Wordpress Founder Accuses Wix Of Stealing Code (ma.tt)

An anonymous reader writes: "Wow, dude I did not even know we were fighting," Wix CEO Avishai Abrahami posted on the company's blog Saturday -- responding to Wordpress creator Matt Mullenweg, who on Friday accused Wix of stealing their code. "The claim is that the Wix mobile apps distribute GPL code and aren't themselves GPL, so they violate the license," Mullenweg wrote.

Abrahami argued that "Everything we improved there or modified, we submitted back as open source," adding "we will release the app you saw as well... " Mullenweg responded "It appears you and [lead engineer] Tal might share a misunderstanding of how the GPL works," ultimately adding "software licensing can be tricky and many people make honest mistakes."
Wix had also argued they're giving back to the open source community by listing 224 public projects on their GitHub page. "Thank you for the offer to use them," Mullenweg responded. "If we do, we'll make sure to follow the license you've put on the code very carefully."

Comments

GPL

[Alomex]

How exactly the GPL works is still unclear as not many cases have gone through the courts. I know that because of this most companies absolutely prohibit any open source code within a mile of their commercial applications, even in cases where a light reading of the GPL would suggest it is ok to do so.

Remember the GPL is designed to be viral. You don't want to run the risk of violating the GPL by inadvertently infecting your proprietary closed source code.

Re:GPL

[SumDog]

Apple has removed all GPLv3 applications from their OS and have even downgraded some apps to super old versions so they can use the GPLv2 version. I did a post about this and other OSS licenses a while back:

http://penguindreams/blog/the-philosophy-of-open-source-in-community-and-enterprise-software/

Re:GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

It's reasonably clear how a GPL downgrade works. If you use GPL code, you take on that license. It's really that simple. If your license is incompatible with the GPL, you have a huge mess.

What is unclear is how enforceable the GPL is in court in many jurisdictions. Since we're talking about programmers, they can't know the GPL's legal status, so they must take it at face value for now.

Re:GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not rocket science. Most companies are just lazy.

Re:GPL

[Just Some Guy]

What is unclear is how enforceable the GPL is in court in many jurisdictions.

It's pretty clear: if the code is distributed only under the terms of the GPL, and you do not comply with those terms, then you lose the right to distribute works derived from it. The default right is that you have no rights to it.

Re:GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI the link isn't valid

Re:GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

If you use GPL code, you take on that license. It's really that simple

This is false. If you distribute other's GPL code, then that code will always be under the GPL. If you link your software to GPL code and distribute the resulting binary, then your additions/modifications need to be GPL compatible. This implies that the parts that are strictly your modification do not need to be under the GPL for as long as it is GPL compatible. In practise, the easiest way to be GPL compatible is to publish your modifications under the same GPL version but it's not the only way to be compliant when distributing other people's GPL software.

If your license is incompatible with the GPL, you have a huge mess.

It's actually very easy: if your license is not compatible with the GPL, then you have no permission to distribute other people's GPL software that's linked with your.

Re:GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

They didn't remove GPL v3 software, they never used it in the first place. If software updates to GPL v3, they stick with the older v2 version or replace it.

Re:GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Somehow this had to be Apple's fault, even though the original article didn't mention it at all.

Re:GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

RIght which is why we have presently under the courts the case of Oracle v. Google trying to ascertain if copyright extends to the API to begin with.

Luckily we have AC here, who is a self-appointed expert to tell us that it's not rocket science. Good to know. Expect to hear from Oracle lawyers soon seeking your expert advice.

Re:GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Common sense dictates that copyright should not extend to API. However, common sense isn't always good enough for the courts and so, it will take the court some time to go through the process of finding the facts of the situation.

Re:GPL

[Lumpy]

MOST embedded operating systems and compilers and libraries used by MOST companies are in fact GPL. Linux runs in almost ALL embedded systems like TV sets, BluRay players from Sony,LG,Samsung,Sharp,Panasonic,NEC,etc..., Every single Android Cellphone and Tablet ever made. Most automation systems use GPL tools in their compilers Like AMX,Crestron,TI,Intel, and all the little players like Samung Smartthings, Wink, etc.... In fact it's hard to find a company NOT using a GPL codebase somewhere, even Microsoft does.

So I really think you need to update your knowledge of what businesses are using, because it seems the entirety of all you know about it is from 1995.

Re:GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh boy, you are dumb. I said open source code not open source applications. Of course many companies use Linux and Android. Duh! Anything else you want to point out captain obvious?

Re:GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

This works http://penguindreams.org/blog/...

Re: GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Common sense says invoking a linked library doesn't make my application a derivative work, but that's exactly what some people want the GPL to be.

Re:GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

If copyrights do not extend to the APIs, and if GPL (copyleft) is based on copyright (it is!), and if linking is to APIs (it is!), then GPL does not cover APIs (they are not copyrighted) and thus does not cover linking (since the APIs linked to are not copyrighted and thus the license is not enforceable for that code) and thus GPL is not viral.

Logic. Sometimes it sucks.

Fortunately, SCOTUS pointed out that APIs are copyrightable.

Re:GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

HAHAHA the GPL is unknown how enforcable?

Do you know anything about copyright law? Oh believe it, lawyers know exactly how well the GPL can be enforced because of copyright.

Re:GPL

[caseih]

This is absolutely false. Please stop posting this kind of FUD. Using a piece of GPL'd software does not magically infect your copyrighted code with the GPL. Using code under the terms of the GPL is absolutely no different from using code under *any other* source code license. If you use GPL'd code inappropriately you will find yourself in a copyright violation situation. Again I repeat this is no different than if you violated Microsoft's copyright or any other proprietary code license. When you are in a copyright violation situation you have three choices:

1. comply with the license by making your code also GPL
2. negotiate a suitable license with the copyright holders
3. remove the GPL'd code and write your own code

The copyright holders can demand monetary compensation form the violator, but they can't force a company to GPL their own proprietary code.

Re:GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

VxWorks and QNX run on far more embedded systems than Linux.

Re:GPL

[PhunkySchtuff]

I feel that the viral licensing clauses in GPL v3 will ultimately hinder the further development of software.
While Apple (as an example) were using GPL v2 licensed code, they were actively contributing patches and changes back to the relevant projects. This was good, it meant that we had professional developers who were paid to work on these projects and the changes they made were contributed back upstream.

Now that no corporation can touch any GPL v3 licensed code, we now have fragmentation and less developers working on open source code bases.

Apple, for example, have had to implement their own SMB stack as smbx, instead of using Samba. For a number of years, SMB compatibility and functionality took a huge step backwards on OS X, all because the Samba project started to use GPL v3. This ended up with developers who would have been working on patches and changes for Samba, instead working on their own closed-source implementation that, quite frankly, was nowhere near as good or as mature as Samba. The end result of this was that Apple's customers suffered with a sub par product and the Samba project suffered with fewer people contributing to it.

Who then benefits from GPL v3?

Re:GPL

[PhunkySchtuff]

If you include GPL v3 code in your closed source project, under the terms of the licence agreement, you must comply with the licence which demands either you licence the software or you release ALL of the source of your closed-source project under the GPL v3.

If you are producing a large, closed-source, product, option 1 is not an option at all.

If you can't negotiate a licence with the copyright holders, or the copyright holders are unwilling to licence it to you on terms that are acceptable to both parties then option 2 is not an option at all.

So, this leaves only option 3 - remove all GPL'd code from your project and write your own.

Re:GPL

[phantomfive]

Apple, for example, have had to implement their own SMB stack as smbx, instead of using Samba. For a number of years, SMB compatibility and functionality took a huge step backwards on OS X, all because the Samba project started to use GPL v3. This ended up with developers who would have been working on patches and changes for Samba, instead working on their own closed-source implementation that, quite frankly, was nowhere near as good or as mature as Samba.

I asked a lead developer at Samba about this at the time (Tridge), and he said it was fine, Apple wasn't contributing very much anyway.
It was really Apple's loss (and their customers) in that case.

Re:GPL

[phantomfive]

VxWorks and QNX run on far more embedded systems than Linux.

I'm not sure this is true. It used to be true, but I'm not sure it is anymore.
If you have a citation, that would be cool.

Re: GPL

[xvan]

Never thought about it but you're right, it's nonsense.

If APIs can't be copyrighted, and your code is not GPL, but you don't bundle the required library together with the application you should be clear.

But if you make an installer that downloads the required libraries, prompts the user for confirmation and shows the GPL license, technically you're not bundling the DLL and common sense says it should be legal.

On the other hand, common sense says that torrents and youtube download link generators should be legal, but judges don't think the same about it.

Re:GPL

[Nemyst]

Yes, GPL... version 2. Linux is v2. Android is Apache, not GPL. gcc is GPLv3, which is part of why it's being seriously overtaken by llvm, which is using a custom permissive license.

That's the key: permissive. GPLv2 was relatively permissive, though LGPL is a lot more popular in the industry. Apache is very permissive. GPLv3 is not permissive, and so it's seeing most companies steer waaaay clear of it.

Re:GPL

[sg_oneill]

How exactly the GPL works is still unclear as not many cases have gone through the courts.

Actually its very well understood and has been tested again and again repeatedly in courts across the world.

