Ask Slashdot: Choosing the Right Open Source License

NicknamesAreStupid writes: I need to choose an open source license. I am developing an open source iOS application that use a significant number of other open source projects which, in turn, use a number of different open source licenses such as MPL/GPL, MIT, and BSD. I am also using sample code from Apple's developer site, which has their own terms of use. The code dependencies are such that my code would not be of much use without theirs. If this project is used, then it would be nice to pick a license that best fits in with this mashup. I am interested in maintaining the freedom of my code but do not want to create a catch-22 or make life hard for people who need to use this project for personal use or profit. My inclination is to use MIT's, as I have done so before. I asked an IP lawyer about this matter, and she replied (pro bono), "it probably doesn't matter." Of course, that advice was worth every penny. Moving away from legal issues and looking at this from a social perspective, which license would appeal most and offend least? I thought about no license but was warned (pro bono), "If you do not, then someone else may." Any suggestions?

Comments

If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[msobkow]

If you're using GPL code, you have no choice but to release your code under the GPL as well.

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[martiniturbide]

I agreed. If you are using any GPL code, derivative works should be GPL. If you combine BSD, MIT with GPL, it will turn everything to GPL. GPL is not bad, it will remain open source forever (ok, until it became public domain after a lot of years) and it will be great for things to snowball. GPL is only bad where there intentions to close the source code or to combine it with other licenses that allows that.

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[Chewy509]

I would assume based on the OP/summary, it's dual licensed MPL/GPL source code, otherwise you are correct...

However, the summary also mentions iOS, and I was under the impression that GPL apps on the Apple AppStore are a no go?

eg. http://www.zdnet.com/article/n...

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[websitebroke]

You say this like it's some grand revelation. What would be the point otherwise? "Here, you can download this binary. It's GPL, but you can't have the code." makes no sense.

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[msobkow]

There is no "depends on how he's using it." If it doesn't have an LGPL interface header, you MUST release the code under GPL terms to use it.

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[viperidaenz]

public domain is a myth

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[Anonymous Coward]

This is baloney. You can release _your_ code under whatever license you choose, as long as the license doesn't conflict with the GPL as applied to the derivative work as a whole.

So, for example, I can contribute code to the GPLv2-licensed Linux kernel under an MIT or BSD 3-clause license. This is quite common (I dare you to grep the kernel source tree). Now, when you distribute the Linux kernel including your MIT-licensed code, you must obey the source code disclosure requirement of the GPL. But if I'm a FreeBSD developer and want to incorporate your code in my BSD-licensed kernel, I can freely copy and reuse just the MIT-licensed portions.

So stop spreading FUD. There's nothing "viral" about the GPL which distinguishes it from any other form of licensing. The BSD license is "viral" in that any derived works still have to obey the copyright notice requirements. Closed source licenses are "viral" in the sense that if your work uses closed-source software, your derivative work is subject to the restrictions and limitations of the closed-source license.

The only real issue here is the GPLv3's patent license requirements. But you can, for example, mix the GPLv3 and Apache License 2.0. And if you don't actually own any patents which pertain to your contribution, then when you release your code to the public you're basically closing the door on any future patents (by publication), which makes the patent issue moot, anyhow. Although it could still be a headache for others who would otherwise want explicit assurance that there's no patent trap.

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[msobkow]

My assumption on reading the OP was that they didn't realize MPL and GPL are different animals.

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[Kjella]

Oh, how /. has fallen when this is modded up. It must be GPL-compatible, it must not be GPL. The FSF keeps a list of compatible licenses though the general theme is "like GPL or freer", like it doesn't have to be a copyleft license. If he doesn't want to introduce any new license headaches he could just use the modified BSD license which is pretty much as minimal as it gets. Whether it resolves his license problems are another matter, the GPL demands the whole project must be compatible and I'd guess that Apple's code is not. So the lawyer is right it doesn't matter, it's probably a violation either way.

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[msobkow]

GPL-compatible means you are allowed to use software under those licenses *from* GPL'd code, not that the GPL copyleft requirement doesn't apply.

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[Anonymous Coward]

GPL is not bad, it will remain open source forever [...]

Then what about this part: This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version."? That's what the FSF suggests you put in your source code and that's what most people do. Who knows what "any later" version will look like? Maybe I just don't understand the GPL, but I don't blame myself since it's basically 600 lines of legalese and I'm not a lawyer. No, I prefer a license I can actually understand and that makes my software free for everyone, including the assholes. The ISC license is like 13 lines long including whitespace and the disclaimer.

Re: If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[Anonymous Coward]

GPLv3 only. Always. Forever. Stallman is god.

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[Yaztromo]

However, the summary also mentions iOS, and I was under the impression that GPL apps on the Apple AppStore are a no go?

FWIW, the situation is a bit more nuanced than that.

If the GPL licensed code is entirely your own work, you can relicense it any way you want, including to Apple for distribution on the App Store.

Where you can get into trouble with the App Store is if you take someone else GPL'd code and release it on the App Store. This could be by including third-party GPL routines, or by publishing code that was developed by multiple parties, without their permission, where copyright has not been reassigned. This was the case for the VLC player: as the article you linked alludes, Apple took that old VLC player app out of their app store due to a copyright complaint from one of the VLC developers. That was back in 2011 -- the VideoLAN Oragniaztaion has since released their own VLC for iOS, while still retaining the GPL license (albeit in part by dual-licensing it as MPL/GPL).

Yaz (IANAL)

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[Eythian]

[citation needed]

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[penguinoid]

public domain is a myth

[citation needed]

Mickey Mouse Protection Act

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[Kjella]

Sure, as long as you use some GPL code the requirements apply to the work as a whole. But if you write part A using the GPL license, I can write part B using the BSD license. The GPL license is okay with A+B and if someone wants to use part B in a non-GPL project or replace part A with differently licensed code they can. The point was he doesn't have to use the GPL unless he wants to. He can use a far more permissive "I don't care, use it wherever you want" license for his bits.

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[Eythian]

Project Gutenburg would be a counter-proof.

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[Sarten-X]

Read the license from the perspective of your users. If a later GPL version adds new protections against software patents, API copyrights, or whatever else the legal system dreams up, the users can opt to follow the terms of that license. If, in a moment of collective insanity, the FSF publishes a less-free GPL, the user can opt to use the earlier version your software was originally released under.

That clause actually ensures that the current version establishes a minimum set of rights.

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[Anonymous Coward]

you're a myth

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[viperidaenz]

Few if any legal systems have a process for reliably donating works to the public domain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[ClickOnThis]

Great post. Moderators, take note.

I would add one thought: the GPL is indeed viral, but in the sense of HIV, rather than, say, influenza. You need to get "intimate" with GPL code to be "infected" by it. The level of intimacy that causes infection varies with context, but it happens through consent, not by accident.

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[ultranova]

Project Gutenburg would be a counter-proof.

Well, no. The issue is whether code - or any other copyrighted work - will ever enter public domain. Mickey Mouse Protection Act says it won't, and Project Gutenbert doesn't contradict that.

Not that it matters: copyright law has almost no legitimacy whatsoever, so it simply gets ignored despite draconian punishments. The whole concept of property law seems to simply be incompatible with the digital realm, consequently various message boards and other sites depending on user-generated content basically operate as communist utopias: everyone contributes whatever they can, the results are free for everyone to use at their leisure, and even personal glory isn't an issue, at least in anonymous messageboards. That's right: aside from its current immaturity, Anonymous is pretty much a model Marxist collective.

Funny, isn't it? Capitalism won the Cold War, but its natural development is now leading to Communism because that maximizes production in the Information Age. It wasn't a good model for industrial production, but as that keeps getting automated and focus shifts on coordination and cultural production, it turns out hierarchies simply get in the way. So nominally communist countries were arranged like giant corporations, while the new organizational model everyone's learning growing up now is "contribute according to your abilities, enjoy other people's contributions freely".

I wonder if this is why neoliberalism has been so fashionable lately: it's the struggle of a fading system to maintain it's dominance rather than be relegated to handling just a small subsection of total economy?

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[unrtst]

There is no "depends on how he's using it." If it doesn't have an LGPL interface header, you MUST release the code under GPL terms to use it.

(Sorry for the Clinton-esque answer) It depends on what you mean by "use". The problem with the original question is that there's not enough information to give a useful answer.. it's just fodder to get people talking with no real goal.

You can use GPL's software all you want, modify and recompile to your hearts content, and you don't have to release jack shit - unless you then distribute that stuff, and then only if you distribute it together (you can distribute your patches on their own with any license you choose).

That said, it sounds likely that the choices that NicknamesAreStupid made regarding various sources to include may not be very good choices, and they may be incompatible with his goals. Since he specifically mentioned the GPL (and especially since he didn't say LGPL instead), these compatibility pages should help:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/li...
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gp...
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gp...

The FSF (Free Software Foundation) comments on GPL works within the Apple App store is also quite relevant:
http://www.fsf.org/news/2010-0...
http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licen...
http://apple.stackexchange.com... (see 2nd answer)

Essentially, if you do not hold the copyright for the GPL'd work you are including in your iPhone App that you want to put on the Apple App Store, then you're SOL.... the App Store agreements are incompatible with that (GPL says, "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein", but the the Mac App Store Terms of Service explicitly add other restrictions, such as "you may only install the software on five approved devices"). You might be able to get permission from the works authors, but that permission would be to distribute said code under a non-GPL license (possibly 3 clause BSD?)

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[exomondo]

You can release _your_ code under whatever license you choose, as long as the license doesn't conflict with the GPL as applied to the derivative work as a whole.

Right, what he should have said was "GPL-compatible" license.

There's nothing "viral" about the GPL which distinguishes it from any other form of licensing. The BSD license is "viral" in that any derived works still have to obey the copyright notice requirements. Closed source licenses are "viral" in the sense that if your work uses closed-source software, your derivative work is subject to the restrictions and limitations of the closed-source license.

There is a degree of difference there though. Yes the BSD license is equally "viral" but the implications and restrictions imposed are significantly less of an imposition than those of the GPL. The same applies to closed source software which is why closed source and BSD software can be sold in the Apple App Store but GPL software cannot.

