "symbols", they just pass formatted text (i.e JSON) back and forth.

Re:GPL "Infection"

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

The GPL is all about preserving access to code. If you use GPL code, you have to publish that code. If you make changes to it, you need to publish those changes as well. This is to stop people "proprieterizing" GPLed code by making a few incompatible changes and releasing it.

Well then the GPL has failed because that is exactly what these people are doing. They're altering the GPL code, offloading code to proprietary files, then releasing the whole thing as a finished product. I presume this can be done with split .c files as well, in which case the GPL has this flaw from the start.

Re:GPL "Infection"

[Anonymous Coward]

Go re-read the story of how the FSF got started.

The GPL is not about access to code. It's about access to modifying code. The problem with Tivo-ization is exactly the same problem that the GPL was originally written to prevent. The event that caused the whole thing was a printer that jammed with no way of telling the users that it had jammed - and this printer was located in a different building, so the only option was to walk all the way to the printer. This was a university, so that printer with be printing reports spanning hundreds of pages. You don't want to sit 20 minutes looking at a printer, but if you walk to the printer when the printing should be done, you may find that it jammed 19 minutes ago. These CS students could easily add some way to make the printer inform the outside world of the problem, but the printer firmware was locked in a way that prevented them from changing it.

Exactly like the Tivo software is locked, preventing owners from e.g. adding an (improved) ad skipping feature.

Re:GPL "Infection"

[LordLucless]

Um, no they're not - where are you even getting that? These people are bundling GPLed javascript libraries in with their own HTML/CSS/JS/images and not open-sourcing the accompanying resources. "Split licensing" doesn't refer to diving up a GPL-licensed file, it means when a given package contains code with two different licenses.

Re:GPL "Infection"

[garutnivore]

It's people like this poster who promote the whole "infectious" GPL crap that Microsoft et al have been capitalising.

[...] If you use GPL code, you have to publish that code. If you make changes to it, you need to publish those changes as well.

You take to task another poster's understanding of the GPL and yet you do not seem to understand it yourself. Anybody who uses Ubuntu (to take just one example) is using GPLed code. They don't have to publish anything. As far as changes go, you are not required to release your changes unless you decide to release binaries derived from your changes.

Re:GPL "Infection"

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL doesn't mean that if you include a GPL library, you need to open source your whole project.

If you link with GPL code, your whole project comes under GPL. Only the LGPL and similar licenses allow this.

But people are afraid it does mean that,

Like, for example, the lawyers at my company. I'll take our lawyers' opinion over your ill-informed one.

It's people like this poster who promote the whole "infectious" GPL crap

And you're trying to promote the whole "GPL isn't an infection" crap.

Our lawyers (or more likely, the outside IP experts they use) have determined that the GPL would infect us if we touched it. We are banned from using it.

(Posting AC due to company policy about public disclosure of legal strategy.)

Re:GPL "Infection"

[MobyDisk]

The GPL doesn't mean that if you include a GPL library, you need to open source your whole project.

No, really, it does mean that. That is why the GPL is so controversial compared to other more permissive licenses:

Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.

If you create a program that links to a GPL library, then your program is a derivative work of the library. This is the reason for the existence of the LGPL and the GPL linking exception

In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.

jQuery would fall under this clause because you don't link to jQuery. You merely include it in your HTML. The FSF view is that including Javascript code in your HTML is not linking. It is more like packaging. Although it is moot because jQuery is not GPL.

Re:GPL "Infection"

[king neckbeard]

The SFLC is far from the most extreme in their interpretations of derivative works. Now, some other proprietary licenses might be more permissive at times in regards to defining such things, but it is very much situational and a matter of practicality. The FSF has advocated BSDL/MITL for certain libraries to maximize their usage, primarily codecs.

Also, I'm not entirely sure that there is a lot of room for comparison, as most proprietary software is pretty limited in its capacity for extensions. There is some proprietary software with 3rd party plugins under different licenses, but that applies just as much, and probably a great deal more to GPL software as well.

The concept of "spirit" applies to legislation

[aristotle-dude]

Contracts have to be spelled out verbatim whereas as things like legislation and constitutions are open to some interpretation. Usually, a constitution is not interpreted directly but rather other laws are interpreted against it to ensure they are valid and do not violate the "spirit" of the constitution.

The GPL is based on contract law and copyright rather that it being either a constitution or a law.

Re:The concept of "spirit" applies to legislation

[dkf]

Contracts have to be spelled out verbatim whereas as things like legislation and constitutions are open to some interpretation.

Contracts are subsidiary to law, always, and can most certainly have interpretation. However, the interpretations that courts prefer are those that were understood by the parties to the contract at the time the contract was entered into (or as agreed later if the parties agree to vary that contract, and all subject to the contract actually being legal at all). People work very hard when drawing up a contract to describe exactly what everyone was agreeing to as this reduces the amount of trouble if there's a falling-out later on, but this is absolutely not necessary. It's just a Real Good Idea to get everything described properly in fixed form.