If you combine someone elses GPL code with yours and you distribute it, you must distribute your code as well. If you dont like that, dont distriibute (Its entirely fine to do whatever you want with it internally, the GPL only covers distribution).

Variants:
LGPL, assuming the code is only dynamically linked, you only need to distribute changes made to the LGPL code. Statically linked code functions mostly the same as the GPL, although some library authors permit static uses of a library to follow the same rules as dynamic uses as long as the changes to the library are distributed.
AGPL, if you use the code on a server, users of the server are entitled to the code. This is a pretty strict license.

GPL3 has a few other bits and pieces related to patent defence and "tivoisation", Im not qualified to speak to, but the FSF have guides to these additions that are written in plain english by highly respected lawyers

Re:GPL

[gl4ss]

if you want a different license, choose a different license.
plenty of sw is now under apach2 or bsd or whatever.

basically if you release it under gplv3 then you were never intending it to be used in closed source products, which is fine.

however, they guys could if they were just distributing android sw claim that the source code is included, just decompile the app. :D. if they would push it through a decompile-recompile loop _before_ release, then for android it would take care of that already, since it would be the source code that you get when you decompile it.

Re:GPL

[Xtifr]

That has nothing to do with the GPL. Copyright is a complicated mess. The GPL is relatively straightforward. (Especially by comparison.)

The GPL says: you can follow these simple rules, or go obey regular copyright law. Google chose to obey copyright law, and wrote their own version of Java not based on Oracle's GPL'd code. That's how they got into trouble. If Dalvik had been GPL'd from the start, Google would have been just fine.

Re:GPL

[s1d3track3D]

I feel that the viral licensing clauses in GPL v3 will ultimately hinder the further development of software.

I think it's great for educational/learning/teaching purposes and bad for business situations. I think it's restricted itself out of practical usage, in it's determination to be open and not restrictive, it's achieved the opposite. Based on the amount of MIT licenses I see on github and in source, I think many people share this view.

Re:GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

In another comment I saw an opinion that if you include GPL into your project - all your project should comply to GPL. I myself always thought that GPL works at the executables level. So now I am wondering if I have a project or product consisting of sever executables dependent on each other, should all the code be compliant to GPL if only one of the executables uses some GPL code. Are such cases clearly understood and tested?

Re:GPL

[grumbel]

If you use GPL code, you take on that license. It's really that simple.

The only area where the GPL is clear is statically linked C code, everything else is very open to interpretation. Take for example a GPLed game. Now somebody comes along, takes all the graphics and releases a proprietary game with them. Is that a violation or not? What if he doesn't actually include the graphics, but loads them from the web or straight out of your git repository or their fork of your git repository? What if it's not graphics, but interpreted code code? At what point do the assets require the rest of the code released under GPL? You can go with "never", "always" or "up to a judge's interpretation".

Even the FSF can't manage to get a conflict free interpretation out of it. On one side, if you use one of their GPLed libraries, your main app shall be released as GPL as well. But on the other side they want the right to clone proprietary APIs without adhering to the license. So what is it? Shall APIs have copyright or not? The FSF wants it both ways.

Re:GPL

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Wow slashdot sucks these days.

That is as informative as a listing of alphabetical letters in the correct order. Basic, basic stuff. Plus the crazy inclusion of GPL v3 to confuse matters even more. Nothing in your post shed any light at all on why companies like apple are avoiding GPL v3. Its the patent and anti tivo provisions. I guess some genius will upvote this post as informative as well. Oh my god what has become of thee oh slashdot. News for idiotic peoples who think they are nerds.

Re:GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple, for example, have had to implement their own SMB stack as smbx, instead of using Samba. For a number of years, SMB compatibility and functionality took a huge step backwards on OS X, all because the Samba project started to use GPL v3. This ended up with developers who would have been working on patches and changes for Samba, instead working on their own closed-source implementation that, quite frankly, was nowhere near as good or as mature as Samba.

Tell me about it...I have to support (on and off) a Mac on a 'windows network' (as 'They' laughingly call it..), things are so broken/bad the Mac user is forced to forlornly wander the corridors carrying a USB stick containing their designs, wandering from machine to machine as required..watching us zip files around the shared drives with impunity.. (Ok, I'm being unfair here, the Mac isn't totally to blame, it has no problems with Linux servers running Samba)

I asked a lead developer at Samba about this at the time (Tridge), and he said it was fine, Apple wasn't contributing very much anyway.

It was really Apple's loss (and their customers) in that case.

And I had the shock of my life when I had the need to try compile the latest Samba release (as of three weeks back) from source....and it fell over and died in a horribly incomprehensible manner. Seriously, I've had no problems compiling Samba from the source code since 1.5 (and the problems there were all to do with a rather 'precious' Sun 3/60's 'fscked about with' OS..not the source code ) It's been one of those things that over the years I've just expected to work, having it fall over and die like that, my first thought was 'Argh!, The End Times!!'

Let he who is without sin and all that...

Re:GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

> The default right is that you have no rights to it.

It's worthwhile reminding you that the default is that you, in the guise of the body public, have complete tithe over copyrightable works and have simply permitted it to be protected for a limited time.

The default is no protection.

Re:GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

The non simple part comes in what penalty, if anything, you should get.

When people violate copyright, the judges and courts generally agree that the person has lost out because the market of potential customers has decreased.

With a GPL violation of this nature, its very unclear how many damanges can be proved or awarded. They took something that is free and available to everyone already, then added to it. If they are selling it, then only the part that was added to must have useful value from a market price.

My guess is that we will see this type of violation more and more because while it is a violation, its not likely to be significant damages. The worst that will happen is a judge will order the release of source code, which will be years after the proporeity code has lost most market value anyway.

Re:GPL

[Immerman]

You're conflating two issues - copyright over the API, which has been widely presumed not to exist until recently, and copyright over the library the API provides access to.

I can't think of any instances offhand where an open source project has objected to anyone re-implementing a library by cloning the API. They have however very often objected to closed-source projects actually linking/including their library. Basically - clone the API if you like, but if you use any of the actual code, either by inking or cut-n-paste, then you'd better adhere to the license.

Honestly, there's not a whole lot of reason for a closed-source project to clone an open source API. Essentially an API is just the "interface" / "quick reference sheet" for developers to access all the code in a library. Cloning it really only has two things:
1) Attracting developers (i.e. Google Dalvik - Java developers can get started much easier since much of the standard library is superficially the same)
2) interoperability (you can use our completely re-implemented library as a drop-in replacement for this pre-existing one)

Neither is exactly a common case to begin with, and the latter is generally far more appealing to open source "shim" projects such as WINE that seek to allow a larger number of proprietary applications to run on open source platforms.

Re: GPL

[Immerman]

Torrents and download link generators ARE legal - unless they're being used in a fashion that's aiding and abetting copyright infringement. Which is typically illegal, regardless of the mechanism.

Re:GPL

[Immerman]

Except linking isn't performed to APIs, it's performed through them. The API itself is useless except as an interface. So long as your program doesn't rely on a FOSS library to function, you're fine. But if you're compiling against a FOSS library's API, that pretty much means you'd need to ship with a complete re-implementation of the library. (or at least the portions you use) Which in most cases defeats the purpose of using the API in the first place.

Re:GPL

[Immerman]

>I know that because of this most companies absolutely prohibit any open source code within a mile of their commercial applications, even in cases where a light reading of the GPL would suggest it is ok to do so.

Exactly where would "a light reading" suggest that you could include GPLed code in a proprietary application? Steering completely clear of integrating GPLed code in that case is exactly what the license is designed to promote. There are exceptions, and if you're careful you can walk up against the line, but not under "a light reading" - you're going to want an extremely well informed legal department working closely with your developers on that interface.

The only "safe" way I can think to integrate them is in a client/server application through a sufficiently abstracted (non RPC) interface, in which case both the client and server could be GPLed or not, as suited the business considerations. And I'd still want legal to take a good hard look at it if it was the server that was GPLed.

Re:GPL

[gl4ss]

that was true a long time ago, but I doubt it being true anymore, because all stats point otherwise and it's pretty hard to find even a home applicance or electronic product that uses either of them - or even a car.

with linux running ome appliances now, tv's, phones and routers.

it's more probable that any given house had 1-4 devices running linux whilst they might have 0 running vxworks. I doubt many microwave ovens run vxworks too. probably just a microcontroller.

thing is, you can do pretty complex stuff with just microcontrollers, without a proper os to speak of, whilst anything more complicated tends to run linux. in the end there isn't really that much of things you would actually use qnx or vxworks for, even in more complex things where you would build things modularly.

for a factory thats different but there's a lot less factories than houses, you know. and even there vxworks and qnx would be much less attractive than 15 years ago. if you want realtime control you can just use a microcontroller, perhaps with megabytes of memory on the chip itself. if you need something to feed stuff to those microcontrollers you can just use a linux soc in there.

even in things like 3d printers basically nobody is even considering vxworks/qnx solutions for running them - and with qnx being in rather questionable hands at the moment nobody wants to bet on that train either.

at least if you speak about shipping embedded products, qnx and vxworks are pretty much dead.

if you count mobile phones then linux has been bigger than qnx and vxworks in embedded for more than half a decade. even in cars they are losing market share fast.

so there is no actual place in the market for qnx and vxworks anymore like they had before. even in realtime control things have changed.