The only real issue here is the GPLv3's patent license requirements.

Well that depends on if he wants to distribute this iOS program in the App Store.

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[exomondo]

It must be GPL-compatible, it must not be GPL.

Why not? Based on the listed licenses GPL should still be fine.

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[Eythian]

Well, I forgot to add that your Mickey Mouse Protection Act doesn't even apply here anyway. Unfortunately determining the details of what is/isn't public domain is still difficult: http://www.digitalnz.org/make-...

but none of that means that it's a myth.

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[Eythian]

But things can go into the public domain after a time, which is what the post was referring to.

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[msobkow]

If GPL part "A" calls BSD part "B", then yes, that is true. But if BSD part "B" calls GPL part "A", it is in violation of the GPL license.

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[msobkow]

The same is true of any "GPL compatible" license, not just BSD.

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[Anonymous Coward]

public domain is a myth

[citation needed]

Mickey Mouse Protection Act

The link does not support the assertion.
The linked wikipedia article has the words "public domain" in it 26 times, and it states the rules under which all works eventually become public domain.
Sure, it's a long time, but it's not a myth.

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[tlhIngan]

If you're using GPL code, you have no choice but to release your code under the GPL as well.

But only if the GPL code can mix.

The FSF has agreed that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are fundamentally incompatible - GPLv3 imposes additional restrictions that conflict with GPLv2. So you have to be extremely careful when mixing GPL code together.

Basically, v2-only code (GPLv2) cannot touch v3 (GPLv3) code, and vice-versa. If you have v2 code, then make sure it is licensed as v2-or-higher (GPLv2+). The resulting GPLv2+ and GPLv3 code will form a GPLv3 work (if the GPLv3 code was GPLv3+, then it's GPLv3+).

And that's where mixing code gets really dangerous.

Personally, I dislike GPLv3, so I dual license my code as GPLv2 and BSD-3clause. GPLv2 means it says v2 (I don't license it under v2-or-higher), and the BSD 3 clause is inherently GPL incompatible. So the dual license means you can use it with GPL code (as a GPLv2 work, meaning no GPLv3 code can be included), or obey the 3 clause BSD and use it however you feel like it.

Yes, I sleep at night. If some company wants to take my work and use it, good on them. My issue is GPL folks who say "BSD lets companies steal your code" without admitting that GPL does the same while also saying GPL is superior because it doesn't allow it. Sorry, but locking BSD code up as GPL is exactly the same as companies locking up BSD code. Saying your license is superior because it disallows others from doing the same while doing it yourself is disingenuous. More than one BSD project has been unable to get back contributions from "superior" GPL projects because doing so will mean accepting GPL code.

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[cas2000]

the GPL is free even for the arseholes. it just doesn't let them be arseholes WITH the GPL-ed code.

GPL = once free, always free. no special privileges for arseholes to make it non-free in future.

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[Z00L00K]

It depends on if you want to push for everything being open source or if you just want to spread your pieces as open source. In the latter case the Apache license is probably one of the better with few snags for those that want to incorporate your pieces into something bigger.

Re: If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why piracy is real.

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[loonycyborg]

The point is copyright term is already absolutely ridiculous. They'll just keep extending it, no reason not to. The parties that were initiators of those extensions admitted that they want infinite copyright.

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[WilCompute]

The problem with this argument is if someone forks my project, and publishes it under a newer license, I can no longer accept changes back into my codebase. If I did, I would be forced to use the new license, making the GPL doubly viral, cannibalizing its own license to spread its viewpoint. This is the reason Linus made the Linux kernel GPL2 only.

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I guess it's quite reasonable to have the other author accept your license style for changes to your codebase, assuming the other author is pushing the changes back to your project.

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[Anonymous Coward]

I generally agree with the provided links and add more...
http://opensource.org/licenses provides a good overview of licenses.
http://www.openfoundry.org/en/compatibility-of-licenses addresses the specific issues described in the question.
http://www.openfoundry.org/en/license-wizard/licensewizardv33 provides a question and answer style of interaction that will help select an appropriate license for your goals.

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Linus didn't have a choice. There was a very small window of time in which it would have been practical to relicense the kernel. Your general point is valid, your specific example is poorly chosen.

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[sumdumass]

It still wouldn't matter. The other authors can license any way they want as long as it is compatible with your license. In the case of the GPL they can release their software as later version and still push back to your project under your version. You can take your code and release it proprietary and gpl at the same time because it's your code.

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[wvmarle]

Only if the GPL code is part of your own work. OP is talking about bundling software, and then it's no problem to mix licenses: there's a lot of GPL software in my Linux Mint installation, but not all software that's bundled with it and essential for the whole to work is GPL software.

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[budgenator]

the GPL is free even for the arseholes. it just doesn't let them be arseholes WITH the GPL-ed code.

GPL = once free, always free. no special privileges for arseholes to make it non-free in future.

The copyright owner/owners can always re-issue under any licence they choose at any time, the only complication that can arise is when there are multiple owners who can't or will not agree to change the licence. This is a problem with the Linux kernal because there have been so many contributions that have been added and removed over the decades that no one knows who all the copyright owners are.

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure. Technically, 'after the heat-death of the universe' is 'after a time'. But it doesn't do us mortals much good.

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[gstoddart]

And, more importantly ... if you think the GPL is "viral" and will "contaminate" your code ... piss off and don't use the GPL code. You don't have a "right" to the code.

This isn't a real problem in that the GPL sneaks in and alters other code licenses when nobody is looking.

This is a problem in that people want to use the GPL code in a way which is incompatible with the GPL, and then they become whiny idiots about how unfair the GPL is to them.

You are perfectly free to not use GPL code. Just because you want to ignore the license doesn't mean a damned thing.

But if your business model is to take GPL code and then pretend you don't have to abide by the terms, that's your damned problem.

When this happens, as you say, this is someone choosing to use the GPL code and then wining about how unfair it is to have to adhere to the license.

The problem is people think the GPL code is some free code they can steal and do anything they want with it. And that is very far from reality.

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no "depends on how he's using it." If it doesn't have an LGPL interface header, you MUST release the code under GPL terms to use it.

So you mean that the only way to "use GPL software" is by linking against it? Is that what you mean when you say that "there is no 'depends on how he's using it'"?

Because I'm pretty sure that's not the only option available.

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[ClickOnThis]

This isn't a real problem in that the GPL sneaks in and alters other code licenses when nobody is looking.

This is a problem in that people want to use the GPL code in a way which is incompatible with the GPL, and then they become whiny idiots about how unfair the GPL is to them.

Correct. Like I said, the "infection" happens through consent, not by accident.

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[Kjella]

No.

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[pem]

The problem is people think the GPL code is some free code they can steal and do anything they want with it.

Ummm, no.

At least not more than anything else.

Yes, there are people not following the terms of the license. Just like there are people not following the terms of other licenses.

But conflating those people with the people who are following the terms of the license -- people who say "Sorry, I can't use GCC, so I have to go play in the LLVM sandbox over here, and btw, if you want me to be able to contribute to projects in the future, the GPL is a non-starter" -- thinking or representing that those saying they cannot use your code are the same people as those illegally using your code -- that is just wrong.

Acting like they're whining when they are merely communicating the reality of their situation, that's not helpful either.

Because those aren't the people violating your license. Those are the people explaining why they are not using your code. And any time you gloss over this difference, you're adding to ignorance, rather than removing it.

Which seems to be a perfectly acceptable technique for many GPL proselytizers, but it's at least as dishonest as a lot of the strawmen you set up to rail against.

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[david_thornley]

I'm not following. There's two parts that get linked together, A and B. The combination must be released under the GPL, and any part of the combination may be used under the GPL. Anything containing A must be released under the GPL. The BSD-licensed B may be used elsewhere under the BSD license. You only need to conform to the GPL if you don't have another license for the code you're using.

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[ClickOnThis]

Well, speaking of strawmen...

Yes, there are people not following the terms of the license. Just like there are people not following the terms of other licenses.

But conflating those people with the people who are following the terms of the license -- people who say "Sorry, I can't use GCC, so I have to go play in the LLVM sandbox over here, and btw, if you want me to be able to contribute to projects in the future, the GPL is a non-starter" -- thinking or representing that those saying they cannot use your code are the same people as those illegally using your code -- that is just wrong.

First of all, gstoddart didn't conflate people who "whine" about the restrictions of the GPL (whether they violate the license or not) with those who respect it and avoid GPL code on principle and in good faith. He only spoke of the former, who indeed want to "steal" GPL code whether or not they actually do.

Second, compiling your code with GCC does not infect your source-code, or the compiled binary, with the GPL. Unless you static-link to a GPL library, but that's avoided easily by linking dynamically.

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[pem]

Well, speaking of strawmen... [gstoddardt] only spoke [of people] who indeed want to "steal" GPL code whether or not they actually do.

Yeah, he brought that up himself, in a conversation that wasn't about that at all, so... strawman.

Second, compiling your code with GCC does not infect your source-code, or the compiled binary, with the GPL.

Yeah, and you brought this up in a conversation where... I wasn't claiming that, or the grandparent, or that great-grandparent. So yeah, another strawman. You guys keep it up!

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[pem]

And just for the record, and to be clear, we were talking about reusing code, not just using code to compile stuff. In that context, "use GCC" means "take GCC code and make it work with my proprietary micro and release it to the world in a way that keeps the PHBs the company I licensed the micro from happy", not "compile x86 code with GCC."

But you knew that, right? Please tell me you knew that all the people who wrote LLVM didn't do so because they were worried that just compiling stuff with GCC would infect their code. You can't be so stupid you think they're all that ignorant, right?

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[ClickOnThis]

http://rlv.zcache.com/earth_wi...

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[pem]

Very droll. But to set the record straight on another point, this thread started with:

You can release _your_ code under whatever license you choose, as long as the license doesn't conflict with the GPL as applied to the derivative work as a whole.

it was actually the great Saint RMS himself who started all the FUD about GPL infection, when he forced the guy who wrote common Lisp to change his license to the GPL, merely because common Lisp could dynamically link to readline.

common Lisp didn't need readline. common Lisp didn't ship with readline. But if a customer had both on the same system, common Lisp could utilize readline.