The GPL is based on contract law and copyright rather that it being either a constitution or a law.

That's precisely correct.

Beside the point

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether the practice is "within the spirit" of the GPL is a moot point. The "spirit" of a license can mean whatever a person wants it to mean. The GPL is a license and deals with legalities, something either complies with the GPL or it does not. The "spirit" of a license is quite beside the point as it'll mean different things to different people.

Ah another reason to avoid it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Like PHP wasn't enough reason to avoid it in the first place.

GPL 4

[Anonymous Coward]

The next version of the GPL will close this loophole. Just watch.

The developers allowed modularity in order

[Anonymous Coward]

The developers allowed modularity in order to facilitate the integration of non-free and\or non-open code. It's what they wanted or they would have made sure plugins and extensions are impossible like the GNU GCC project did.
If you don't like your code being used this way, don't contribute to such projects. If you're writing a project that you intend people to share their improvements to, don't make it modular.

In the case of all this online non-sense: It's mostly just content glue and sliding menus... Just utter nonsense. If it was a huge concern there would have been a special clause in the license or the functionality would be highly restricted in the code. It wasn't because the devs can't care less.

Ask yourself, what would RMS do?

[hardaker]

Ok, he'd chew his hair and wax poetic. We know that already, but what would the poem say?.

I suspect it'd say: I'm sorry, but CSS very much is code. Not in the sense true languages are like C++, Python and PHP are. Ok, I'm not so sure that PHP qualifies. But anyway, the reason that even so piddly not-real-languages are part of the code is that it's nearly impossible to use the real code with the underlying CSS underpinnings that, actually, pin the boxes to the right place on the screen. Go ahead, take some huge news site, remove the CSS from it and see if you can still use it. I bet you can't. It frequently ends up looking like an application that magically put all their widgets rooted at 0,0 in the window. It's useless. Sure, it's all there, but it's useless. Thus, it has to be a rather important part of the "code". It takes both the output of the underlying framework langue and the CSS to make the result usable. Otherwise it's like compiling C-code into assembly, but for the wrong chip.

I'm quite sure this violates the principal of the GPL. I'm not sure about the letter of the law, since IANAL. But it sure smells like a GPLv4 is ripe for the picking.

Re:Ask yourself, what would RMS do?

[king neckbeard]

I will agree that CSS would generally be considered code, at least if it's complex enough to deserve being put in it's own file.

Re:Ask yourself, what would RMS do?

[xanclic]

I guess, it's more about the JS stuff than CSS for him. I listened to a talk of him once where he denounced unfree JS code whose execution the user basically can only prevent using whitelisting. And even so, some pages may become completely unusable if JS is disabled.
What he (or rather, someone from the FSF) actually did, was creating a Firefox plugin which would detect unfree JS, disable its execution and automatically send a complaint to the host site (as long as that's possible without JS). At least that's what he told.

CSS is (imho) not code just as HTML is not really code (although I know HTML5/CSS3 being Turing complete, but well). JS is in my eyes the much bigger problem (and the one I know RMS is actually concerned about).

Re:Ask yourself, what would RMS do?

[John Allsup]

Turing complete is a bad measure when dealing with real computers.   Brainfuck is Turing complete, but incapable of displaying a single typical webpage on a modern computer.

All computer data is computer data.  That is, it is a sequence of 0s and 1s.
All computer data may be arbitrarily interpreted by an interpreter.
An interpreter reads computer data and follows its programmed instructions based on the computer data.
A computer program is computer data for an interpreter.
A binary is a translation of a computer program so that a microprocessor may be used as the interpreter.
A text file may be seen as a program for an interpreter such as notepad which compiles the text file into a memory image that then causes Windows to display a rectangle on screen whose content resembles the text file.

There is no formal barrier between program, source and data.  All computer data is computer data and is subject to arbitrary interpretation.  All data may be seen as a program for a suitable interpreter.  Some interpreters languages permit more complex variations in behaviour than others, and Turing Compleness places a theoretical maximum bound on this complexity.  But it is a very rough bound in many ways, having no connection with measurable aspects of practicality (so a programming language that requires ten million lines of code and ten years per line of code per line-of-code and microsecond for another language are equally Turing Complete if they can, given countably infinite resources, compute the same countable sequences of 1s and 0s.)

Re:Ask yourself, what would RMS do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Turing complete is a bad measure when dealing with real computers. Brainfuck is Turing complete, but incapable of displaying a single typical webpage on a modern computer.