Re:GPL

[91degrees]

True. There is an explicit example of this in the real world. Good Old Games uses the SCUMM VM (licencd under the GPL) for old lucasarts games. The people behind SCUMM VM seem to be of the opinion that assets and code are separate but I could imagine some authors of included code disagreeing that this is the correct interpretation.

I think a more specific issue is dynamically linked libs. I can produce a GPL clone of a closed source DLL. If I replace the closed source library with an GPL one, does an application that uses it need to be open source? I'd say no, because we're not copying anything (or doing anything that would infringe copyright) and the GPL relies on copyright for its teeth. This does seem to lead to a hole.

Re:GPL

[91degrees]

however, they guys could if they were just distributing android sw claim that the source code is included, just decompile the app. :D.

GPL covers that. Section 3 says "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it".

Re:GPL

[91degrees]

I'd consider it very likely that Linux is most common if you include Android in the Linux stats. Even if you exclude phones and tablets, it's used for a lot of STBs, satnavs and smart TVs.

Re:GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you can't negotiate a licence with the copyright holders, or the copyright holders are unwilling to licence it to you on terms that are acceptable to both parties then option 2 is not an option at all."

And how is that different from code with a propriety license?

Re:GPL

[butzwonker]

I feel that the viral licensing clauses in GPL v3 will ultimately hinder the further development of software.

I feel the exact opposite, but I understand why developers of proprietary software who would like to use library X only to find out with much cursing that X is GPL v3 might pretend to feel otherwise.

Re:GPL

[butzwonker]

Well, of course, but as the OP said the same holds for all other licenses too. If you don't want to adhere to the licensing terms you cannot use the library. Duh, how surprising!

But there is also LGPL...

Re:GPL

[PhunkySchtuff]

Yes, there is Apache licensed code, BSD licensed code etc... The problem with the GPL is that it was previously able to be used as a part of a larger non-open source offering and with the change in the licence to v3, this is no longer possible.

Re:GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Take for example a GPLed game. Now somebody comes along, takes all the graphics and releases a proprietary game with them. Is that a violation or not?

Yes, because they're not honouring the license.

I don't get why you think taking a portion of a GPL-licensed work means that portion wouldn't itself be GPL-licensed. Of course it is, like the whole work is.

Perhaps you're thinking of some aspect of US copyright law fair use tests, rather than the terms of the GPL. Perhaps you're thinking "this isn't a substantive portion" or "this is transformative"... and if you met all four categories of fair use tests, you could make that defense in court when the GPL'ed game owner sues you.

But in your example, you're taking all the graphics, and you're planning on using them verbatim, not transforming them at all. The GPL applies, and I can't see why you would even think it didn't. Your thinking is on a par with "you can't get pregnant if you have sex standing up" or "an undercover cop has to answer 'are you an undercover cop?' truthfully" levels of myth-belief.

TWhat if he doesn't actually include the graphics, but loads them from the web or straight out of your git repository or their fork of your git repository?

Irrelevant. They're still using GPL-licensed graphics without honouring the license, regardless of where they got them from. The license follows the graphics no matter how you get them.

What if it's not graphics, but interpreted code code?

Still the same. You're using GPL-licensed anything; you got permission to use it and modify it and publish the result because you agreed to pass those same permissions on when you release your remix/reuse/modification.

At what point do the assets require the rest of the code released under GPL?

If you want to release a GPL-licensed collection of just the non-code assets from a GPL-licenced game, go ahead. Maybe they're useful, maybe they're useless, but all will be well if they're offered under the licence by which you got them yourself; the GPL.

Re:GPL

[silentcoder]

No. There is absolutely nothing unclear about how the GPL works. The small number of court cases is not a reason to think it is unclear- it's proof of how clear it is. Almost no cases go to court because as soon as violators are caught they almost always immediately make changes to comply - they don't go to court because the license is so explicitly clear that none of them think they have a chance of winning a defence.

The few cases that were taken to trial all went for the plaintiffs. The only GPL case yet to NOT be instantly won by the plaintiff is the VMware case and that may well change on appeal as the original loss was due to a failure by the plaintiff to prove their code was in the product (suggesting a problem with discovery).

The license is very clear - if you use the code in a program the ENTIRE program must be under the same license. It seems like WIX seriously believed if you share back what you change to upstream you aren't tied to that part. I have my doubts - the company couldn't be this successful AND that incompetent.

Re:GPL

[silentcoder]

The GPL3 isn't a single bit more 'viral' than the GPL2 which Apple had used - so clearly virality had nothing to do with their decision.
Apple however is the grand pubahs of walled gardens, hardware lock-downs/lock-ins and patent insanity -things the GPL3 does pursue more strenuously - specifically there are rules in there that states that if your program is meant for a particular device you cannot make it so modified versions cannot run on the same device (AKA the TIVO problem).
That is what Apple doesn't like about GPL3 - they can't allow you to make modified versions of something while still preventing you from USING those versions.

Re:GPL

[silentcoder]

If you don't check the license on a library BEFORE you use it then you're incompetent at best.

Re:GPL

[silentcoder]

No, the license say it MUST be GPL - not another license.

You completely fail to understand what GPL-compatible means. Something is under a GPL-compatible license if I am allowed to use it in a GPL program, it never works the other way around - nothing based on GPL code can ever be anything BUT GPL.

Re:GPL

[silentcoder]

>The only area where the GPL is clear is statically linked C code, everything else is very open to interpretation
No. It is not.

>Now somebody comes along, takes all the graphics and releases a proprietary game with them.
Absolutely and without any doubt. If the graphics were under the same license as the code, then any other game using them is a derivative work and must also be GPLd. You may be confused because of the REAL scenarios where game code is GPLd but the assets are under a proprietory license (ID software releases for example) but then it's also perfectly cleared. The GPL applies to the code, the proprietary license to the assets.

> but loads them from the web or straight out of your git repository or their fork of your git repository
That would be a violation. Unless he's found a magical way to load them without copying them to disk or memory ? In which case it's still unclear that it wouldn't be a violation. About the only way you could argue it isn't a violation is if the program randomly finds image using something like google-image-search and happened to pull your assets in by random chance - with no particular dependence on those images. A generic program that hit something randomly would probably be deemed fair use.

> What if it's not graphics, but interpreted code code?
A violation. No doubt about it. The GPL applies to anything copyrightable that it is applied to. No exceptions exist - and none of your examples are exceptions because there are no such thing as exceptions. Eben Moglen knows the law better than you do.

>At what point do the assets require the rest of the code released under GPL
At the moment when you distribute something that uses them. There are no exceptions.

> You can go with "never", "always" or "up to a judge's interpretation".
The answer is 'always' - there is no doubt about that, and as it happens - no sane judge would interpret it any other way than 'always'.

> On one side, if you use one of their GPLed libraries, your main app shall be released as GPL as well.
Yes. No doubt about it. No exception.

>. But on the other side they want the right to clone proprietary APIs without adhering to the license
Cloning an API is not 'linking to a library' and until just a few months ago no court had ever considered it a copyrightable thing. Even then API cloning was held to be fair use - so it's still not an issue, and not a conflict at all. And yes, you are perfectly allowed to clone the API of a GPL'd library without GPL-ing your code, as long as you implement the library yourself.

> Shall APIs have copyright or not? The FSF wants it both ways.
No they don't. APIs should not be copyrightable - but whether they are or not has NOTHING to do with linking to/using a GPL'd LIBRARY. The two actions have nothing in common. If you want to create a proprietary API-compatible clone of the GPL'd GNU/readline library - the FSF will not do anything to stop you. You're allowed to do that, but if you use the readline library they implemented then your program must be GPLd as well.
You are conflating two things which have nothing in common to create a false narative.
All I can interpret is that you must be busy practising for your interview to work as an Oracle Shill.

Re:GPL

[Cigaes]

Actually, you are slightly wrong. The three options you suggest apply before you are in a situation of copyright violation: when you are considering distributing your project, you have to do one of these things.

But after the copyright violation, it is too late. If you steal something, get caught and give it back, you still go to prison. The same applies to any kind of wrongdoing: undoing it after getting caught does not avoid the punishment.

The GPL has an explicit provision for violations: (emphasis mine) “Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.”

In other words, if someone violates the terms of the GPL and gets caught, they lose all right to the software, and have to beg the copyright holders to get them back. The copyright holders may be satisfied with simple compliance, but they may require extra good will proofs.

Of course, if the infringer does not want to comply, the only option becomes to sue them. And the judge would not order compliance, only damages.

Re:GPL

[silentcoder]

>. The people behind SCUMM VM seem to be of the opinion that assets and code are separate but I could imagine some authors of included code disagreeing that this is the correct interpretation.

That's entirely up to the licensor. Free engines for proprietary games generally require you to own a legal copy of the original game to get legal access to the assets. Writing a GPL engine that can parse those assets does not negate or alter the copyright and licensing on the assets or the code from the original. Games companies are generally okay with that as well - after all it gets them sales. Bethesda had concerns about OpenMW but after they spoke to the devs they became wholehearted supporters of the project.