Saint Stallman, at that point having giving up coding himself, had enough time on his hands to harangue people who were coding and didn't really care that much about the license, so the common Lisp guy just gave in.

So if people are spreading what you guys feel is FUD about code coming in contact with GPLed code and being infected, maybe you should take it up with the guy who started it.

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[Sarten-X]

That is correct, and normal.

You do not have an inherent right of ownership over his code. His code is a derivative work of yours, and your merged codebase would be a derivative work of his.

By modifying your code, he has created a new work, which is permitted under the terms of the earlier-version GPL. He then releases his new complete work (which includes your parts). That's also permitted under the earlier-version GPL, as long as he releases the source code. When someone wants to use the new work, they're required to have a license to it. He offers the user a later version of the GPL for his new work. Your parts are now covered by the earlier version if the user gets them from you directly, or the later version if acquired from the modifier.

In your case of merging back changes, his changes are part of his new work, which is covered in its entirety by the later license, regardless of the fact that your code is included. It's no different from merging in a bit of MIT-licensed code or even a proprietary routine: you have to comply with the terms of the license. For a later-version GPL, that means your new combined derivative work would have to be compatible with the later-version GPL.

In short, the core idea is that your codebase is a new work every time you change and republish it. To "accept changes back into my codebase" is actually creating a new derivative work, and it must be properly licensed as any other derivative work must be, regardless of your involvement in the work's ancestry.

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[Anonymous Coward]

it was actually the great Saint RMS himself who started all the FUD about GPL infection, when he forced the guy who wrote common Lisp to change his license to the GPL

RMS didn't "force" anyone to do anything. I read the whole conversation and what happened here is RMS told Bruno Haible he was distributing someone else's code in violation of the GPL, which it was licensed under.

Bruno had a choice - stop distribution, fight the claim, relicense, or write his own code to replace the GPL'd stuff. He chose to relicense.

It's the same choice everyone has when using GPL'd code - if you abide by the terms of the license, you have permission to redistribute. If not, you have no rights under copyright law.

Bottom line: if you don't plan to share your code, don't use someone else's GPL'd code with it.

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[pem]

I mis-remembered the conversation slightly, but you mis-characterize the conversation grossly. Bruno offered to stop distributing readline, but even that wasn't good enough for Stallman.

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[Anonymous Coward]

It wasn't good enough for RMS, because he considered Clisp to be a derivative program designed to link with readline, regardless of whether the user or the developer did the linking. I'm not sure I agree with that stance, but you conveniently gloss over the part where Bruno decided that it would be better for Clisp to be under GPL, which is the main reason he relicensed it (the other being that he didn't want to re-implement readline).

The point remains, he had a choice - he was not forced into anything.

Re:If you're using GPL code, you have no choice

[pem]

I said in my original post, it looked to me like Bruno cared more about delivering working code than he cared about licensing issues. If that's "glossing over", so be it.

RMS's stance (that delivering a program that can be used in conjunction with another one without redistributing the other one is a copyright violation) is patently ridiculous.

Yes, RMS gave Bruno a choice, but it was a false one. Interestingly, the written decision on Sega v. Accolade came out right in the middle of that exchange. I was paying attention at the time, and I'm sure Stallman was as well. Bruno, not so much.

Indeed it probably doesn't matter

[wvmarle]

No license: default copyright. No-one is allowed to redistribute without your express permission.

The dependencies I assume will be distributed within your package; and I assume their licenses in turn allow this, as this are open source licenses.

If so, you would be able to choose any license you like for your code - or indeed simply nothing special at all - and choose based on your preferences/philosophy on the level of freedoms given for use of your work.

Re:Indeed it probably doesn't matter

[T.E.D.]

No license: default copyright. No-one is allowed to redistribute without your express permission.

No license is worse than that. It means nobody knows what the terms of your use of this software are. For all anybody knows, you actually agreed to something outlandish like the deed to your house in exchange for the right to make a backup copy. You can't prove otherwise, because you can't present a copy of this "no license".

If a company ends up with such software and an audit happens, there will be major problems. So I don't ever ever use someone else's software if it didn't come with some kind of license.

Re:Indeed it probably doesn't matter

[wvmarle]

What is the legal value of such an included license, really? You don't have the issuer's signature on it. You could argue it's "signed" if you download from the maker's web site, but not if you're downloading from a third party source, where the package could have been altered.

Re:Indeed it probably doesn't matter

[david_thornley]

No. You're simply distributing without a license. This means that you can be sued for monetary damages and be told to stop doing what you're doing (and if you don't comply things get worse). You can only agree to license terms by agreeing to license terms.

No GPL

[Sigvatr]

Please do not license it under an L/GPL license. There's a lot of software I would like to use, but am not legally allowed to because it uses a GPL license. It sucks.

Re:No GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Please do license it under GPL. It's really helpful for the community if people's useful modifications to your program are made public!

Re:No GPL

[cheater512]

You are allowed to use it. You choose not to.

Re:No GPL

[caseih]

You've been misinformed. I don't blame you, but you've apparently never read the GPL. It explicitly says:

You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.

Thus you are free to download and use it for any purpose, provided you do not redistribute it or derive software from it. Pretty clear.

Perhaps you meant to say there's a lot of GPL software you'd like to incorporate into your own software but you can't because of the license. You would be correct. And you won't get any sympathy either. As they say, write your own code!

Re:No GPL

[bhcompy]

Well, same thing with licensed software. You choose to disobey whatever scheme they're using.

Re:No GPL

[jedidiah]

You must be a sociopath then, or work for one.

That's really the only reason to not use something with a copyleft license.

All the GPL does is enforce that "everyone plays nice" with a shared resource. If you can't do that, then you're an anti-social jackass that should be shunned.

Stick to the LGPL and it's not even any more viral than anything else.

Re:No GPL

[null etc.]

If you can't do that, then you're an anti-social jackass that should be shunned.

Nice try, Richard Stallman's alias.

I bet that the corporate, proprietary world has done more good for free software than free software has. After all, someone has to pay the salaries of programmers, right? I've personally been involved in huge numbers of projects where developer's exposure to open source projects, within the context of a proprietary-only workplace, has enabled the skills and exposure to those open source projects, with said developers going on to work on derivative, open source projects in their spare time.

Nice try, though, at seeing the world through black-and-white lenses.

Re:No GPL

[pem]

You must be a sociopath then, or work for one.

I've always envied people who can see the universe in black and white.

It scares the shit out of me whenever they get any sort of power, though.

That's really the only reason to not use something with a copyleft license.

Because they prove over and over that they are incapable of rational thought.

Re:No GPL

[just another AC]

You are allowed to use it. You choose not to.

I do not intend to re-write the same code twice. My personal time is finite.

If my employer says I am not allowed to use it, that is not a choice.

and the argument "It's helpful for the community if people's useful modifications to your program are made public" ... well if I am forced to use another solution then this potentially helpful code will not be written for your project in the first place, so there is 0% chance of it being made public because it will not exist.

Remember: Sometimes allowing more people to play has benefits, even if they do take their bat and ball and go home at the end.

Re:No GPL

[ClickOnThis]

I bet that the corporate, proprietary world has done more good for free software than free software has.

Citation needed.

After all, someone has to pay the salaries of programmers, right?

Sure. But there are other ways to pay programmers than by the sale of proprietary software.

I've personally been involved in huge numbers of projects where developer's exposure to open source projects, within the context of a proprietary-only workplace, has enabled the skills and exposure to those open source projects, with said developers going on to work on derivative, open source projects in their spare time.

And you don't think the benefit flows in the other direction too?

Re:No GPL

[exomondo]

Remember: Sometimes allowing more people to play has benefits, even if they do take their bat and ball and go home at the end.

And this is what we see with Apple's OSX, sure they haven't released all the source code for the operating system but since many of its parts are built on permissive open source licenses rather than restrictive ones those parts can be used in the closed source operating system but also released as source for other people to use.

For example Safari is not open source but we sure get a lot of contributions to WebKit which is used in lots of places.

Re:No GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

I love the term "anti-social jackass" coming from you, a known Slashdot troll, Linux zealot, and FOSS extremist. Irony good enough to butter the thickest bread.

Re:No GPL

[serviscope_minor]

Let me analyse this:

Please do not license it under an L/GPL license. There's a lot of software I would like to use, but am not legally allowed to because it uses a GPL license. It sucks.

This has one of two meanings:

The first (kind) meaning is that the OP is merely astonishingly ignorant and believes that using GPL software like Linux, GCC, LibreOffice and so on somehow "traps" him under the GPL. I'm honestly not sure what he believes, but it's probably something along the lines of everything that touches the GPL software is FORCED to be released as GPL. This is so far from being true it's hilarious. One can trivially see it's true from the number of companies which use GPL software stacks (i.e. most internet servers) and don't release the application layer code.

The second meaning is that by "use" he means that he wants you to write source code for entirely free for him and not only that, he doesn't even want to contribute by sharing with others as you shared with him. If that's the case he's a wretched freeloader.

Re:No GPL

[serviscope_minor]

Or in this case, it doens't because you're apparently completely ignorant of the GPL.

I really don't know why I have to repeat this. It'sd been said in this thread numerous time, repeated in the past many times all over the internet and it's even on the FSF's website.

You don't have to agree to the GPL to use the software.

Ergo, there is no possibly way in which the GPL can affect mere use of the software.

Re:No GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not intend to re-write the same code twice.

Which has nothing to do with USING.

The GPL is a distribution license, not an EULA. You can use GPL software all you want, without needing to care about the GPL. But you can't distribute without a license (which the GPL is).

If your employer says you can't use GPL code, does he also say that you can't use Outlook? Because Outlook has a much more strict license than the GPL (essentially no modification, no distribution, and in some areas you even need to accept the EULA to USE it).

Re:No GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Please do not license it under an L/GPL license. There's a lot of software I would like to use, but am not legally allowed to because it uses a GPL license. It sucks.

If you believe being GPL compared to not being GPL is any difference for usage, then you can simply NOT accept the GPL license at all. You will not gain distribution rights at all, but otherwise you can do anything else with it so long as "anything" isn't letting someone else have it.