Not true... there is no reason you couldn't have a Brainfuck browser that displays as well as Lynx, just the I/O routines suck. Someone needs to write a library to provide better I/O functionality, maybe and OpenGL would be great as well. Now if you then licensed such a library, the question is, should you use GPL? ;)

"the entire work, as a whole" - GPL license

[raymorris]

The GPL license under which I give away my work says that IF YOU WANT TO DIDTRIBUTE A MODIFIED VERSION , you have to also license "the complete work, as a whole" as GPL.
You are free to sell image sets that can be used with WordPress and user any license you wish . However, if you want to distribute my code with it as a complete theme, the only license you have for distributing my code is if you distribute the whole thing as GPL. Icons and CSS COULD be sold as completely separate works, but that would mean not including any WordPress derived PHP in the package.

Re:"the entire work, as a whole" - GPL license

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're using a stock GPL license, then you're wrong. Sorry, but you don't actually understand what the license is implying.

And if I find a loophole?

[Anonymous Coward]

And if I find a loophole or clause you didn't think of being interpreted in a certain way and I use that to then use the stuff you licensed in a way you DIDN'T want it to be used, then would it be "fuck you" to you?

If the stuff is required to enable the program then it's part of the program. If the program you added these bits to to change the free stuff to your derived work. then the extra bits have to be licensed similarly.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

IANAL, fucker.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are DEFINITELY not a lawyer.

Because you're entirely and utterly wrong.

If there were no need for interpreting the intent where the license is not explicit, there would have been no need for SCO v IBM, since the license would have been completely as written.

But they aren't.

Therefore the intent has to be found from what information is available.

Quoted the plain text of the license, silly

[raymorris]

I'm quoting the plain text of the license. Section 5(c) for you:

c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy.
            This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged.

I don't understanding what it's implying, you say? That's not an implication, that's a plain declaration, and in case anyone was too dense to understand
"you must license the entire work, as a whole", they repeated it AGAIN, saying "the whole of the work, and all its parts".

As for "if you're using the stock GPL license" look at the VERY FIRST LINE of the license, even before the preamble:

      Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

So yeah, you're using the stock GPL license. Funny you want to act like you're an expert on the GPL, even though you've clearly not even read the FIRST LINE of it.
Seriously dude, it's okay not to be THEexpert on everything. You don't have to act like you know more than everyone else on every topic and act like I"M clueless when
I've actually taken legal action under the GPL, so I kind of know WTF it says. Next time, instead of arguing from ignorance, try reading the darn thing and learning what it says. It's not that long.

Re:Quoted the plain text of the license, silly

[Anonymous Coward]

This is silly. You're arguing for something that the very creators of the GPL are saying is wrong. I'm sorry, dude. Facts are facts.

Re:Quoted the plain text of the license, silly

[julesh]

You're missing the effect of the "mere aggregation" clause (the paragraph after 5(d) in GPLv3), which means a distributor can distribute something that is "the work" alongside (and potentially intermingled with) something that isn't "the work" without causing the two to become mixed and without requiring their additional content to be GPL-licensed. The GPL only requires the two to be considered the same work if one is actually derivative of the other. It would be pretty hard to argue that CSS or images are derivative of the original code, IMHO. Javascript less so, but still tricky and could go either way. The question is do they combine to form "a larger program", or are they independent programs communicating over an open channel. The latter is a pretty convincing explanation, so they would be considered an aggregate rather than a single work by the GPL, IMO.

(This is not legal advice. Consult a qualified expert rather than rely on this.)

Re:"Spirit" is nonsense

[Arker]

That is not true at all. The GPL was devised for a very specific purpose and that purpose has been explained and discussed at work.

What is true is that using force to prevent people from exercising their rights here would be wrong and against the spirit (ie if you actually sue someone in for violating the spirit of the license that suit should not be a winner.) But expecting people that claim to be oriented towards the ideals of free and open source software to avoid circumventing that spirit does not seem unreasonable at all. It's not exactly a fine line, but a pretty broad one, between 'what you are doing is not illegal' and 'what you are doing is positively good.'

Probably under "entire work as a whole", but (TM)

[raymorris]

That's an interesting point. Section 5(c) of the GPL copyright license seems to give you COPYRIGHT rights to distribute the art under GPL:

      c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy.
              This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged.