>. I can produce a GPL clone of a closed source DLL. If I replace the closed source library with an GPL one, does an application that uses it need to be open source?
It depends who is doing the replacing. If the developer of the upstream app does it - then yes, he must. If you do it for yourself, then no - the GPL requirement only kicks in on distribution and you're not allowed to distributed the original app anyway since you don't own copyright. If it is freely redistributable then it depends on the license - if it's a GPL compatible license you can re-license it and distribute both, else you can't distribute them together. But if you write distribute a program that uses a proprietary library, and somebody else writes a free version of that library and a third-party buys your program and uses the free library instead of the original no copyrights were violated anywhere. Indeed, every time anybody runs a game in wine they are doing just that (though wine is lgpld).

>This does seem to lead to a hole.
Nope. See above. There is no version where you can distribute a program that is linking (dynamically or statically) to a GPL'd program without having to GPL it yourself. You can run a program that was linked against a proprietary library with a GPL'd one yourself, but you can't give it to anybody else.

Re:GPL

[silentcoder]

>My guess is that we will see this type of violation more and more because while it is a violation, its not likely to be significant damages

That would only be a factor if anybody, anywhere has sued for damages. GPL cases never sue for damages -they sue for breach of contract and demand that the other party abide by the terms of the license (which is a legal contract) as they have no other right to distribute the software at all. The only restitution demanded is that they abide.
Most people who have been taken to task for this have chosen to abide without going to trial, the few that have chosen to fight the case in the courts have lost. Even mighty CISCO folded.

Re: GPL

[silentcoder]

>Common sense says invoking a linked library doesn't make my application a derivative work, but that's exactly what some people want the GPL to be.
No common sense says the exact opposite. Lazy freeloading says what you're hearing. You seem to have them confused.

Re:GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

So long as your program doesn't rely on a FOSS library to function, you're fine.

What if my program relies on a ton of them - an entire OS worth? Does that mean that any software written to run on Linux must be released as OSS?

Re:GPL

[silentcoder]

It depends whether they are linked. Basically the same place where 'derivative work' lies in law. If your project has 10 executables, all of which work together, none of which are linked to each other -and only one is linked to a GPL'd library then only that one has to be GPLd.

Re:GPL

[Alomex]

Actually its very well understood.

Read the GPL Wikipedia page, where people can't even agree if it extends to static/dynamic linking.

There have been about half a dozen cases involving the GPL. Companies usually like to have a few hundred behind them before they declare something "legally well understood".

Re:GPL

[TheRaven64]

No, the license say it MUST be GPL - not another license.

No it doesn't. Read the license. It says that the license of the combined work must protect all of the freedoms guaranteed by the GPL and may not impose any additional requirements, but it makes no requirement that they remain under the GPL.

Re:GPL

[TheRaven64]

Common sense dictates that copyright should not extend to API

Common sense dictates nothing of the sort. Common sense tells you that it's a difficult legal problem: On the one hand, good APIs are obviously creative works (don't believe me? Try writing code that uses OpenSSL sometime. A bad API is far less valuable than a good API). On the other hand, not allowing clean-room reimplementations of well-defined interfaces makes it very easy for vendor lock-in, which is problematic for a well functioning industry. Striking the balance between these is difficult.

Re:GPL

[91degrees]

That's entirely up to the licensor.

The SCUMM team might include code from AwesomeGPLProject2. The creators of AwesomeGPLProject2 might disagree with the SCUMM team's view that assets may be distributed under a different licence. Do the scripts I use have to be GPLed? The AwesomeGPLProject2 team might say "Hold on - you're using our code for your proprietary projects. Stop it!" But they may be wrong about the scope of the GPL. GoG could ask all contributors to be sure, but this seems to be losing the benefit of standard licences.

Nope. See above. There is no version where you can distribute a program that is linking (dynamically or statically) to a GPL'd program without having to GPL it yourself. You can run a program that was linked against a proprietary library with a GPL'd one yourself, but you can't give it to anybody else.

Why not? I produce closed source software with a plugin architecture. Loads of people produce third party plugins under different licences. I offer my product with all of these included in the download. Am I barred from including those under the GPL without licencing my code under the GPL? That would seem a strange interpretation.

Re:GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

we now have fragmentation and less developers working on open source code bases.

FEWER!!

Sorry.. what we were talking about again?

Re:GPL

[silentcoder]

> The creators of AwesomeGPLProject2 might disagree with the SCUMM team's view that assets may be distributed under a different licence
None of the assets that we're talking about here is even part of the SCUMM project, nor are they created by or owned by that project. They belong to the original companies that made the game - mostly Sierra I believe. There is nothing in the GPL that allows you to usurp somebody else's copyrights by writing a program that can read their stuff.
Now you may have an argument about GOG distributing these proprietary assets and ScummVM together - especially for code Scumm inherrited from a different project, but if there is any problem at all - it's with GOG not ScummVM. And I don't believe there is an issue since GOG is ScummVM and the assets are two completely disparate projects, GOG is merely doing you the favour of shipping ScummVM preconfigured for you - but you would be quite capable of buying the game from them by itself and doing that yourself. Unbundling here would not benefit anybody - and it wouldn't make anymore more free.
Anyway, there has never been an ethical demand for game assets to be free - the free software ethics are specific to software (even RMS has repeatedly stated that it's a mistake to think one set of copyright rules could work for all the many kinds of things copyright is applied to and that different types of media should have different copyright rules to suit their specific needs). ID's version of the original doom and quake code are fully free software, regardless of the fact that the game assets are still proprietary and you need to buy them to play the games - it is also perfectly acceptable that openquake built their own replacement assets to allow those engines to be used without buying the game.

>Why not? I produce closed source software with a plugin architecture
The GPL specifically states that plugin architectures are a gray area and if this should ever become an issue then a judge will have to determine them on the merits of the case, whether your program qualifies as a 'derivative work' or not will be case specific.

>Loads of people produce third party plugins under different licences
That is not a problem.

> I offer my product with all of these included in the download
But this potentially IS a problem. If you are redistributing code that links to GPL'd code, even in a plugin, then a plugin author could potentially claim you are violating the license and demand that you GPL the program. You probably should exclude any copylefted plugins from the download. You're unlikely to get sued since your plugin authors know that you bundle the plugins and if they really had an issue with it then they wouldn't be submitting their plugins to you (which would count against them in a lawsuit as the jury may well rule that submitting their plugins knowing this they were intrinsically accepting that it would be bundled with a proprietary code and clearly did not mind). The fact that it's a plugin takes it further since you would generally deem a plugin to be the derivative work rather than other way around and most juries are likely to agree. Either way - it is probably better if you don't bundle GPL plugins with non-GPL programs. Just set up a website where people can download plugins they want.

>That would seem a strange interpretation.
It's also, technically, what the license says - whether it *really* applies to your case is something a jury of your peers would determine if ever a plugin author got pissed off at you.

Re:GPL

[silentcoder]

For the record - wordpress has in the past successfully sued people for creating non GPL'd wordpress themes - and the SFLC agreed with them that those are clearly a derivative product. And the people shipping those plugins were not even bundling them with wordpress.

Re:GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

There are sometimes payments, but they are often
1) so minor the companies just don't care.
2) done to re-instantiate the license (difficult especially under GPLv2), since the company might actually need to be able to use the software (if you violate the license, you might also lose your right to use the software internally - while only distribution can violate the GPL licenses, without it you also have no right to make copies to install on your new computer for example).
3) done to buy back some goodwill/influence - sometimes companies violate a license for no good reason and only during a lawsuit do the right people notice how much they actually depend on that software

Re: GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

That you are building on a library and your program wouldn't work or exist without it (and specifically this exact GPL implementation) is what makes your application a derivative work.
If your application actually doesn't do any of that, you might be able to successfully argue that your program is not a derivative work in court.
But then again, the jury might just feel you are a freeloading ass and interpret this gray area as much as possible against you.
That said, GPL-licensed libraries are a bad idea and most developers are reasonable enough to go with LGPL (and don't get me started on AGPL licensed libraries, if you ever see one, make a note to never use it or any program using it for anything, it won't lead to anything good).

Re:GPL

[ray-auch]

You're conflating two issues - copyright over the API, which has been widely presumed not to exist until recently, and copyright over the library the API provides access to.

You're forgetting that in the case of dynamically linked libraries and the GPL, the two issues become the same thing. An executable using dynamic linking contains no code from a linked library to make it a derived work other than the API (and in the case of discoverable interfaces not even that - MS OLE for instance), and it may link with _any_ library that provides the same API. The only point at which a derived work is arguably created is at runtime, under the control of the user, at which point the GPL explicitly disclaims all control or restriction.

Any claim (IMO) that the GPL restricts dynamically linked libraries essentially reduces to an API copyright claim.

Example: a patch (not an executable or a source distribution, a patch) that simply modified a few function calls in an open source (but not GPL program) to give said program the _option_ of linking to a GPL library was held by rms/FSF to be a GPL violation. No executable was ever distributed, no source distribution included GPL code, just the function names and calling conventions that happened to be used in a GPL library - what is that if not the API?