Use is fine. Distribution is the only factor that requires you to agree and be bound by the GPL.

Is distribution that important to you? I have to say though, if it is, you probably should stay away from GPL software, since you seem to want to take that code against the authors will and try to turn a profit on it yourself.
In that case, yes, go develop your own software yourself and sell it. Don't take other peoples work, do no work yourself, and try to make money on it.

Re:No GPL

[ranton]

Please do not license it under an L/GPL license. There's a lot of software I would like to use, but am not legally allowed to because it uses a GPL license.

You must be a sociopath then, or work for one.

That's really the only reason to not use something with a copyleft license.

No, another very valid reason not to use copyleft code is because you are developing proprietary software where you do not intend to release the source code. Do you truly believe everyone developing closed source proprietary software is a sociopath? I am not sure even Richard Stallman thinks that, and I thought his was the most extreme opinion in the free software community.

I am developing software that takes use of many open libraries, but only ones that are truly open. This is because I currently intend to release the software with a dual license similar to MySQL. If I can find a way to fund the project another way I will, because I would prefer the software to be completely free, although I don't want to back myself into a corner and limit my options in the future by using GPL code.

Re:No GPL

[pem]

Or in this case, it doens't because you're apparently completely ignorant of the GPL.

So if I disagree that the only valid license to use ever is the GPL, it's simply because I'm ignorant of it. Yes, you're just as insane as the guy I just responded to.

I really don't know why I have to repeat this.

Why did you feel compelled to repeat that "pem is ignorant of the GPL"? Does that help your cause? Or maybe that's not what you meant. Does a lack of clarity help your cause?

It's been said in this thread numerous time, repeated in the past many times all over the internet and it's even on the FSF's website.

Repeat after me: repeating something doesn't make it true.

You don't have to agree to the GPL to use the software.

Fine. Point out where I said it did. And then stop being a name-calling dickhead.

Re:No GPL

[pem]

The second meaning is that by "use" he means that he wants you to write source code for entirely free for him and not only that, he doesn't even want to contribute by sharing with others as you shared with him.

Completely unimaginative, naive, binary thinking. Is it just possible that someone might like to contribute back -- might even have significant contributions that they can and will make to whatever package they use -- but that for some reason outside their control, they cannot divulge everything they are working on?

I write a lot of open source. Personally, I put all my packages under permissive licenses, because I don't want the people who use them to have to worry about the licenses.

If that's the case he's a wretched freeloader.

See, this kind of name calling is exactly why GPL proponents are often called "communists." You don't call users "freeloaders" -- you only call people who might be able to contribute back "freeloaders." From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs, and all that rot.

Except you're not even doing a very good job of following the communist doctrine -- when somebody tells you that, for reasons outside his control, he cannot utilize GPLed software, instead of trying to help him with his needs, you just harangue him and call him bad names.

That's complete and utter bollocks. Here's my philosophy: I only invest time and effort in things that I can reuse under lots of different forseeable circumstances. This means that I'm more than happy to use complete programs that are GPLed -- because I can always use them as programs under any circumstances (there are no field of use restrictions) -- but I try very hard never to use libraries that are GPLed, because I might invest a lot of time learning and contributing to them, and then not be able to reuse them when I need to.

And the LGPL is a non-starter. The philosophy of contributing back the code is actually fine, and if that were all, I wouldn't even mind making that my default license. But the philosophy of having to distribute unlinked code so that users could relink with a new version, and then having to support that -- that's a fucking nightmare.

Re:No GPL

[pem]

Perhaps you meant to say there's a lot of GPL software you'd like to incorporate into your own software but you can't because of the license.

I think he said what he meant to say, e.g. if you're an author, please consider using a different license than the GPL, because some people (e.g. him; yes, people are somewhat narcissistic that way, go figure) won't be able to utilize it otherwise.

And you won't get any sympathy either.

He's not looking for sympathy. He's looking for code. Believe it or not, a lot of this code will spring into existence eventually, and the GPL is actually hurting as much as it helps. Would LLVM exist if it weren't for the GPL, or would those people have worked on GCC? What about toybox vs. busybox?

As they say, write your own code!

This is the stupidest line, and it's uttered by GPL proponents all the fucking time. Why is it stupid? Because you don't tell it to users -- you tell it to programmers who are writing their own code.

Re:No GPL

[caseih]

No one owes him anything. It may not matter to the GPL'd code's author whether this guy wants to use it in his own code or not. There are lots of reasons for writing code.

It's absolutely not a stupid line. The guy who GPL'd the code wrote it so he can do what he wants with it. That is his right. Surely this other developer can write his own code too? Of course GPL'd people don't use that line with end users. After all they are free to use the software however they see fit. That's what the GPL says.

As for toybox, llvm, etc. Good for them. Competition is a good thing. LLVM rejuvenated the stagnant GCC project. As for busybox vs toybox, toybox certainly is the better choice if the company doesn't know how to comply with the GPL or is too lazy to do so. For too long companies thought open source, particularly "free software" mean public domain. It does not, regardless of license. There are obligations under copyright law for all source code licenses, even proprietary ones like MS's royalty-free runtime redistribution licenses.

Re:No GPL

[pem]

No one owes him anything.

Who said otherwise? Why do you feel compelled to set up a strawman?

It may not matter to the GPL'd code's author whether this guy wants to use it in his own code or not.

That's absolutely true. But it may matter, so it's a great thing for the guy to say "if you do this, I can't use your code." Unless you don't believe in freedom of speech.

There are lots of reasons for writing code.

Sure, and I don't want to discourage anybody from writing code, and if you feel you need to use the GPL to write code, that's great -- do it!

It's (As they say, write your own code) absolutely not a stupid line.

No, it really is. At least in the context you are using it. You don't tell it to users. You're telling it to people who are already writing their own code.

The guy who GPL'd the code wrote it so he can do what he wants with it. That is his right.

Sure it's his right; same as it's the right (free speech and all) of the other guy to say that, for him, that makes the code unusable. "Write your own code" is not an attempt to address the pros and cons of different positions -- it's merely an attempt to shut the argument down.

Surely this other developer can write his own code too?

Exactly. That's what he's doing. And that's part of how LLVM and Toybox come about. And that's why it's stupid to say "write your own code." He's already writing his own fucking code.

Of course GPL'd people don't use that line with end users. After all they are free to use the software however they see fit. That's what the GPL says.

Ah. So the only reason you aren't snarky to end-users is because you're blindly following the religion of the license. Awesome.

As for toybox, llvm, etc. Good for them. Competition is a good thing. LLVM rejuvenated the stagnant GCC project. As for busybox vs toybox, toybox certainly is the better choice if the company doesn't know how to comply with the GPL or is too lazy to do so.

Hey, something we can agree on!

For too long companies thought open source, particularly "free software" mean public domain. It does not, regardless of license.

But this is a strawman in the current context. The upstream poster obviously doesn't believe that. He's not asking to use GPLed software in a way inconsistent with the license. He's telling you that he won't be able to use your software if you use that license, because he won't use it in violation of the license.

There are obligations under copyright law for all source code licenses, even proprietary ones like MS's royalty-free runtime redistribution licenses.

And this is a strawman, too. When somebody says, "if you use this license, I can't use the code" that is a data point, not an indication they are a criminal. Quite the opposite.

Re:No GPL

[david_thornley]

FWIW, the GPL FAQ suggests the use of a more permissive license in some cases (such as code so short that the length of the GPL becomes cumbersome).

Re:No GPL

[david_thornley]

Stallman believes that proprietary software is immoral. I suspect he thinks people who are not sociopaths can do immoral things.

There are some things F/OSS excels at. However, it doesn't do well in niche markets, or areas that programmers tend not to consider fun or interesting. Eliminating proprietary software would make the world a lot poorer, and there's no reason to think F/OSS would pick up the gap.

Re:No GPL

[null etc.]

Citation needed.

No citation needed, it's an assertion based upon the most rudimentary understanding of economics. Of course, I might be wrong.

Sure. But there are other ways to pay programmers than by the sale of proprietary software.

You are correct. However, all of the points referenced therein make presumptions about open source software that was already mature. How do you think such open source software becomes mature? By developers with programming skills. How do those developers gain programming skills? Hint: not solely through open source projects.

And you don't think the benefit flows in the other direction too?

Of course it does. There are many mutually-beneficial relationships between open source projects and commercial entities that use them.

Re:No GPL

[serviscope_minor]

Completely unimaginative, naive, binary thinking. Is it just possible that someone might like to contribute back -- might even have significant contributions that they can and will make to whatever package they use -- but that for some reason outside their control, they cannot divulge everything they are working on?

Yeah, rationality and reading comprehension are such binary things. He was talking about "using" not contributing back. I can only go on saying what he means not what someone liek you believes what he means. He made no mention of contributions, only mention of use.

See, this kind of name calling is exactly why GPL proponents are often called "communists."

Er, huh? u mad bro? It's called freeloading because not only does he want something for nothing. That's called freeloading under a capitalist economy too.

You don't call users "freeloaders",

They're not.

you only call people who might be able to contribute back "freeloaders."

No, I call people who want to take the free stuff I've stuck out there and wrap it up inproprietary licenses entirely for free "freeloaders". They want to take, take. take and give nothing back.

From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs, and all that rot.

Can we trade Marx quotes? How about:

Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.

Except you're not even doing a very good job of following the communist doctrine ... because I'm not a communist?

when somebody tells you that, for reasons outside his control, he cannot utilize GPLed software, instead of trying to help him with his needs

You may have noticed the first option, where he was merely ignorant, I sought to correct. If he takes my advice then he'll be fine. I gave two options. He can pick whichever he wants.

Also with the LGPL3, the linking condition of which you speak is now gone.

Re:No GPL

[serviscope_minor]

So if I disagree that the only valid license to use ever is the GPL, it's simply because I'm ignorant of it. Yes, you're just as insane as the guy I just responded to.

Nope. Dunno how you read that.

But your reasons are based on a completely flawed understanding of the GPL.

Why did you feel compelled to repeat that "pem is ignorant of the GPL"? Does that help your cause? Or maybe that's not what you meant. Does a lack of clarity help your cause?