However, according to both RedHat and the CentOS project, most distribution of RedHat logos and other "proprietary images" is still covered under TRADEMARK rights.
The Red Hat logo marks it as a Red Hat product, so though they may not have a COPYRIGHT claim thanks to the GPL, they'd still have a trademark claim if you used
their name and logo on something other than their product. Therefore, the CentOS project replaces images of the RedHat logo, the RedHat name, and similar trademarks.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

BUT

[Anonymous Coward]

they aren't they are hosted on the server and if you didn't have that distribution method they could not run....
thus one might also argue that as the gpl is a distribution liscnese that they are just trying to evade its language....
lets jsut tighten it and slap them out of business .....the cost of encryption to prevent spying is beginning to ad dup....we dont need costs on websites and viewing to go up.

joomla's bigger problem

[Anonymous Coward]

is that from the very beginning (the split from mambo), joomla has embraced, supported, and even encouraged paid proprietary-licensed plugins to their gpl-licensed software.. the buyers of which do NOT get plugins which are properly licensed under a compatible license, they do not have redistribution rights, etc... as they are SUPPOSED TO GET. yes, you can sell plugins for gpl licensed software, but sold plugins MUST BE gpl-licensed. the joomla folks simply don't get it, and don't care.... which is the opposite of something like textpattern, which goes so far as to spell out right on its web site that plugins should be gpl-licensed.

ya, the games people play with licensing and gpl sometimes sucks, and is wrong.... but in the case of joomla, the problem is MUCH MUCH BIGGER.

Re:joomla's bigger problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with Joomla has always been the assholes that manage the project, you have a bunch of arrogant pricks that have gotten rich of the backs of open source software and now think they are the kings of the world. The worst culprits are the Nazis that run the Extensions directory, just look at the Joomla forums - you will soon get a good idea of how arrogant these pricks really are. If you ran a "real" company with PR like this you wouldn't last long, but these guys have their little fiefdom and captive audience so they can afford to be obnoxious - for now anyway!

You just have to look at Google Trends to see that Joomla has lost the race with WordPress in a big way, developers are already moving to WordPress in droves and in a few years Joomla will be destined for obscurity. All of this is probably due to their arrogance in the treatment of 3 party developers, update cycles that break everything and plain stupidity.

Re:"Spirit" is nonsense

[petrus4]

That is not true at all. The GPL was devised for a very specific purpose and that purpose has been explained and discussed at work.

Then this should be made specific and overt. If a relevant or necessary demand is missing from the license, the license needs to be rewritten to include said demand.

The term, "spirit," by its' very nature, refers to something undefined, non-specific, and acorporeal. I'm surprised that anyone who identifies as an atheist in particular, would be comfortable with using it.

I say again; if there is a "spirit," or an "ethos," associated with the FSF or the GPL, and such has heretofore been implicit and "intuitive," then it should be made explicit, specific, and tangible, so that there can be no misunderstand, and no excuse.

My understanding of version 2 of the GPL, as the clearest example, was that if I modify the source code of a work governed by said license, I must make publically available, both the unmodified source code, AND the source code of my own modifications, to anyone who asks for it, as a condition of using/developing said work.

My understanding was not, however, that I am required to subscribe to any other belief, whether it be political, social, or in any other form, that may or may not be advocated by the Free Software Foundation.

In other words, if I use the GPL, I need to provide source with binaries. That's all.

I do not need to worship Richard Stallman as God. I do not need to subscribe to the philosophy of Karl Marx or Leon Trotsky in general terms. I don't need to believe Stallman's self-aggrandizing lies about how the very concept of source code availability supposedly originated with him, and did not exist before him. Hell, I don't even need to like him, or anyone else associated with the FSF, as people at all.

All I need to do, is provide source with binaries. That's it. Nothing else.

Re:"Spirit" is nonsense

[greg1104]

Of course the GPL has a spirit that goes beyond its legal wording. The clearest example of that in action was when the GPL v3 was introduced to block things like Tivoization. That sort of loophole was against the spirit of the license, but not explicitly blocked by it. Once the problem was clearly identified, the legal language of the license was updated. You can think of that as turning more of the spirit of the license into explicit legalese. People who think the wording of these licenses are some sort of challenge, where victory is finding a loophole, can expect the licenses to evolve against them too.

Re:Probably under "entire work as a whole", but (T

[greg1104]

These trademark issues aren't even specific to RedHat or CentOS. Debian even rebrands their version of Firefox and Thunderbird as IceWeasel and IceDove, also due to trademark restrictions.

If it's possible to rebrand a program easily in this way, I take that as proof the artwork involved is not really an essential part of the program. The changes of the CentOS and Debian artwork forks do not diminish any feature of the software. That can't be said about most CSS and Javascript, and even some images are mandatory for a program to be useful.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:"Spirit" is nonsense

[Arker]

"Then this should be made specific and overt. If a relevant or necessary demand is missing from the license, the license needs to be rewritten to include said demand."

You marched right past the point. This is NOT a demand! It is not the intention of the GPL to in any way expand copyright law to regulate any more than it already does! As long as copyright law doesnt define the artwork as a derivative work of the GPLd code then the license, legally speaking, isnt needed. And that's fine. One of the key differences between the GPL and other common license is that it does NOT attempt in any way to push its scope beyond activities that legally require a license, and that was a very deliberate choice, in accord with the spirit you claim to be unable to discern though it is explained all over the free software foundations website, including but limitied to the preamble and FAQs accompanying the various GPLs.