I can't think of any instances offhand where an open source project has objected to anyone re-implementing a library by cloning the API. They have however very often objected to closed-source projects actually linking/including their library. Basically - clone the API if you like, but if you use any of the actual code, either by inking or cut-n-paste, then you'd better adhere to the license.

Use the same function names and calling conventions as a GPL library in your code and get told your code is must be under the GPL as a result. Actually cloning the library can get you round that by allowing you to claim that there are multiple implementations of the same API so the GPL one cannot therefore claim sole copyright on the API, even if some implementations are so dysfunctional no sane person would use them. Of course "getting round" the GPL attracts objections from some quarters...

[Aside: Open-source clones-of / replacements-for GPL programs have also attracted objections simply on the basis that one undermines the GPL-world by replicating bits of it outside the GPL - see rms on clang / LLVM vs gcc, for instance.]

All this was discussed to death (notably on gnu.misc.discuss) some time last century, and for all I know is still discussed there today - I gave up following it long ago, concluding that the GPL basically works for what it was designed for, i.e. statically-linked C executables on unix. Outside of that it always breaks, sometimes in subtle and interesting ways.

Re:GPL

[tepples]

Could you run an FTP or SSH/SFTP server on your Windows file server, so that the Mac user can connect using a publicly documented protocol?

Re:GPL

[ausekilis]

IANAL... though my understanding of GPL is that if you modify the source code, you must provide those modifications. If I use PostGRES as a backend to my proprietary software, I only have to provide those updates that I made to PostGRES.

Of course, this could be a sticky situation if my proprietary software is "Wonder DB 9000". Though my guess is if it's something more like "Collection Manager 2016" then you'd be more in the clear.

Re:GPL

[0100010001010011]

Count 2-3 copies of a VxWorks (or other) RTOS for every vehicle you see on the road.

Large vehicles like a Caterpillar Bulldozer may have up to 5 ECMs all not running Linux.

Re:GPL

[91degrees]

but if there is any problem at all - it's with GOG not ScummVM. And I don't believe there is an issue since GOG is ScummVM and the assets are two completely disparate projects, GOG is merely doing you the favour of shipping ScummVM preconfigured for you - but you would be quite capable of buying the game from them by itself and doing that yourself. Unbundling here would not benefit anybody - and it wouldn't make anymore more free.

this is what I'm getting at. GoG assume that they are entitled to bundle the assets in this way because the SCUMM team say they can. Do the SCUMM team speak for all the contributors? No, thye don't. GoG could hypothetically face a legal issue from another party, demanding they release, at the very least, the scripted aspects of the SCUMM games.

While GoG's bundling is doing the same thing as anyone else doing so, the same applies to my example of a closed source application using an open source DLL. Legal people want an answer that either is the same for both situations, or some clear explanation as to why these are different. They're not going to advise you to see what "a jury of your peers would determine". Nobody wants that uncertainty. It's an area of vagueness with the licence and what "derived work" actually means.

Re:GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

You're falling for the trope. There is no payday in software. It's in services. Unless you keep forcing updates like Windows. You're still thinking of "selling software". You sell expertise and knowledge and experience. GPL = I can sell my services but I have to give the code away.

Re:GPL

[omnichad]

>. But on the other side they want the right to clone proprietary APIs without adhering to the license
Cloning an API is not 'linking to a library' and until just a few months ago no court had ever considered it a copyrightable thing. Even then API cloning was held to be fair use - so it's still not an issue, and not a conflict at all. And yes, you are perfectly allowed to clone the API of a GPL'd library without GPL-ing your code, as long as you implement the library yourself.

You can create a shell script that requires certain programs to already be installed on your system for it to work (almost exactly like dynamic linking, legally speaking). You don't have to create your own implementation of these programs in order to not fall under the GPL yourself.

Re:GPL

[silentcoder]

It's not the GPL's fault (or anything to do with the GPL actually) that some things are uncertain in copyright law and left up to the courts. If you have an issue with that, take it up with your representatives. Is a particular action fair use ? Sorry -the law doesn't say - it species what types of activities are potentially fair use but whether your particular case qualifies is left up to juries.
Same with the exact line between derivative work or not - the reason it's unclear is because it's unclear in the law, the GPL has nothing to do with the issue you're so concerned about.

Re:GPL

[91degrees]

Indeed. I was just agreeing with the other poster's point that "The only area where the GPL is clear is statically linked C code, everything else is very open to interpretation."

I think the point is largely valid.

Re:GPL

[silentcoder]

No, it's NOTHING like "linking" legally speaking since those programs do not in any way become part of yours, they don't execute in the same process space, they don't share memory. A shell script is very clearly NOT a derivative work of the programs it calls. There are things where copyright law is unclear regarding what is, or is not, a derivative work in programming - but this is not one of those times.

A shell script is merely *running* a program, not incorporating that program into itself. Indeed, your compiled program could actually run a GPL'd program and not be considered derivative, you just can't link it.

Re:GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck the GPL, I violate it all of the time for my own purposes and to make money. What are you going to do about it? The last idiot who tried to take it to court got shot down because the GPL isn't a legally recognized copyright so come get me, little nerd. I'll smash your fucking face in and take your code to make money without attribution or providing source code.

Re:GPL

[omnichad]

You description of why it's not the same "legally speaking" is entirely in technical speak. One program calling another entirely separate program is exactly what it's like. You're just swapping a library API interface with command line arguments and STDIN/STDOUT.

Whether the memory space is shared is nothing to do with the legal text of the GPL.

Re:GPL

[silentcoder]

No, it's really not. The vast majority of this stuff IS extremely settled by law and precedent. You cite a rare case which MIGHT be problematic (but almost certainly isn't). Plugins is a case where the law really is unclear and the judgement is meant to be on a case-by-case basis. But those are few and far between - and your first example is so far-fetched as to be unlikely to ever happen.

More importantly it undermines the very REASON this claim was made. "The GPL is unclear so no companies take the risk" - except your example is of a company who IS shipping a GPL'd program because they sincerely feel the risk is too small to deprive their customers of the convenience they can thus achieve.

The fact is that your example is ridiculous anyway - ScummVM is just an interpreter, it in no way becomes part of what you run with it, the GPL does not apply to the scenario you are talking about. By that logic you couldn't write a proprietary shell script because bash is GPLd !
The interpreter is not part of the game assets and their copyrights share no relationship. No court would consider that to be how things work - especially since these assets were not even created FOR that interpreter - it just happens to be compatible with the one they were created for.

Re:GPL

[silentcoder]

>Whether the memory space is shared is nothing to do with the legal text of the GPL.

Actually it absolutely IS what matters - which is EXACTLY why THAT is where the GPL draws the line - because it's where the LAW and Court Precedent has drawn the line. Because once the code shares a memory-space, it becomes part of the same greater whole - and THAT is legally a derivate work. If, at no point, do the two pieces of code combine into one thing - then it's not a derivative work - just two programs which coexist and copyright does not apply to that.

Re:GPL

[the_B0fh]

Since we're talking about programmers, they can't know the GPL's legal status, so they must take it at face value for now.

That's why you have lawyers. They're supposed to clarify this for the programmers.

Re:GPL

[swillden]

GPLv3, which is part of why it's being seriously overtaken by llvm, which is using a custom permissive license.

Licensing has nothing to do with why GCC is being overtaken by clang. The reason is that clang is better, easier to modify, and has a community that's easier to work with. There's nothing about the GPLv3 license vs v2 that has any relevance to compilers.

Re:GPL

[omnichad]

The GPL says no such thing. I just read it again. Citation needed.

Re:GPL

[Aaden42]

There's nothing unclear about how enforceable the GPL is. GPL grants you a license to use a copyrighted work. If you do not comply with the terms of that license (provide source code, etc.) your license is void. At that point, you have no license at all, and you are violating copyright by distributing the work without a valid license to do so.

To my knowledge, there isn't a single jurisdiction where GPL (any version) has been ruled unenforceable. There are very few cases where it has been explicitly ruled enforceable, which I could see being interpreted as doubt, but that's not the case here. The companies who have violated the license and been taken to court have settled or remedied their violation rather than risk losing in court. Every settlement or remedy is a confirmation that a pack of high paid corporate lawyers advised their clients that trying to fight the validity of the GPL would be a BadIdea(TM).

Re:GPL

[Just Some Guy]

I hate being pedantic, but if you want to, sure: the default legal conditions in the country where Slashdot is hosted and most of its commenters live and where Automattic is located is, at this point in time, for 1) all works to be automatically copyrighted upon their creation, and 2) for no one else to have the right to... erm... copy them without explicit license from their creators (with a small set of Fair Use exceptions). Vary any of those conditionals and you can get something else, but these are the ones we're talking about so in normal conversation you can safely and reasonably ignore the others.

Re:GPL

[Aaden42]

I think there's misunderstanding of "based on" versus "linked against" here. If you take a work licensed under GPL, you can't use part of that source code under a different license because you can't change the license on somebody else's code. The only exception is if you yourself wrote that code, retain copyright of it, and choose to offer it under a dual license in addition to the GPL.

Aggregation of multi-licensed works is a different matter. If you have a substantial body of work that stands on its own absent a GPL work, that work maintains its own license. A stand alone library that works with or without another GPL work is its own entity. An application which links against GPL libraries is still its own work and may carry its own license.