I don't know what cause you think I have? Why should I be patient of people who make bold and completely incorrect claims about the GPL. You didn't bother to read it and you didn't bother to read the FAQ. The fact that you don't have to agree to the GPL to use the software (the FSF hates EULAs) has been hashed over and covered so thoroughly by now.

So if you go out of your way to make claims about it without bothering to actually verify, then the fault is entirely with the person making the claim.

Repeat after me: repeating something doesn't make it true.

Which is presumably why you keep saying crap about the GPL which is untrue.

Fine. Point out where I said it did.

You came out in support of the guy being called a sociapath for making up lies about the GPL. Someone who goes around spreading lies is a sociopath. If you disagree, I assume either you're fine with the lies or you're labouring under the same misapprehensions as he is. In which case, go and educate yourself.

Re:No GPL

[pem]

You came out in support of the guy...

No, I came out to call out this:

That's really the only reason to not use something with a copyleft license.

Which, if you really believe, makes it impossible to have rational conversation with you. The comment about a sociopath is just gravy, showing that you are not interested in real debate.

But your reasons are based on a completely flawed understanding of the GPL

This shows the same thing. So I'll honor that request to not have a real debate, despite the fact that I have an extremely detailed understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the GPL and other licenses, as well.

Re:No GPL

[pem]

Yeah, rationality and reading comprehension are such binary things.

Apparently they are.

He was talking about "using" not contributing back.

If you would just apply the tiniest bit of thought to this, you would realize that if he is not allowed to use something (because of other conditions placed on him), there is no reason for him to learn it well enough to contribute back to it. It's a horse-and-cart, or chicken-and-egg thing.

It's called freeloading because not only does he want something for nothing.

How do you know? By your logic, no non-GPL free software could ever be developed.

You don't call users "freeloaders",

They're not.

Well, alrighty then!

you only call people who might be able to contribute back "freeloaders."

No, I call people who want to take the free stuff I've stuck out there and wrap it up inproprietary licenses entirely for free "freeloaders". They want to take, take. take and give nothing back.

Sorry, that doesn't compute. If he admires your stuff and would like to use it, but can't, and lets you know he can't -- he's not a freeloader.

Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.

Your principles aren't very principled if they include calling people who aren't even using your stuff freeloaders, while not calling people who are using your stuff freeloaders.

You may have noticed the first option, where he was merely ignorant, I sought to correct. If he takes my advice then he'll be fine. I gave two options. He can pick whichever he wants.

No, your "answers" assumed a lot that wasn't in evidence about his motivations and position. It really isn't that black and white in a lot of peoples' worlds.

Also with the LGPL3, the linking condition of which you speak is now gone.

All right, smarty-pants, then what's the point of section 4d0?

Re:No GPL

[serviscope_minor]

No, you don't have a good understanding.

Because you don't need to agree to the GPL to use it. This is extremely well known and is clearly stated on the FSF website, as well as being obvious from the GPL itself. Therefore there are no good reasons not to use GPL software.

If you want to distribute GPL software to people and place extra restrictions on it, well you can't. That is literally the only thing it prevents. Note how there's nothing about using the software in there. It only matters if and when the time comes that you want to distribute it.

Let me repeat one more time: GPL is a distribution license not a use license.

Re:No GPL

[pem]

No, you don't have a good understanding.

You don't know jack about my understanding.

Because you don't need to agree to the GPL to use it.

When people discuss "using" a program, they are usually simply talking about using the program.

When people discuss "using" library code, then yes, often -- in fact, usually -- distribution is implied. When people talk about "using" GPL code and complain they can't, then it's awfully condescending of you to (as you keep doing) assume they don't know what the fuck they are talking about, rather than simply assuming they are writing informally, and in the context of their writing, "use" implies "distribution."

Hell, if you don't want to assume, and don't want to be an asshole, you could just ask, y'know -- "Did you mean utilize all by yourself, or did you mean distribute?"

But that would take all the argument away and not be fun, amirite?

Now if you go and re-read with this simple fact in your head, you might find a completely different take on things.

Re:No GPL

[serviscope_minor]

When people discuss "using" library code, then yes, often -- in fact, usually -- distribution is implied.

Not even slightly. Huge amounts of stuff now runs on some company computer or server. NMo distribution required.

assume they don't know what the fuck they are talking about, rather than simply assuming they are writing informally, and in the context of their writing, "use" implies "distribution."

Why should I assume knowledge? Words mean things. If people can't write clearly, it ain't my fault. And it's not liek slashdot hasn't been full of misconceptions about the GPL in the past. Nosireee.

Now if you go and re-read with this simple fact in your head, you might find a completely different take on things.

If you remember, I originally gave too options: being ignorant or being a freeloader. If he meant use as in use, then he was ignorant. If he meant use as in distribute then hw was shining about not being able to use someone else's stuff for free.

Cry me a river.

Re:No GPL

[pem]

Why should I assume knowledge?

You don't have to assume knowledge. But you don't have to assume a lack of knowledge either, if you're interested in an honest debate.

Words mean things.

Yes, words do mean things, and "use" does often mean "distribute" despite your insincere protestations to the contrary. It's a normal everyday usage of the word, not a legalistic one.

If people can't write clearly, it ain't my fault.

His writing was quite clear. It's your wilful blinders that make it seem otherwise.

And it's not liek slashdot hasn't been full of misconceptions about the GPL in the past. Nosireee.

Yes, but you can't claim for a minute with a straight face that the misconceptions are all on one side.

If you remember, I originally gave too options: being ignorant or being a freeloader.

How can I forget that? It's that asshole, dickish false dichotomy that drew me in. No matter how you want to twist it, those aren't the only two options.

If he meant use as in distribute then hw was shining about not being able to use someone else's stuff for free.

Again, there's a huge difference between saying "I really want your stuff, and I'm just taking it" and "Even if you have some nice stuff, I won't be able to use it unless you do this." And it's still very disingenuous of you to place somebody saying the latter thing in the "freeloader" category.

As I said, I write lots of open source software. It's all permissively-licensed, because then I know that there is no problem using it in anything, either for me or others. I won't use GPLed libraries, because if I'm going to learn a tool well, I want to be able to use it under any forseeable circumstances. By your logic, deciding on a pragmatic course of action like this makes me a freeloader.

You keep complaining about supposed unclear writing and ignorance, but even when it's already been pointed out, you also keep whining about people who are not using other people's stuff being "freeloaders". I don't know and don't really care whether you troll from meanness or stupidity, but troll you do -- that's the most torturous logic in this whole thread, and if you weren't so heavily invested in that goofy opinion, you wouldn't have to resort to cheap debating tricks like deliberately misunderstanding your opponents.

Re:No GPL

[serviscope_minor]

Yes, words do mean things, and "use" does often mean "distribute" despite your insincere protestations to the contrary. It's a normal everyday usage of the word, not a legalistic one.

No, it doesn't. It is used that way by a very small subset of devs only. To almost anyone else, using a piece of software is different from giving it to someone else.

Yes, but you can't claim for a minute with a straight face that the misconceptions are all on one side.

You thoroughly slew that straw man! Good for you.

How can I forget that? It's that asshole, dickish false dichotomy that drew me in. No matter how you want to twist it, those aren't the only two options.

No it isn't a false, it's an actual genuine true one dichotomy. Literally the only thing the GPL prevents is you distributing the software with additional restrictions. Therefore either he wanted to do that or he is ignorant. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, I won't concede the point.

Again, there's a huge difference between saying "I really want your stuff, and I'm just taking it" and "Even if you have some nice stuff, I won't be able to use it unless you do this." And it's still very disingenuous of you to place somebody saying the latter thing in the "freeloader" category

Everybody already knows you can't use GPL software and add new restrictions, or, colloquially, put it in proprietary software. My response to that is I care approximarely this much [insert teeny gesture] that you can't use my software for free and add restrictions to it.

Re:No GPL

[pem]

Well I'm glad we have the vocabulary sorted. "Use" very seldom means distribute (especially for people who hang out at slasdot and say they cannot do it), and "freeloader" is always the perfect word for people who aren't using your software.

Re:No GPL

[serviscope_minor]

Well done you ignored every point I made. You have thereby proven that had I given you the benefit of the doubt in any debate it would have been entirely misplaces.

Which sort of proves my point and disproves yours.

HAND.

WTFPL

[Sigvatr]

Real men use the WTFPL, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:WTFPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Note that the WTFPL does not have a liability disclaimer.

This is not allowed by the GPL.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not allowed to distribute GPL software on Apple's App store, because Apple will not comply with the GPL. Read http://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance for more details.

Re:This is not allowed by the GPL.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not allowed to distribute GPL software on Apple's App store, because people who license their code under the GPL are dogmatic cunts who would rather fight a battle against the changing tides than see their software gain mainstream acceptance.

But me no buts, neckbeards. GPL is in decline, steadily eroding as they try to make licensing terms even more restrictive with GPL 3.0. BSD, MIT, Apache, and other permissive licenses are a better choice for someone who cares about freedom.

Re:This is not allowed by the GPL.

[jedidiah]

Sure. Lets pander to the flavor of the month corporation just because they are the trendy thing today. Let's forget about the DECADES of work and progress that has gone into the collective body of Free Software. Let's also give a big "fuck you" to all of the nice contributors while we are at it.

It's Apple that's the newcomer playing the jerk imposing restrictions that are entirely unnecessary.

Freedom is not a Mad Max free-for-all where Apple can try to be the boss of the Thunderdome.

Re:This is not allowed by the GPL.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that why my Linux distribution comes with binary drivers?

Re:This is not allowed by the GPL.

[serviscope_minor]

Memory fades fast. A lot of people forget the environment and conditions that spawned the GPL and the huge amount of code released under it. Things are on average better than then in no small part to the GPL and the early efforts, so the GPL will wane for now.

It won't stay that way for ever, and when things take a turn for the worse, the FSF will still be there.

This ...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://bipcot.org/

Probably GPL, but depends on Apple

[mx b]

You beat me to it :-)

To the original poster:

The GPL is "viral" in that if you use even a smattering of GPLed code, you are required to release ALL of your code as GPL as well.