But the purpose of the GPL and the free and open software (and content, and hardware...) movement is ultimately to make as much as possible free and open. And so if you say you are really working in the spirit of free and open software, you should want to free everything you CAN free, not just as much as you are required to free in order to use the code. It's ok to use the code and do the minimum required! That's why it's called the minimum required, because you can do that and that's ok. But you should NOT do that and claim to be some kind of champion of the community, or a big believer in free and open, because if you are just doing the minimum required you just are not that, because that turns something positive into something negative. Instead of just being smart enough to take advantage of free software, you are now a hypocrite trying to exploit it.

Honestly, this is basic ethics, I feel silly having to explain that you can be within your rights but nonetheless acting hypocritically. It shouldnt be such a difficult concept.

"I do not need to worship Richard Stallman as God. I do not need to subscribe to the philosophy of Karl Marx or Leon Trotsky in general terms."

Oh FFS go crawl back under a rock. (I'm a conservative republican dont you dare call me a communist you blithering idiot. Also get off my lawn.)

"certifying", a trusted brand, selecting, integrat

[raymorris]

It seems like the biggest reason people buy Red Hat is because it's a trusted brand. There are thousands of software packages on a Red Hat disk. People trust that Red Hat has selected good software, patched it as needed, and integrated the various pieces of software.

Re:"Spirit" is nonsense

[petrus4]

It's ok to use the code and do the minimum required!

The problem is the fact that anything else gets said. If that is what the license requires, then that is what the license requires. The stuff about, "being a big believer in free and open," is extraneous, subjective garbage; and is exactly the issue, here.

If I do what I am legally required to do, then I should neither be applauded for being a member of the cult, or condemned if I am not a member of it. If I am legally in compliance, then I should not have to know or care about the opinion of "the community," one way or the other.

If the opinion of "the community," matters, then put it in the license as something I am legally required to do. Otherwise they can and should shut the fuck up.

As another point, when you say that this is basic ethics, you make it sound as though you're talking about something universal; when in fact, you are not. You're talking about the ideology of one specific group of people; and said ideology for the most part doesn't have anything in common with how the rest of the population thinks, at all.

So in other words, you're damn right that I'm going to be pedantic to the point of legalism, and demand anyone else engaging in this conversation to do likewise.

Re:"Spirit" is nonsense

[Arker]

"The problem is the fact that anything else gets said. If that is what the license requires, then that is what the license requires. " And again you charge straight past the point, oblivious. I just spent quite a bit of time explaining to you clearly and concisely why this is not the case here. Read it, or dont. I'm not going to waste time retyping it for you if you cant be bothered to read it the first time.

read the license

[raymorris]

The GPL license isn't that long . You could probably read it in one trip to the bathroom.

If you read it, you'll find that:
No, you do not have to make your modifications public .
If you CHOOSE to distribute a binary, you must offer to distribute the source as well.

The intent, the spirit, IS made explicit in the first paragraph, the preamble.

Re:read the license

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, the bathroom would be the ideal place to take a copy of the GPL.

JavaScript & CSS is "source code". Images are

[Anonymous Coward]

GPL covers source code. JavaScript and CSS is "source code". Images are not "source code". If you re-distribute inhibited source code, or do not provide an address to obtain source code (valid for at least 2 years) it is a violation of GPL. End of story.

Bach had a patron

[Chirs]

So if you think the patron had no influence on the music ever, at all....I think you'd be mistaken.

That's the case of ALL software now.

[Anonymous Coward]

How often is it said "You haven't bought the software, you've bought a license"?

So Microsoft Windows, you buy the license which is ONLY the limited right to install. No manual, no service contract (if OEM).

So does this mean that you can't sell closed source software?

Must do.

So then why single out OSS software for this "problem"? It exists for all software that is under copyright.

Copyright is viral, asshole.

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you don't like it, get your laws changed to define derived works more clearly to your wishes.

But it has fuck all to do with the GPL but with copyright.

Try statically compiling DirectX into your game and let Microsoft know you're doing it.

Viral, but you're not going to maintain that Microsoft's code is GPL, are you?

And why complain about someone relicensing BSD code as GPL? The original code is still there, and BSD trolls insist that taking the BSD code propriatory (the only real difference between GPL and BSD) is fine because the original code sans improvement is still available, so therefore there's no problem with taking it GPL.

Or are you saying that it's NOT OK to make a derived work of BSD code that you can't use as BSD licensed after derivation? Or is that only the case if it's being GPL'd but not if it's being licensed a propriatory way?