You may link any work against a GPL-licensed work for your own purposes without regard to the licenses. GPL is a distribution license, not a use license. If you wish to distributed to someone else a non-GPL work along with the GPL-licensed work, you must comply with the GPL. GPL states that you may not distribute a combined (linked) work with any additional restrictions beyond what GPL specifies. It does not state that distributing the entire work under GPL is the only way to comply with that requirement. It's certainly the easiest way, but not the only way.

There's a list of GPL-compatible licenses on FSF's website. You may link code licensed under any of those licenses with GPL-licensed code and distribute the result.

No part of GPL requires that you license all your code under GPL if you link to GPL code. It only requires that anyone to whom you distribute your final work can obtain, use, and redistribute all of the parts of it (including source, build tools, etc.) without any part being more restrictive than GPL.

Re:GPL

[91degrees]

There's very little precedent regarding the GPL. Most cases that get to trial involve clear cut violations.

The fact is that your example is ridiculous anyway - ScummVM is just an interpreter, it in no way becomes part of what you run with it, the GPL does not apply to the scenario you are talking about. By that logic you couldn't write a proprietary shell script because bash is GPLd !

Section 2b of the GPL v2 says "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."

The "work" is the game. This is what is being sold as a single product. The fact that some of the code uses an script interpretor to access the main application and some uses dll interfaces doesn't strike me as a huge difference. The GPL makes no mention of interpretors or linking or anything. Section 2 ends with an attempt to clarify the intent and purpose of the section, but I'd say it makes this even more murky.

It doesn't make much difference what the assets are for. By distributing the interpreter and the game as a single work, GoG.com have created a derived work, which, if we follow the letter of the licence, must be "licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties"

I will say my previous employer had restrictions on use of the GPL based on reasons that most developers would not consider to be restrictions. GoG has a different culture. It's a startup that is willing to take the risk, because they understand the open source community and know that this is not going to be an issue.

Re:GPL

[Aaden42]

Take for example a GPLed game. Now somebody comes along, takes all the graphics and releases a proprietary game with them. Is that a violation or not?

Absolutely a violation of all GPL versions.

What if he doesn't actually include the graphics, but loads them from the web or straight out of your git repository [...]?

Possibly a violation of GPLv2. Probably a violation of GPLv3. Causing the game to download graphics for the user's benefit is not distribution on your part of those graphics. The original developer is distributing the graphics by way of Github, etc. The original developer may also cease that distribution at any time (or rename a directory) and break the game.

The question (for a jury) would be if your game constitutes a derivative work of the original such that distributing only your portion without the images isn't actually distributing a distinct creative work in its own right but only distributing a portion of the derivative work created by combining the parts. If your game could load graphics from additional sources than the original and still do something, that would significantly decrease the likelihood that it would constitute a derivative work. If it was completely useless without the single other game's images, then it's probably derivative. Additionally, requiring the user to take affirmative action to download the graphics themselves and comply with any license would greatly help your standing. Requiring them to run `git clone ...` locally and informing them that what they're cloning is covered under GPL should do the trick, same as many distros require you to download tarballs of Java separately from their package manager.

Larger possibly that this is a violation of GPLv3. GPLv3 closes some of the service provider based loopholes on what constitutes "distribution." I don't know if this would full under that language. This one might be "up to a judge," but a lawyer may tell you differently with respect to how clearly this does or doesn't fall under GPLv3 language.

[...] or their fork of your git repository?

Absolutely a violation of all versions. Now you're the one distributing it and must comply with the GPL in order to have a right to do so.

What if it's not graphics, but interpreted code code?

Copyright makes no distinction on the medium. Both graphics and source code are well established as creative work covered by copyright. You may NOT copy such works without a license. GPL is a distribution license not a use license. Distribution of interpreted code is still done by the original developer in this case. You could NOT distribute modifications of the code yourself. You *could* distribute patch files to be applied on the user's computer at runtime. You may run into a situation where extensive patches must contain so much of the original files as diff context that the diff is arguably a derived work. "Up to a jury" in terms of where that line is for the patch case specifically.

At what point do the assets require the rest of the code released under GPL?

When the final work becomes a deriviative work under copyright law it falls under GPL. GPL additionally specifies that you may not link a work against GPL code and distribute it if the combined work restricts distribution beyond what the GPL provides.

if you use one of their GPLed libraries, your main app shall be released as GPL as well.

False. If you link against a GPL library, you must distribute your app under a GPL compatible license. If you're trying to distribute closed-source binary, you can't do that. If you don't like GPL, Apache, BSD, etc. are all options for your own code's license.

Shall APIs have copyright or not?

That's the key question, and it's wha

Re:GPL

[Immerman]

There is however the capacity to include usage restriction in a copyright license - see "This DVD is licensed for private viewing only, all public performances are strictly prohibited". As such there may be a good opening to be argued where you distribute a program that links to GPL libraries, so long as you do not actually dstribute those libraries yourself nor use them in the development of your software, since you only have a right to use those libraries at all under the terms of the GPL, which prohibits such linking.

And of course, as with any legal argument without long precedent, it may well come down to specific details and how creative the lawyers arguing each side can get.

And yes, you can get lots of objections to all sorts of activities, even those that may well be legal. Doesn't mean you're legally obligated to abide by them, but it's probably in your best interests to abide by the spirit of any contract you engage in, as well as the letter. If only to avoid the headaches and bad publicity.

I mean the GPL, for all its faults, has done incredibly well since its inception, with remarkably few legal cases around it in large part because it's well enough written to bring major legal jeopardy to anyone violating the spirit of it. Which really, is about as good as you can hope for for *any* legal document, including the laws themselves.

Re:GPL

[Immerman]

It is, in theory, a very real concern. I'm fairly certain though that most/all the system-interface libraries on Linux explicitly grant permission for normal usage without invoking the GPL.

Re:GPL

[grumbel]

I don't get why you think taking a portion of a GPL-licensed work means that portion wouldn't itself be GPL-licensed. Of course it is, like the whole work is.

The stance of the FSF is that game assets are not software and thus having a GPLed engine bundled with non-free assets is ok. The assets and the engine doesn't form a complete work that as whole has to be GPL licensed. Going by that interpretation taking the assets from a GPL game and including them in a proprietary work would be ok, as it's just the reverse direction of what is already common practice (see Doom, Quake, Dosbox, ScummVM). The GPL would apply to the art, but not to the engine.

The license follows the graphics no matter how you get them.

That's not the issue, the graphics will obviously stay GPL, the issue is if it does force other parts of the program to fall under the GPL. In a statically linked C project the issue is clear because all the used library become part of the resulting executable. In a lot of other context the coupling between the GPL code and the proprietary code is not so tight. Using a GPLed grep in a proprietary shell script is for example considered ok, but using a GPLed grep() function loaded from a dynamic library would be considered a violation going by the common interpretation, even so it's essentially the thing. The proprietary code wouldn't need to contain any GPLed pieces, it would just call them. In the case of graphics the only thing that couples the code with the assets would be a filename.

Things get even more complicated when you are dealing indirect couplings by third parties, not by the distributor of the proprietary application. For example assume a proprietary application provides support for themes and then a user builds a theme from GPLed assets. Is that a violation or not? What about plugins or scripts?

This whole situation really isn't clear and even the official GPL FAQ is a little vague when it comes to how to deal with plugins and basically leaves the user with a "it depends".

Re:GPL

[tepples]

"The default" that you describe leads to prohibitive import duties if not an outright trade embargo. All recent free trade agreements incorporate the Berne Convention by reference.

Re:GPL

[AvitarX]

I thought the GPL (v2 at least) was explicitly not a usage license, but a distribution one.

I'd think if you used the GPL code and linked to it, but never distributed the GPL library it wouldn't be able to kick in.

I believe that installers that download from third parties are designed to explicitly get around this even.

Re:GPL

[jbengt]

No, the license for Linux explicitly allows for that.

Re:GPL

[TemporalBeing]

>Whether the memory space is shared is nothing to do with the legal text of the GPL.

Actually it absolutely IS what matters - which is EXACTLY why THAT is where the GPL draws the line - because it's where the LAW and Court Precedent has drawn the line. Because once the code shares a memory-space, it becomes part of the same greater whole - and THAT is legally a derivate work. If, at no point, do the two pieces of code combine into one thing - then it's not a derivative work - just two programs which coexist and copyright does not apply to that.

Shared Objects (*.so) (dynamic linking) on Linux do not necessarily share the *same* memory space when loaded for use by a program - especially with the Automatic Random Address Loading that has been happening of late to increase security . Focusing on memory space is a misnomer that will not get you very far.

Now, Windows provides an interesting case as it has two types of Dynamic Linking - one which operates identical to the Shared Objects on Linux/Unix, and another that makes a dependency on the associated DLL. The hard dependency on the DLL probably will be triggered more like a Static Link, but it can be quite murky.

So again, you're left with the questions of: (a) is the library essential for the software to run? (b) can it be replaced without modification? That is, if you didn't have the library at all, would the program still work on its own - possibly in a degraded state? If so, then it's non-essential and not a derivative work. This is how most plug-in style programs function, and thereby a GPL plug-in for a non-GPL-compatible program doesn't affect the main program.