It concerns me that you state you use example Apple code. What license is it? ("has its own terms" is completely unhelpful).

In general, you're restricted to using a license that is the most restrictive. The liberal licenses like BSD and MIT can morph into anything pretty much. GPL is one of the most restrictive on redistribution (RMS would say it preserves user freedoms by restricting developer distribution, and I would tend to agree with it; just throwing that in there because I don't mean restrictive in a negative sense here, only that it was designed to prevent people from running off with the code without contributing back to the community, so you can't just re-release GPLed code under MIT like you suggested). Apple's license may be open source or not; furthermore, there are known open source licenses that are NOT compatible with the GPL, so its entirely possible that the Apple code may not be distributed together with the GPL code. For reference, see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/li....

It's possible your pro-bono advice is correct and this doesn't matter too much if you release it publicly and open source (it seems unlikely open source projects would sue other open source projects), but in case you ever plan on making money on this project (and even if you don't), to avoid any possible legal trouble you should choose the most restrictive license compatible with all licenses at play. Likely this means the GPL, but the wildcard is Apple. If you post the terms to it, we could probably help sort it out (with the usual IANAL caveat). Otherwise, you may need to rethink which libraries are included with your code and possibly even roll your own depending how niche it is.

Re:Probably GPL, but depends on Apple

[mark-t]

The GPL is "viral" in that if you use even a smattering of GPLed code, you are required to release ALL of your code as GPL as well.

Incorrect... Copyright says that you can't legally make a derivative work at all without permission from the copyright holder. The GPL gives people such permission when they agree to abide by its terms. If they don't agree, they don't have permission to do it in the first place, which is the default status for any copyrighted work, anyways.

What's viral about that?

Re:Probably GPL, but depends on Apple

[serviscope_minor]

What's viral about that?

It's viral in that there's an awful lot of freeloaders out there who are convinced that somehow they have the right to use the code completely for free and are angry that the the owner of the code insists on "share and share alike". Oddly they don't apply the same logic to commercial software.

Re:Probably GPL, but depends on Apple

[WilCompute]

The viral part is forcing you to use the same license. If the GPL were the only option available, it would be very free compared to closed source licenses. Since it is competing with the likes of the BSDs and MITs of the world, it is one of the most restrictive licenses. It forces you not just to use its license with its own source code, but also with others source code, to which the original developer doesn't necessarily have any claim.

Re:Probably GPL, but depends on Apple

[TheRaven64]

The GPL is "viral" in that if you use even a smattering of GPLed code, you are required to release ALL of your code as GPL as well.

Not true. Go back and re-read the GPL. You are required to release your code under a license that places no more restrictions on it than the GPL. You must also license the combined work under the GPL. It is, however, completely fine to take a few files of GPL'd code, combine them with some BSDL'd code files (as long as those files are not a derived work of the GPL'd code) and ship the resulting program under the GPL. If someone else takes only the BSDL'd files for use in another project then they are not bound by the GPL.

There are two ways in which the GPL is 'viral'. The first is that you cannot change the license of something that you do not own, so any derived works retain the copyright and license of the original. The second is that the GPL is a distribution license and, if you wish to retain the right to distribute it, then you must not distribute it in a way that does not pass on the freedoms listed in the license (meaning that the combined work must grant all of the permissions as the GPL'd parts).

Re:Probably GPL, but depends on Apple

[gstoddart]

Well, if's only viral if you're stupid and self entitled enough to think you can use it and not abide by the terms.

Yes, BSD is completely free, and has its place in the world. I've worked on commercial software based on BSD licensed code.

But when people who weren't forced to use GPLd code bitch about it being viral, they're essentially being childish idiots.

Its screams "waaah, the bad man won't let me take his code and change the license and use it how I see fit". Nobody promised you the code, nobody owes you the code. That someone then decides they should be able to take the code and use it anyway just says they think they're special, and the rules are too cumbersome.

So, "viral" in this context means the person saying it's viral has acted like an idiot, an decided after the fact they don't like the terms of the license.

It sure as hell isn't a "problem" with GPL code. It's a problem with people who don't want to abide by the license on code and somehow think using someone else's code is a right.

Re:Probably GPL, but depends on Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

When copyright wasn't a thing, the world kept on spinning. Don't talk about a human invention as if it were some universal constant, and don't use slurs to describe your opponents. If you're going to argue against a position, describe it in terms that its proponents would cheer, and then destroy it. The slur is a sign of intellectual laziness.

Re:Probably GPL, but depends on Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

It's "viral" because it takes over other licenses and spreads like a virus.

Consider this example: You modify some GPL'ed software with a bit of your own code that integrates with a BSD'ed library.

You wrote some GPL'ed code in a GPL'ed program. No biggie, you should've known what you were getting into when you did it.

But you also just completely changed the license on someone else's software library because now the GPL "virally" takes over the BSD license that was originally on that library. Now there's a software library out there with a GPL'ed fork. The BSD license grants you permission to do this, so it's not illegal. But it's still "viral" in the sense that the GPL does a whole "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine" act on it.

And that is a problem for maintenance, because the original developer of that library sure-as-hell isn't going to support your new GPL'ed fork, and most likely, neither will you.

It's not about rights. It's about why free software is a minefield of sketchy, unsupported, legally-suspect crap in many cases. I see "GPL" and I think "work". I see "BSD" and I think "no worries". That's definitely an issue that is holding back free software.

Re:Probably GPL, but depends on Apple

[gstoddart]

It's "viral" because it takes over other licenses and spreads like a virus.

Consider this example: You modify some GPL'ed software with a bit of your own code that integrates with a BSD'ed library.

You wrote some GPL'ed code in a GPL'ed program. No biggie, you should've known what you were getting into when you did it.

Well, that's not a problem with the license.

It's the problem of people who are mixing and matching licenses and ignoring what they say.

This is a contrived example of someone doing a shitty job of combining licences. It's not an example of a failure of the license.

If you're grabbing stuff under incompatible licenses, throwing them together, and then complaining the licences are incompatible means you're doing it wrong, and that's your damned problem.

If you don't want this problem, don't be stupid and assume you're allowed to use code which mixes multiple licenses and then claim it's someone else's fault.

You're bitching about a problem which is self inflicted as a result of being too lazy to actually follow the licences. You don't have a magic right to use stuff of differing licences and pretend like it's someone else's responsibility to make them work together, and it's stupid to blame it on the GPL.

Don't like the GPL? Go steal someone else's code. But stop acting like you're entitled to it and that it's a problem for you.

Re:Probably GPL, but depends on Apple

[david_thornley]

BSD is pretty much compatible with every license, including proprietary ones. Microsoft has incorporated BSD code (at least they've issued the necessary notices). Nobody seems to complain, except when somebody using a GPL version uses BSDed code. Somehow, that's considered evil.

The most practical thing may be to keep the BSD code separate, modify it and release the modifications under the BSD, and keep that license available for that specific code. The combined work has to be released under the GPL, but individual components can be available under other licenses as well.

Re:Probably GPL, but depends on Apple

[mx b]

It's because BSD/MIT pretty much are cool with anything as long as you attribute the code to the original author. That is the main requirement of distribution. So proprietary is ok as long as somewhere deep in the credits they add the name of the original author.

GPL meanwhile requires not just attribution, but the availability of the full source code. So you can't be a proprietary trade secret with GPL code, so any proprietary software using GPL is in violation of the license and therefore copyright law. It's illegal.

"If you do not, then someone else may."

[Anonymous Coward]

Note that this applies to the BSD license as well, which is a large part of why the anti-GPL crew are all for it.

FSF was very non-specific, and probably wrong

[raymorris]

The FSF post didn't say either what terms of the license they thought Apple was violating, nor why they think distributing via the app store is any different than distributing via the post office.

If I mail GPL software via the postal service, I have to comply with the GPL, which mainly means I have to include an offer to provide source code upon request. The postal service doesn't have to do ANYTHING regarding the license, they are a third party facilitating my distribution. It could be argued that Apple is no different- the person distributing via the app store needs to comply, Apple doesn't have to do anything to be in compliance.

By the wording of the license, it would be possible to argue either way, so a court would look at the INTENT of the license, it's PURPOSE. The gpl helpfully states it's purpose and intent right at the top - to maintain the four freedoms. As long as the freedoms are being maintained (by having source available, etc.), the court would probably rule that it's perfectly okay to distribute via the mail, ftp, email, http, or the app store.

Re:FSF was very non-specific, and probably wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, yes they did. Read the follow-up piece linked from the post (https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement), and it is specific that the issue is that Apple's Terms of Service add restrictions beyond the GPL. That is prohibited by the GPL; otherwise people could completely circumvent the GPL by adding their own license on top of it to take away all of the rights granted to you by the GPL.

Re:FSF was very non-specific, and probably wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think your post-office analogy holds - the GPL would require you to send source to the post office who would then send it on. Apple doesn't make that possible.

Re:FSF was very non-specific, and probably wrong

[Kjella]

The FSF post didn't say either what terms of the license they thought Apple was violating, nor why they think distributing via the app store is any different than distributing via the post office.

The way copyright law defines distribution it essentially means transmit, like over radio and TV or down a wire. There's a very limited exception carved out for passing along transitory copies unaltered so each node on the Internet isn't liable for everything passing through just the source and potentially the sink. Moving a copy physically around never invokes copyright, which is why Apple is on the hook and the post office not. And Apple's software storing it on the user device leads to vicarious and contributory liability if they violate the reproduction right, since they're both materially contributing and profiting from it.

This is pretty much straight up copyright law, not the FSFs opinion. I haven't read up on exactly what beef they have with the app store's terms, but Apple's activity very clearly falls under copyright law.

Re:FSF was very non-specific, and probably wrong

[unrtst]

AC's post should be modded up. In case it isn't, here it is:

Uh, yes they did. Read the follow-up piece linked from the post (https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement), and it is specific that the issue is that Apple's Terms of Service add restrictions beyond the GPL. That is prohibited by the GPL; otherwise people could completely circumvent the GPL by adding their own license on top of it to take away all of the rights granted to you by the GPL.