Re:Copyright is viral, asshole.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's all explained on the web page for the license, if you care to read it. ...but hell, I'll explain anyway:

Copyright is viral, asshole. And if you don't like it, get your laws changed to define derived works more clearly to your wishes.

No one takes issue with honest derivative works remaining under the original author's license. What they take issue with is the GPL redefining "derivative" to mean "you linked your code into the same executable as my code, therefore your code is a derivative of my code."

Try statically compiling DirectX into your game and let Microsoft know you're doing it. Viral, but you're not going to maintain that Microsoft's code is GPL, are you?

Actually, the GPL contains an exception for system library code that you must use to create your program but which you don't have the rights to relicense under the GPL. ...and that says a lot about the logic of such a requirement. If it made sense, and mere linking created a derivative work, then why allow people to get away with not releasing the system libraries as GPL? The simple fact is that the GPL allows this because it cannot possibly hope to get away with forcing people to relicense system libraries as GPL, and so it doesn't even try. It can, however, get away with forcing them to relicense any public domain or BSD-licensed code they include, and so it forces them to do so.

And why complain about someone relicensing BSD code as GPL? The original code is still there, and BSD trolls insist that taking the BSD code propriatory (the only real difference between GPL and BSD) is fine because the original code sans improvement is still available, so therefore there's no problem with taking it GPL.

There are two issues:

1. People now find the previously honestly-free code under the GPL license, and if they want to use it after finding it under this license (and they're not aware the original version exists) they now are forced to choose between changing the license of their project to GPL in order to comply with the GPL, or not using the code at all. This bothers me because my code, which I released under an honestly-free license, is now being used to bait people into accepting the GPL for their own projects.

2. After the previously honestly-free code is converted to GPL, contributions to that code by people who would have happily released those changes under the original honestly-free license are instead released under the GPL license, because that is the license of the project that the code was in that they contributed to. This bothers me because my code, which I released under an honestly-free license, is now being used to promote the GPL by causing other people to release their code under the GPL.

Note that neither of these problems exist when someone uses honestly free code to create a closed-source project. If someone later goes looking for some code, they only find the honestly-free version, since the code to the closed source version isn't available anywhere. If they then decide to contribute to it, they see the honestly-free license and know that they can contribute their changes similarly.

This is the viral nature of the GPL that bothers people. Again, no one cares that honest derivatives of GPL code become GPL licensed as well. It's the requirement that the entire project become GPL simply because one tiny piece of code somewhere is GPL licensed that bothers people. The authors of the individual pieces of code should be the ones who choose the license of their individual pieces of code, not the authors of any GPL code which is used along side it.

Or are you saying that it's NOT OK to make a derived work of BSD code that you can't use as BSD licensed after derivation? Or is that only the case if it's being GPL'd but not if it's being licensed a propriatory way?

However, I think the requirement often in BSD lic

Re:"Spirit" is nonsense

[Your.Master]

Your first paragraph is a definition of the spirit of a legal document. It's the rules that reflect the goals of those who drafted the GPL, including both seen and hithertofore unforeseen situations. If every situation was foreseen, then there could be no legal loopholes, and therefore nothing could ever could fulfill the letter of the law but not the spirit.

Do you have a problem with the word spirit or something? This isn't a new concept and it doesn't need scare quotes.

Plone has an interesting work around

[Anonymous Coward]

Plone does this kind of thing too, but there's an important distinction. CSS/JS that are required for an add-on to be functional still have to be under the GPL, whereas purely display CSS/JS/HTML (such as for themes) doesn't.

The way Plone themes are applied is by an XSL-based transform step, called diazo, so the themes in Plone will work on any website, regardless of backend. The only thing that needs doing is the source rules need updating to take account of different ids and classes.

Re:Plone has an interesting work around

[Anonymous Coward]

This is how Joomla used to do it until just recently. It is interesting that after the most popular (and I am guessing profitable) extension on the Joomla Extensions Directory (EasyBlog) went split licence, the change was made immediately. It seems that the Joomla Project as a whole has some interest in keeping the devs at Stackideas happy...

Uh, why only GPL?

[Anonymous Coward]

"This is why the GPL is dangerous - it's complex"

Uh, why is that the GPL? That's COPYRIGHT doing that. If your code is copyrighted (and all code is: you have no method of setting works to public domain except by letting the right expire 90+ years later), then it has the problem of what is a derived work or not.

Which is why every man and his dog ignore licensing because copyright is broken.

A bigger problem

[John Allsup]

A bigger issue is the potential for GPL source for a proprietary interpreter, or GPL source for a chain of GPL interpreters where a proprietary transformation is required at some stages of the build process.  The GPL does not require disclosure of a fully working build process (else a Windows binary compiled from GPL source in Visual Studio would require providing the recipient with a licensed copy of Visual Studio or a working alternative).