And if you can replace the library without modifying the program then you are solely dependent upon the API. Some communities are okay with that kind of linking without requiring the same license, some are not.

Of course, devs are best to make sure any library is LGPL instead of GPL and you get around a lot of things. Very few libraries are solely GPL or AGPL for exactly that reason.

Re:GPL

[TemporalBeing]

Take for example a GPLed game. Now somebody comes along, takes all the graphics and releases a proprietary game with them. Is that a violation or not?

Absolutely a violation of all GPL versions.

Actually you may be surprised. The Assets may not get covered by the GPL at all; they're probably better licensed under the FDL (Free Documentation License) which is meant to cover non-source material. GPL doesn't cover everything that goes with a program.

Re:GPL

[sjames]

I find that viral meme odd to say the least. As if proprietary licenses don't have a viral property to them. You can't even glance at a proprietary app without getting EULA on you.

Re:GPL

[Aaden42]

If they're not explicitly offered under a different license in the package and not public domain, they're either GPL or there's no distribution right at all. I know GPL isn't an ideal license for non-code asserts, but absent an explicit grant under some license, they can't be distributed without violating copyright. If the package's license grant doesn't mention the images explicitly, the only reasonable assumption is that they're provided under GPL.

Re:GPL

[Alomex]

If I use somebody else's code I have to properly license it, but my new code does not become theirs.

If you use GPL code on the other hand, your code is now infected and the only way to legally use it is to make it join the GPL borg and make the new code public.

Re: GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course when it didn't suit the FSF there are exceptions to that.

For example any program compiled by gcc must have its source release under gpl if it's ever distributed.

The way they get around this by granting an exception is very shady, the exception is granted without original authors consent.

Re:GPL

[sjames]

But the code you wrote DOES remain yours, there are simply requirements on it's distribution.. If you use licensed proprietary code in your app, you are also restricted in your licensing and distribution choices. For example, you may have to pay for additional licenses, you probably cannot distribute the SDK. Odds are good you'll have to pay for it.

It's not like some kind of infection either way. Don't want to pay the price, don't use the code. Buit as far as unintentional infringement, who would you rather negotiate with to settle the matter, The IBM nazgul, Oracle's notoriously understanding legal team, or someone like Bruce Perens?

Re:GPL

[Alomex]

Again GPL changes the license on your code, no other commercial license does that. This is why GPL is viral.

Re:GPL

[sjames]

So if I want to ship free software, no proprietary library vendor will object to providing their headers and object files so it can be re-linked? They'll be happy with the free re-distribution of those object files and libraries by anyone who downloads my code?

Or perhaps they might require me to change the licence to a proprietary one, never to be opened.

I have on more than one occasion had to reject nice hardware because the maker was forbidden to release driver source to me due to proprietary vendor code they incorporated. They couldn't even give me object files and a header because their vendor said that would require a very expensive SDK licence and an NDA. Otherwise, they were willing to discuss an open source driver. That is, they couldn't grant the licence they wanted to on THEIR code because of the proprietary vendor.

Re:GPL

[caseih]

Yes that's true that a copyright holder may choose to cut off options 1 and 2 after a violation occurred. And if you get caught there are monetary damages that can be awarded to the copyright holder, and the violator has to cease violating. In other words they have to stop selling the software and remove the GPL'd code from it. Despite the wording of the GPL, the copyright holder could, if they choose, still negotiate options 1 or 2. The copyright holder has the right to enforce or negate parts of the GPL if he or she wishes.

Anyway violation of source code licenses is actually quite common and often companies will wait to get sued, then settle and negotiate with the copyright holder. If the product has real monetary value then usually they can pay the damages and negotiate a licensing deal. That's certainly the ideal option for any GPL code author.

Re:GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

> If you are producing a large, closed-source, product, option 1 is not an option at all.

Then why the hell are you using GPL'd code? It's not free for the taking, don't act like it is and you'll be fine. If you don't intend to share your code, GPL is not for you.

> So, this leaves only option 3 - remove all GPL'd code from your project and write your own.

Which is what you should have done in the first place if you're making a closed-source product...

Re:GPL

[Vryl]

This old chestnut?

It's 2016, and we are STILL having this one?

2001 wants it's bullshit arguments back.

Re:GPL

[ray-auch]

I thought the GPL (v2 at least) was explicitly not a usage license, but a distribution one.

And GPLv3 also, although arguably less clearly:

> You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions

I'd think if you used the GPL code and linked to it, but never distributed the GPL library it wouldn't be able to kick in.

I believe that installers that download from third parties are designed to explicitly get around this even.

Correct, BUT the FSF regards the "designed to explicitly get around this" (or "user does the link") bit as contributory infringement / subterfuge. AFAIK that remains a theory that has never been tested in court, nevertheless, if I were going to do that I would want to be as non-explicit about it as possible. Of course, building separate install packages (+ dependency system) for common libraries so users only have to download what they haven't already got is designed to do just that - not to end run around the GPL...

First Comment

[Miamicoastguard]

Apes, Shit, Throwing, Zoo... There's a joke in there somewhere but really can't be bothered putting it together. Who let these two idiots make the news?

Re:First Comment

[Dracos]

• Apes: self-proclaimed "developers" who use WordPress code
• Shit: WordPress code
• Throwing: using WordPress code
• Zoo: the PHP language

GPL Bullet-Points

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there a slideshow, or bullet-points, somewhere that summarize what you must do when you use GPL code? I've been as confused as everyone else.

Re:GPL Bullet-Points

[queazocotal]

In short - if you use GPL code (neglecting LGPL for the moment) in your project, then your project needs to be GPL if you are going to distribute it.

You can quite legitimately take GPL code, and modify it to your hearts content and then run it on your own servers and never sell it, with no requirements to do anything special at all.

However - if you distribute the binary resultant from your code, you need to also make available the whole source, including your additions and you cannot add further restrictions that stop people from copying your code.
If you attempt to add further restrictions, or do not supply the source, then you do not have a valid licence to use the GPLd code, and can be pursued for copyright infringement

(this code strictly only has to be supplied to people who you give the binary to).

Re:GPL Bullet-Points

[hsmith]

You mean you don't have time to read and comprehend the 50 fucking pages of the GPL license? Only a lunatic like Stallman would propose such a thing no one without a JD could understand.

Re:GPL Bullet-Points

[whoever57]

Trolling, much?

The GPL is about 15 pages (including the preamble). It's much more readable than most contracts and licenses.

Re:GPL Bullet-Points

[Anonymous Coward]

That's great. But to what extent does this go to? I've heard some extreme cases where if you use the libraries and only link the libraries, you have to make your code GPL. I've even heard of even more extreme cases if you use Gnome or KDE to build your app, you have to make your code open source. QT license is just as mind boggling as the GPL. This is getting quite ridiculous and why many commercial companies have completely dropped developing on linux as no one has made sense of this at all anywhere. Instead we have a bunch of idiots dictating to us what you can do and can't do, all of them contradicting themselves. This is why buying a license from Microsoft or Apple is far easier to deal with than the GPL. Even the US government refuses to use or do anything with it out of fear and out-lash of some opensource lawyer.

This really needs to be resolved or there will continue to be no commercial software for linux for a very long time. It's getting to the point that more and more developers don't even want to deal with anything linux when a decade ago there was quite a lot of enthusiasm for it.

Re:GPL Bullet-Points

[nnull]

Don't forget a decade a go, all the kids that were so excited at using linux, learned from linux, now have to unlearn everything thanks to new version of the GPL due to their new jobs and companies that don't want to deal with the crap. Stallman is such a genius.

Re:GPL Bullet-Points

[haruchai]

"Even the US government refuses to use or do anything with it out of fear and out-lash of some opensource lawyer"
There are lots of people developing on Linux and if the Gubbermint is in fear of being taking down by RMS, they can just buy their Linux software from Redhat.

Re:GPL Bullet-Points

[Anonymous Coward]

It does NOT need to be GPL.

It just needs to not add any additional restrictions. So you can use a more permissive license without a problem.

The code has to be either supplied to people you give the binary to at the time you gave the binary, or you need to make it available to other party on request. Or if you're non commercial and you're redistributing a binary without source from someone else, then you can provide them the same information you received as to how to obtain the source.

(The above for version 2.0. Haven't read 3.0 in detail)

Re:GPL Bullet-Points

[Luthair]

Github has a page attempting to hit the bullet points of obligations - http://choosealicense.com/lice...

Re:GPL Bullet-Points

[queazocotal]

You can't use a more permissive licence without question.
You absolutely can't re-licence other peoples code in ways that give more rights than the authors gave with the licence without their consent.
in some cases other licences are compatible with the GPL.

Re:GPL Bullet-Points

[Anonymous Coward]

That was the whole point. That inertia will force some change at those companies.

Re:GPL Bullet-Points

[nnull]

But it hasn't. A lot of commercial software have offered alternatives (Very cheap alternatives), without having to worry about legal issues, and it pretty much all backfired on Stallman. Free or not, everything has a cost.