Re:FSF was very non-specific, and probably wrong

[ClickOnThis]

It's a lot simpler than that. Apple wants (a certain amount of) control over what they distribute in the App store. The GPL doesn't let them have it.

I haven't read up on exactly what beef they have with the app store's terms

Don't worry, An AC on this thread already provided a useful link.

Re:FSF was very non-specific, and probably wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

> It's a lot simpler than that. Apple wants (a certain amount of) control over what they distribute in the App store.

Nonsense. They can distribute or not distribute whatever they want in their own store, with no need for permission or cooperation by GPL authors.

What they want is control over what you can and cannot run on the device you bought and own.

Vote:

[Anonymous Coward]

Fragile

Yes?

Not Fragile

BT...No?

Chris Squire is dead

Choosealicense.com

[Haacked]

Helping developers answer this question is the primary goal of https://choosealicense.com/ which itself is Open Source under the MIT license: https://github.com/github/choo...

GPL/BSD

[phantomfive]

If you want your software to be used by as many people/corporations as possible, use BSD.
If you don't want corporations to take advantage of your software without giving back, then use GPL.

BSD expands usage at the cost of community; GPL increases community at the cost of usage. Both approaches are valid.

Re:GPL/BSD

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't want corporations to take advantage of your software without giving back, then use GPL.

You might want to use the AGPL and even that does not cover everything. The GPL only covers distribution, no distribution to third parties, no need to do anything but profit from it and laugh RMS in the face from time to time. Also the GPL is filled with holes to the point that gcc extensions get "unsupported" by RMS in order to keep them from dumping internal state ( he has been blocking official re factoring support for EMACS this way for over a year now).

Re:GPL/BSD

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I find BSD to be too restrictive. Zlib/libmpng, Unlicense, CC0 and WTFPL are fine.

Re:GPL/BSD

[T.E.D.]

If you want your software to be used by as many people/corporations as possible, use BSD.

That seems to be the general public consensus.

Personally, if I'm in that situation I use CC0 instead. Its effectively Public Domain, with a completely permissive fallback license for areas where Public Domain isn't possible (eg: arguably the USA). The BSD is a lot of legalese in an attempt to accomplish the same thing. Even after all that effort, some versions of it actually fail and render the code GPL incompatible. Seeing the BSD is a huge drag, because I have to scan the entire text of the damn license looking for common gotchas like advertising clauses. Why?

If total freedom is what you want to give, there's no sense in half-assing it with BSD. Use CC0.

Re:GPL/BSD

[OrangeTide]

Increasing the community sounds all well and good, but I would prefer a quality community over a quantity community. Some of those GPL folks are real wing nuts.

Re:GPL/BSD

[phantomfive]

rotfl because BSD people are totally sane. Compare the fighting around the *BSDs with the fighting around Linux. Linux is much more sane.

Re:GPL/BSD

[Anonymous Coward]

What fighting around the BSDs?

Re:GPL/BSD

[phantomfive]

Look into the history of the many forks, for starters.

Re:GPL/BSD

[Anonymous Coward]

Many forks? Four of them. IIRC, only one of them had fighting involved: OpenBSD from NetBSD. Which I quite understand, de Raadt being de Raadt and all that.

I'm not sure whether you're referring to some of the minor ones (Bitrig, MirBSD, MidnightBSD etc.) They seem just forks with a different scope. Which is perhaps the most natural reason to create a fork.

Re:GPL/BSD

[Anonymous Coward]

As a professional programmer, I generally don't even consider GPL code. I have no idea what my code may eventually be used for and having it GPLed adds restrictions on distribution.

Less restrictive licenses get branched into local "third party" repos. As much as possible, the branch contains no local changes.

Being commercial software, my software is continuously tested via automation and QA. We find (and fix) race conditions and low probability failures all the time. GPL software (because we can't utilize it) does not get this level of testing and support from us.

If I find bugs, I fix them and submit the patch back (because maintaining a branch is a lot of work). I doubt that my usage is unusual.

If you don't have your own teams of testers working on your code, you'll get much more quality out of the community if you release with something that is compatible with commercial redistribution.

Re:GPL/BSD

[phantomfive]

That's nice. It would be cool if you actually developed a skill instead of just pretending on the internet.

Unlicense

[darkain]

Unlicense, and done. http://unlicense.org/

Re:Unlicense

[james_gnz]

If this is the sort of thing you want, I think it would be better to use the CC0. It has the same goal, but has been checked by lawyers, so there's a better chance it will work as intended.

Antiviral License

[Anonymous Coward]

The Antiviral License

Re:Antiviral License

[james_gnz]

I think this license is based on a flawed premise.

The only requirement of this license is that the license of any source code covered by this license must not be modified. This license has no requirements about what license you choose for any other code you use alongside the code you receive under this license. Therefore you may use it alongside public domain and BSD licensed code and compile all of the code into a single program, but you may not include any GNU GPL code because the GNU GPL requires that you relicense any code which is compiled into the same program (which it considers to be a derivitive work) under the GNU GPL, which is the only thing that the Antiviral License does not give you permission to do.
The Antiviral License

AFAIK, the BSD licenses, like the GPL licenses (and copyright licenses generally) do require that derived works be bound by their terms. In the case of the 3-clause BSD license, these are: retention of the license in derived sources and binaries (1 clause each) and no use of contributors' names to promote derived works without permission.

Notable conditions of the GPL licenses are: provision of source code (in GPL2 section 3 / GPL3 section 6) and no further restrictions beyond the GPL (in GPL2 section 6 / GPL3 section 10). I expect a license could made be compatible with BSD-like licenses and incompatible with GPL-like ones by disallowing one or both of these conditions on derived works. In particular, the latter one may fit what the author was trying to achieve.

As it is, the requirement "the license of any source code covered by this license must not be modified" sounds to me much like the "no further restrictions" clause of the GPL that I think the author was trying to avoid, while "no requirements about what license you choose for any other code you use alongside" seems to say the opposite. I am not a lawyer, but I suspect this license may either disallow use with any other licenses, or do nothing at all.

Re:Antiviral License

[Anonymous Coward]

AFAIK, the BSD licenses, like the GPL licenses (and copyright licenses generally) do require that derived works be bound by their terms. In the case of the 3-clause BSD license, these are: retention of the license in derived sources and binaries (1 clause each) and no use of contributors' names to promote derived works without permission.

Yes, but that is only a requirement on what is honestly a derived work (changes made to that BSD-licensed code), as opposed to a requirement that all of the source code in the entire project be licensed under the BSD license.

GPL 2.0 section 2 part B:

You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

GPL 3.0 section 5 part 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.

This viral component is what the Antiviral License doesn't allow. When code is licensed under the Antiviral License, one cannot also apply another license to that code, but they are free to use it alongside other code of different licenses. Since the GPL requires that the entire project assume the GPL license, this means that code licensed with the Antiviral License cannot be included in a GPL-licensed project.

Re:Antiviral License

[james_gnz]

Yes, but that is only a requirement on what is honestly a derived work (changes made to that BSD-licensed code), as opposed to a requirement that all of the source code in the entire project be licensed under the BSD license.

It's a requirement that applies to works derived from BSD-licensed code, as GPL requirements apply to works derived from GPL-licensed code. It's up to the courts to decide what counts as derived works. e.g. If the courts decide that copying APIs is not fair use, then technically programs linked against BSD-licensed libraries must adhere to BSD terms (although they may also impose additional terms, as this isn't disallowed). On the other hand, if the courts decide copying APIs is fair use then the GPL doesn't apply to programs linked against GPL-licensed libraries (even if it would like to).

GPL 3.0 section 5 part 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.

This viral component is what the Antiviral License doesn't allow.

Okay, I see what you're saying, but AFAIK, this actually means a whole lot less than you think.

Re "You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License":

From a legal perspective, the adapter can only licence their modifications; unmodified parts of the work remain under the initial licence. Without a legal solution offered by the licence, the adapter cannot really "re-licence" the work as a whole.
Open Content - A Practical Guide to Using Creative Commons Licences/The Creative Commons licencing scheme

If I take a large BSD-licensed work, and a large GPL3-licensed work (3 because I think 2 might actually be incompatible), and combine them with a little glue, then I must license my "new work" under the GPL3, but the license I am offering really only applies to that little bit of glue, and nothing else. Moreover, there's nothing stopping me from dual-licensing that little bit of glue under a BSD license too, in which case authors of further derived works can choose whether to use my little bit of glue under the GPL3 or the BSD.

None of this makes too much practical difference, because in any case, both the BSD requirements and the GPL requirements apply to the new work, since it contains both BSD and GPL code. The difference is essentially cosmetic. It means I must write that my "new work" is licensed under the GPL, regardless of how little that may mean.

This suggests to users that the work may be used without any conditions that aren't listed in the GPL, which I am required to ensure is true, but for a different reason. What actually requires me to ensure that no further conditions apply besides those listed in the GPL is the explicit requirement that I do precisely that--"You may not impose any further restrictions...". The only way I can do this is by checking that conditions of other licenses I use are also conditions of the GPL.

Re "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.", (my emphasis)

I think perhaps the point here is supposed to be that, for instance, a Java program could be distributed in a single .jar archive file, or as a bunch of separate .class files, but it won't necessarily make a difference to what is considered a "work" under law. Even if you distribute a program as separate files, if the courts decide that the program together constitutes a work, then license conditi

Depends of what you mean by "Use"

[williamyf]

If by "Use" you mean: Copy/paste sections of GPLed code, then yea, you are forced to use the GPL (this also applies to Read-Memorized-Retyped).

If by use you mean: I link to some GPLed libraries. Or: I invoke some GPLed executable to do some work. Or: I send some IPC message to some GPLed process then you can use pretty much any licence you may well please.

For code I develop for commercial use (either if I want to turn it into a product, or if I am developing for a Third party) I prefer BSD/MIT/Apache.

For code I develop as a hobby, or as a service to the community, I preffer the GPL (v2).

Also, bear in mind two things:
* If you use a substantial amount of GPL code, the community frowns upon using a non GPL license.
* But, apples AppStore has had troubles with GPLed applications in the past.

Choose Wisely.