Heh...

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet the OP 100% of the time stays at or under the speed limit, too.

"Spirit of the GPL" - lol

Re:Heh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Seem like the OP has a relevant concern to me... Joomla is, after all, an open source project that is always bragging about how it is GPL, etc... allowing extensions that use non-gpl items that limit distribution seems a bit hypocritical to me.

On another note, I am quite amazed at how desperate many people posting here seem to be to have this split license "accepted".

Open-sourced games/engines

[phorm]

This reminds of a lot of games or game-engines that have been open-sources, especially those from ID Software, etc.
That leaves people perfectly able to look at the code behind the game, modify it, etc. It doesn't allow them to release their own copy of Doom or Quake as the resources (images, meshes, etc) are still the property of ID.

And you know what, this is perfectly OK. If you want to learn from the engine, you can. If you want to modify the game, anyone with the original disk can play with your mod. If you want to fix a vulnerability or add features to an application, you can.

I'm not sure how licensable HTML is, but I'd imagine that one could come up with something that works perfectly fine without the original markup, and you're still capable of finding/fixing bugs in the back-end source. I've always found one of the advantages of GPL to be that you can dig into the inner workings of software, and deal with issues as needed. This doesn't change that.

doom source release separate

[gl4ss]

wasn't doom source (and quake whatever) always released as a SEPARATE package. the game never came to you if you bought it with gpl'd engine and data alongside it. you got the open source engine from elsewhere, as a separate product release from carmack - and you had to provide data files yourself.

so pulling that to this doesn't really help. the point here is that you get the package, it has gpl'd parts in it.. but boom something in the zip isn't under gpl even though you could have thought so.

Only if the other work doesn't extend the GPL work

[raymorris]

> a distributor can distribute something that is "the work" alongside (and potentially intermingled with) something that isn't "the work" without causing the two to become mixed

I'm not sure how you can have it "intermingled with" but not "mixed", but les pretend that sentence somehow makes sense.
You pointed to the aggregation clause. You looked at the second half of the sentence, how about the first half of the sentence you point to:

        A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work,
        and which are not combined with it ..

So that applies to "separate and independent works" which are NOT extensions of the original work.
So would that apply to the stuff on http://extensions.joomla.org/ ? Interesting URL, isn't that? Your argument can make sense only if you claim that Joomla extensions aren't extensions of Joomla.

"Mere aggregation" is when two SEPARATE works such as Apache and Firefox are burned to the same disk.

Selling support for a video game

[tepples]

Companies have formed around developing and supporting free software. You just change the business model away from selling per-unit packages into selling services and support.

What "services and support" would one sell for, say, a Free video game? Selling mission packs would lead to the situation described in the article, where the meshes, textures, maps, audio, and scripts that make up the mission pack are not free software.

Re:Selling support for a video game

[Darinbob]

Yes this model doesn't work for one-off sales and retail store sales. Most software that is written however doesn't fit that model.

Non-COTS video games

[tepples]

fortunately for 'FOSS Shills' COTS software has never been more than about 10% of the total software market.

How much of, say, the video game market is COTS software?

Re:Non-COTS video games

[TheRaven64]

Pretty much all of it. I don't know what a good business model for a FOSS game would be. Probably the same one that the TV studios use: provide a partial implementation (a pilot) for free and charge people for you to finish it. Once you've got enough funding, finish the game and release it. TV studios use channels as middle men in this situation, but there's no reason that it wouldn't work without the middle men.

What's the counterpart to "performance" in SW?

[tepples]

What's the counterpart to "performance" for someone developing a non-MMO video game that uses a Free engine but non-free assets?

Re:What's the counterpart to "performance" in SW?

[jmcvetta]

I don't care?

GPL licensing

[Creepy]

Split licensing for plugins with the GPL is only possible if the plugin forks or an exception is given in the license. If the main program is GPL, the plugins can be non-GPL only if they fork or exec (or otherwise don't touch the GPL code), otherwise they must be GPL. If the scripts or whatever are not executing in GPL code, then no problem, and if they are, it is a violation of the GPL. It may be a paradox - both a violation of the GPL and not if, say, you are running a javascript plugin in a GPL web browser vs one that isn't GPL or give an exception that doesn't apply to all places a user runs the plugin.

I told the GPL 3 people plugins would be hugely problematic and argued some of these same points, but they (the GPL vetting folks) didn't think it was an issue and vetted it anyway. In fact, they originally told me plugins could not be GPL, only libraries could, but they chose to open that can of worms after that, and I knew they would.

Yes, BUT...

[Jane Q. Public]

"Yes, it is perfectly within the spirit of the GPL to add exemptions to the license terms. Plenty of GPL projects, even those from the GNU project, have exemptions to the GPL terms such as linking in GPLed libraries, etc. Stop being such a freetard."