Re:Depends of what you mean by "Use"

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be noted that the LGPL was specifically created to handle GPL-like code that could be linked against as a library. If you use a GPL library, you're stuck with GPL. If you use ANY GPL code, your entire project MUST be GPL, regardless of frowns and smiles. That's the entire point.

Re:Depends of what you mean by "Use"

[msobkow]

Linking GPL code is considered the same as copying in the source code. The library has to be released under the LGPL to be used by non-GPL source.

But you are correct about invoking canned binaries of GPL products or sending IPC messages to a GPL product, provided you're not using the GPL messaging libraries provided with the product, but rolling your own which happen to be compatible at the messaging layer. But I'm pretty sure your messaging code would have to be written in a different language as well in order to avoid any claims that you copied code from the GPL source.

Re:Depends of what you mean by "Use"

[james_gnz]

Going by a recent Slashdot story, the answer seems to be "maybe". APIs have been ruled copyrightable, at least in the USA, and linking requires using APIs, but it's not been ruled whether the use of APIs could constitute fair use.

SCOTUS Denies Google's Request To Appeal Oracle API Case

I am not a lawyer, but I suspect that if the use of APIs were ruled to constitute fair use, then the practical consequences would be the same as if APIs had been ruled not to be copyrightable.

Advice worth how much?

[innerpeace]

Of course, that advice was worth every penny.

And you expecting the advice here to be worth how much?

Re:Two choices:

[unixisc]

This. Preferably the FreeBSD License, since it's the same license that's used by the FreeBSD parts of iOS

Not GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

GPL is not a free license. BSD is a good one.

"or any later version"

[technosaurus]

No business in their right mind would allow any such bull shit in any legal document that they were obligated to.
Version 4 may grant the FSF free license to:
* commercially redistribute and relicense the code as they see fit
* grant unlimited patent waivers for all code using it
* remove warranty disclaimers
* require the developers to pay each user a huge sum of money
* or whatever the hell the Fucking Stupid Fucks (or whatever FSF stands for) feel like

Its like getting a job description that has a phrase like "additional duties as required"
... clean those toilets Mr. engineer.

Gutenburg

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called Gutenbug

Optional clause is optional?

[Anonymous Coward]

So scrap that line, much as the Linux developers have, leaving linux stuck on GPL2, which has the effect of protecting the use of heavily modified versions, to run services rather than as products involving the distribution of a binary, by the likes of google without a requirement to release that code back, that said i'm not sure that the AGPL counts as a later version of GPL anyway so it's probably a moot point.

"To keep the license up-to-date, the GPL license includes an optional "any later version" clause, allowing users to choose between the original terms or the terms in new versions as updated by the FSF. Developers can omit it when licensing their software; for instance the Linux kernel is licensed under GPLv2 without the "any later version" clause"

"maintaining the freedom of my code"

[Anonymous Coward]

I am interested in maintaining the freedom of my code but do not want to create a catch-22 or make life hard for people who need to use this project for personal use or profit.

Then you'd want the GPL.

I have plenty of BSD-licensed software on this machine. And all of it ways something like the following:

(C) Copyright, Regents of California.
(C) Copyright Microsoft Coroporation, All Rights Reserved.

As an end user, I don't get any freedoms when using BSD-licensed software.

Unfortunately (for you), the Apple store does not allow GPL code.

Here's why I prefer to choose MIT for own projects

[kefalonia]

Open Source licenses sometimes happen to be lengthy legal texts, which take a lawyer to get through and even then not sure. Not good.
From the brief ones, BSD & MIT are the ones which are both short and tried over time. And best of all, they don't limit YOU about future code usage.

The BSD suffers from fragmentation [x-clause for x in 2..4], therefor MIT wins.
Sometimes, it might be beneficial to call it MIT/GPL, to make it clear to GPL folks that you really mean to be GPL-friendly.

Use a well-known license!

[T.E.D.]

Whatever you do, please please please use a well-known license. I'm am completely sick of having to read and grok screens full of leagalese and then go to The FSF list of licenses to see if there's something important I missed. I'm sure every license has some nuance that makes it better for some purpose or other, but I don't care.

While I understand the attraction of BSD (and its zillion variants), I've found that I can cover all use-cases for my own work with one of three licenses (in order of stringency)

1. GPL - For full-blown applications that I don't want some schmuck trying to swipe and close off to make themselves a profit off my work. This is the most well-known license in existence, so your users should know exactly what they are getting.
2. GPL with linking and inclusion exceptions - For reusable libraries. This allows a client to use my library in a non-GPL program of their own with whatever license they want. (But keeps the library itself GPL). Yes, this is supposedly what the LGPL is for, but it has issues with modern languages like C++ and Ada that use language features that amount to textual inclusion of library code in the client's program. The simple boilerplate exception verbiage in ECos fixes this problem, and otherwise leaves the license the well-known GPL.
3. CC0 - For stuff I want used as much as humanly possible, including incorporated into other people's programs if they like. CC0 is as close to "Public Domain" as it is legally possible to get in this day and age.

4. Now in the poster's case, you'd need to be very careful around the GPL. Check here to make sure all the licenses on all that other stuff is GPL compatible. If not, you can't use GPL. But even if you can, there's no guarantee those other licenses are all compatible with each other. This is why, again, developers should do their users a favor and stick to well-known GPL compatible licenses.

NO LICENSE

[Anonymous Coward]

If you will browse through the actual laws you will see there is a law that requires you to have a license to drive a car, fly a plane, practice medicine, etc. But there is no law requiring you to have a license to use software, watch a movie, or listen to music.

The whole ocncept of LICENSE is nothing but a made up buzzword, after courts rulled that people actually own the software they buy and can make copies of it if they want to.

Why I chose the the BSD.

[0100010001010011]

I don't sell the code I sell the support.

I release everything I work on under BSD and if a company has questions about it I have contact information and an hourly rate available for support. If a company takes it and runs with it (Tivo) then it's not like it was something I was going to get around doing anyway.

If they don't want to pay for support and their product is good enough, a competitor will.

I don't lose out on anything. My code gets used (what I wanted and why I released it) and in 5-10 years if some company wants a subject matter expert I have my contact information and hourly rate available. Beyond that I honestly don't care.

I prefer the two or three clause BSD license.

[rhyous]

I prefer the two or three clause BSD license.
I'm not going to rewrite why as I've already written about why here: http://www.rhyous.com/2010/04/...

Re:Here's why I prefer to choose MIT for own proje

[Anonymous Coward]

FWIW, I use the zlib/libpng license which is very brief, crystal clear, and as noted below is recognized by OSI and FSF.

* The zlib/libpng license is a recognized open source license by
* the Open Source Initiative: http://opensource.org/licenses/Zlib
* The zlib/libpng license is a recognized "free" software license by
* the Free Software Foundation: https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Zlib

Re:Here's why I prefer to choose MIT for own proje

[Anonymous Coward]

... now if only opensource.org supported https...

GPL specifically allows source on a different serv

[raymorris]

The GPL requires that the program include an offer to provide the source code, either on a physical medium or on a server. It does NOT require that it be distributed via the same server or service that binary is on. v3 makes that very clear, saying:

        "the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party)"

Putting the binary on the App store and the source on Github is exactly what that covers - provided that in or "next to" the binary copy you make it clear where the source can be found.

Therefore, if you are distributing a binary via the app store, and distributing the source via FTP or Github, you're fine. v3 also says that you CAN distribute the source the same way that you distribute the binary, or you can distribute it using a different method. Also under either version of the GPL you can offer it on physical media.

So no, the GPL doesn't require that if the binary is delivered by mail (or app store) that the source be delivered the same way. In fact, it explicitly says the opposite.

The issue that FSF pointed out in another, more specific post, is that while Apple may not be required to do anything at all in order to conform with the GPL, they are in fact doing something. They are stating that all software distributed via the app store has certain restrictions. A more precisely fitting analogy, therefore, is post office policies about what can and cannot be shipped.

The FSF position is that the policy is an additional condition imposed by Apple which means that APPLE can't legally distribute GPL code under those conditions. That, however, takes us right back around to the question we started with. _I_ may distribute the software, as long as _I_ don't impose additional conditions. If I'm the one doing the distribution, it's legal. Apple is imposing additional conditions, but it's fine for Apple to have conditions on it's app store if they aren't the ones distributing the software. Just like the USPS has policies and conditions, which don't affect the fact that I can distribute GPL software by using USPS to do it.

Whether the person who put the app on the app store is distributing via the app store or if Apple is the one doing the distribution is murky. Viewing that phrase in isolation, a court could rule either way. However, the court will read the whole document, not just one phrase. The top of the GPL license says:

"Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure ... that you receive source code or can get it if you want it"

Okay, so the purpose is to make sure you can get source code if you want it. That's the goal of the license agreement. Given the murky question of who is the distributor, a court should look at the purpose of the document. The purpose is to make sure people who want source code can get it. If it's freely available on Github and the app contains a link to that Github, the purpose is being fulfilled and the court should allow it.

If you don't know, GPL.

[Anonymous Coward]

It keeps your options open. You can license YOUR code under more than one license, and people will ask if you can let them license it. If they won't because of the "Viral GPL", then they're too dumb or corrupt to be trusted with obeying your wishes with your code anyway.

If you already know what you want and it isn't solved by the GPL better than it is solved by one of the others, then go for that one.

But a good default option would be GPL, since it keeps YOUR options open.

Re:If you don't know, GPL.

[pem]

But a good default option would be GPL, since it keeps YOUR options open.

I could see that being a good default option for the perfect program.

But if your program is not perfect, and you'd like others to contribute and help perfect it, then (since most people honor the spirit of the original license when contributing) if you get some really nice contributions that you would like to use yourself, all of a sudden, your options may not be as open with the GPL as they would have been with a permissive license, because now you have to honor the GPL license of your collaborators.

Conversely, if your program is not perfect, and you later perfect it yourself, you can always slap the GPL on the perfected version, so, assuming that you continue to improve your program, it's wrong to think that you've foreclosed the option of using the GPL simply because you started out with a permissive license.

CC0

[shani]

I 90% agree with this. I don't see the point of the BSD license, really.

However, BSD does have "brand recognition", so there is that small point in its favor.