It may be within the spirit, but not for OP's given, manufactured, bullshit reason.

The fact that it runs on the browser rather than the server has absolutely no bearing on its licensing model. That's like saying player piano rolls weren't "music" because they played on a mechanical device rather than an orchestra. The courts have actually ruled on that (circa 100 years ago) and the answer is: no.

CC0

[tepples]

you have no method of setting works to public domain except by letting the right expire 90+ years later

Since when is it impossible for an author to license the copyright in his computer program to the public under terms equivalent to public domain status?

"aggregate" still in GPLv3

[tepples]

The bit about "mere aggregation" was expanded in GPLv3, not removed. Look near the bottom of section 5 for the word "aggregate".

Get kicked out of the WTO

[tepples]

If the GPL is void, then copyright forbids anybody but the copyright owner from distributing copies of a covered work, modified or unmodified. Or are you talking about declaring copyright void? That'll get a country get kicked out of the World Trade Organization.

Re:JavaScript & CSS is "source code". Images a

[tepples]

Images are not "source code".

Could you explain why PNG images that aren't derived from an underlying SVG or layered XCF are not "source code"?

Re:Only if the other work doesn't extend the GPL w

[julesh]

> a distributor can distribute something that is "the work" alongside (and potentially intermingled with) something that isn't "the work" without causing the two to become mixed

I'm not sure how you can have it "intermingled with" but not "mixed", but les pretend that sentence somehow makes sense.
You pointed to the aggregation clause. You looked at the second half of the sentence, how about the first half of the sentence you point to:

        A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work,

        and which are not combined with it ..

So that applies to "separate and independent works" which are NOT extensions of the original work.
So would that apply to the stuff on http://extensions.joomla.org/ ? Interesting URL, isn't that? Your argument can make sense only if you claim that Joomla extensions aren't extensions of Joomla.

"Mere aggregation" is when two SEPARATE works such as Apache and Firefox are burned to the same disk.

The lines are more blurred than you suggest. What about, say, the Linux kernel and Apache? The latter makes use of the services provided by the former, in much the same way that a plugin for a web application uses services provided by that application, but does that mean Linux builds of it can only be distributed under the terms of the GPL? Most people seem to assume otherwise, and I fail to see the practical distinction between the two cases discussed here.

Apache doesn't copy-paste code from the kernel

[raymorris]

The HUGE difference there is that Apache doesn't have code copy-pasted from the kernel.
Themes generally have a lot of code, in some cases most of their code , copied directly from the default theme. That means the theme, the entire theme, is under the GPL.

In a more borderline case, say a small extension that doesn't use any code copied directly from the original project, there is a simple test for "derivative work". You said "Linux build" of Apache. The same source will build and run on FreeBSD or Mac OSX. That strongly suggests it's an independent work from the Linux kernel. On the other hand, a WordPress plugin can only run as part of WordPress. You can't consume compile a WordPress plugin for VBulletin instead. Therefore it's not separate and indrpendent from WordPress.

Re:Apache doesn't copy-paste code from the kernel

[julesh]

The HUGE difference there is that Apache doesn't have code copy-pasted from the kernel.
Themes generally have a lot of code, in some cases most of their code , copied directly from the default theme. That means the theme, the entire theme, is under the GPL.

Well, sure. But not *all* of them.

In a more borderline case, say a small extension that doesn't use any code copied directly from the original project, there is a simple test for "derivative work". You said "Linux build" of Apache. The same source will build and run on FreeBSD or Mac OSX. That strongly suggests it's an independent work from the Linux kernel. On the other hand, a WordPress plugin can only run as part of WordPress. You can't consume compile a WordPress plugin for VBulletin instead. Therefore it's not separate and indrpendent from WordPress.

Ok, but that leaves a few problems. The various binary-only hardware drivers for Linux will only compile and run on a Linux kernel. Are you saying, therefore, that these can't be distributed with Linux without violating the GPL?

Open Source Matters

[TheRealDevTrash]

I always took Matters to be a noun.

we don't know that. perhaps. sometimes not

[raymorris]

We don't know that drivers won't compile for FreeBSD or Mac when we can only see the binary.
We also don't know if they are based on the GPL driver, or if they are based on the Windows driver.
I suspect that in most cases, the proprietary drivers as based on the existing Windows drivers. In that case, they would probably be unaffected by the GPL in terms of derivation . Drivers are alittle special, though, in that they are loaded into the kernel, becoming part of the GPL kernel. That should of course be weighed with any other factors known.

Precisely because the status (and safety) can't be determined without seeing or knowing something about the source, some companies release a thin GPL wrapper that is the only part loaded into the kernel. It then calls a userspace binary that does the proprietary stuff.