Re:GPL Bullet-Points

[Anonymous Coward]

"There are lots of people developing on Linux and if the Gubbermint is in fear of being taking down by RMS, they can just buy their Linux software from Redhat."

I never said there weren't people developing on Linux. But the enthusiasm has dropped dramatically and it's quite noticeable in a lot of opensource software, even in stupid PDF viewers that don't even come close to Acrobat, because, seriously, no one wants to do it for various reasons (Mainly no financial incentive). But sure, they could buy Redhat, but why when Windows offers a lot of better options? I'm no Windows fan, and I do use a Linux desktop, but the licenses needs to be re-looked at and this issue needs to be resolved once and for all to get commercial interest back into Linux. These stupid issues is what gives Microsoft the edge on all things. Stallman really made a mess of things and even Linus agrees that he's insane.

Re:GPL Bullet-Points

[Pseudonym]

That's great. But to what extent does this go to? I've heard some extreme cases where if you use the libraries and only link the libraries, you have to make your code GPL.

The short version is that if you distribute a derivative work, that derivative work must be licensed under the same licence. The bit that you wrote may be licensed under any licence that you want (including dual-licensing) as long as the derivative work as a whole is licensed under the GPL.

What you're really asking is what exactly a "derivative work" is when it comes to software. The short answer is that nobody really knows where the line is drawn precisely (or if there is a precise line at all), and it probably differs between jurisdictions. This is not a problem that is unique to the GPL, or indeed to software.

If you're patching a codebase, the situation is reasonably clear. If you're "using" a library, that's much less clear. The FSF usually draws the line at linking, even dynamic linking, however they also argue that APIs are not copyrightable. US courts have typically said that a derivative work must incorporate some of the copyrighted work in some form. What if it's an optional plug-in? What if it's a C++ program and there's inline code in the header files? What if there's a proprietary library with an identical API? Interesting questions, none of which is entirely settled.

The flip side of this is to recognise that the only reason why these issues come up with the GPL and not commercial licences is that commercial licences impose additional restrictive terms which don't even let you get close to releasing derivative works. Unlike commercial licences/EULAs, the GPL merely grants you the rights you need to use, modify, and redistribute the software and does not take away any rights under the law that you previously had. So the question of exactly what rights you previously had is now relevant.

Re:GPL Bullet-Points

[Pseudonym]

Errr... Linux is still licensed under the GPLv2.

Re:GPL Bullet-Points

[PhunkySchtuff]

That's the problem with GPL v3. With V2, you could link to GPL'd code, or use GPL'd libraries, in your closed source project and that was OK. If you made changes to the GPL'd code, you needed to make the source for the changes available to anyone who you distributed the software to.

With v3 however, if you use GPL'd code or libraries in your closed source project, you have to make the ENTIRE PROJECT available under the GPLv3 as well. This is the viral nature of it.

From http://choosealicense.com/lice...
Permissions of this strong copyleft license are conditioned on making available complete source code of licensed works and modifications, which include larger works using a licensed work, under the same license. Copyright and license notices must be preserved. Contributors provide an express grant of patent rights.

Re:GPL Bullet-Points

[phantomfive]

With V2, you could link to GPL'd code, or use GPL'd libraries, in your closed source project and that was OK. If you made changes to the GPL'd code, you needed to make the source for the changes available to anyone who you distributed the software to.

No, this is very much not true. What you are describing is the LGPL, not the GPL2.

Re:GPL Bullet-Points

[Immerman]

Exactly this.

The biggest changes with GPLv3 were the introduction of downstream patent amnesty and anti-tivoization clauses. NOT library changes. GPL2 expressly prohibits linking from non-GPLed code.

Re:GPL Bullet-Points

[Immerman]

Indeed. And the preamble does a pretty good job of explaining the basic contract:

If you use our code in your project, you have to share your project's code under the same (or more permissive) terms.

v3 adds a few other caveats to prevent patent poisoning and tivoization, but basically, as long as you're okay with that basic contract, you're good to go. And if you're not... then you probably want to stay away from using GPL code, and you won't be missed by the community.

Re:GPL Bullet-Points

[Anonymous Coward]

You cannot use GPL2 code in your closed source project. You are thinking of the LGPL which exists for version 3 as well.

Seriously it's not that hard to read the license and understand it. If you can read source code then you can read lawyer talk.

Re:GPL Bullet-Points

[91degrees]

Yes you can. It doesn't cover the GPL aspect of the code but it does cover your code.

Re:GPL Bullet-Points

[james_gnz]

Below is a summary of what's in the GPL v3 (as I understand it). The summary is organised so that rights are presented as a numbered list, and corresponding responsibilities are listed under each right. In brackets after each line is a reference to the corresponding section, subsection, paragraph, and sentence in the actual GPL v3 (these are all numbered from 0). Hope this helps.

• Preamble
• Definitions [0, 1]
• 1. Receiving a Licence
  • 1.1. License grant is given upon receiving the Program. [10p0s0, 2p0s0, 11p0-2&7, 3p0]
    • a. License acceptance is implied by modifying or propagating. [9]
    • b. No warranty is provided, unless in writing for a fee. [15, 16, 17]
    • c. Additional liability disclaimers may apply. [7a]
    • d. Additional publicity restrictions may apply. [7d]
    • e. License adherence is not excused by other obligations. [12]
    • f. License termination may result from license breach. [8]
  • 1.2. Additional permissions may apply. [7p0, 7p9s0-1, 14]
• 2. Using the Program
  • 2.1 Using the unmodified Program and fair use are unlimited. [2p0s1-3]
  • 2.2 Making and using covered works is permitted. [2p1, 2p2s0]
• 3. Conveying Source
  • 3.1. Conveying verbatim copies of source is permitted. [4p0s0, 4p1]
    • a. Licensing restrictions may not be imposed. [10p0s1&p2, 2p2s1]
    • b. Patents, if they protect you, must protect everyone. [11p3-6]
    • c. Technical measures may not be enforced. [3p1]
    • d. Notices must be retained and made conspicuous. [4p0s0]
    • e. Additional names and marks terms may apply. [7e]
    • f. Additional liability indemnification terms may apply. [7f]
    • g. Transfer of control requires transfer of rights. [10p1]
  • 3.2. Conveying modified source versions is permitted. [5p0s0 parts]
    • a. Above terms of Section 3.1 apply. [5p0s0 part]
    • b. Licensing must be available under this License. [5c, 7p1-2, 7p9s2]
    • c. Notices must be included and prominent. [5abd, 7p10-11]
    • d. Additional notices terms may apply. [7bc]
• 4. Conveying non-source forms is permitted. [6p0s0 part]
  • a. Above terms of Sections 3.1 and 3.2 apply. [6p0s0 part]
  • b. Source code must be made available. [6p0s0 part, 6p1-6, 6p11]
  • c. Installation information is required for User Products. [6p7-10]
• 5. Conveying Non-GPL Works
  • 5.1. Conveying linked Affero GPL works is permitted. [13]
  • 5.2. Conveying aggregates is permitted. [5p5]
• How to Apply this License

Re:GPL Bullet-Points

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't know what you are saying. If you link your code to GPLv2 code, the whole code should be under the GPLv2.

Second. Let us say you took code from Micro$oft and made modifications and passed the code to person A who did the same and passed the code to person B who also did the same. You, person A and person B have all violated the Micro$oft's license. Thus the license is "viral". However, I did not see you complaining.

Re:GPL Bullet-Points

[Anonymous Coward]

This is pertinently untrue. Please don't spread misinformation if you don't know much about a subject.

GPL V2 was viral already. Heck GPL V1 was. The viral-ness is the whole point of the licence. And a very successfull point as well. (I myself release all my code under some GPL version. I put a lot of work in it, so you are not allowed to close it. If you just want to use the code and not contribute back, you can bloody well pay me.)

The new thing in GPL v3 are the clauses about tivoisation and patent protection. Very useful as well, but in today's world, where all young programmers seem to be brainwashed by apple, a hard sell.

You're confusing GLP and LGPL. LGPL code you can include as long as you contribute back any changes to the original code. Using a GPL library makes you whole product GPL .

Re:GPL Bullet-Points

[jbengt]

. . . even in stupid PDF viewers that don't even come close to Acrobat . . .

Please provide link. Considering how awful Acrobat Reader DC is, I'd be interested in PDF viewers that don't even come close to it.

Wait, WIX?

[RyanFenton]

Like, as in Windows Installer XML? It wasn't a bad alternative to Installshield for especially complex installs, Strange that they... oh, it's just some lame free web builder website. Yeah - I'll keep ignoring that then. Ryan Fenton

Re:Wait, WIX?

[Lieutenant_Dan]

I thought the exact same thing; was confused as hell for 30 seconds.

Re:Wait, WIX?

[Zontar The Mindless]

Same here.

Re:Wait, WIX?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Ryan, you mean you can keep on ignoring both WIX, the Installshield wannabe, and the free webbuilder for lame-os, WIX. There's always that third WIX we BOTH can't ignore: Wixipedia.

Provocateur
too lazy to log on

not that complicated

[dltaylor]

People who READ the GPL can figure it out. Those who INTERPRET it to suit their own agenda get it wrong (like SCSI specs, for example).

If you publish a program that incorporates GPL (not LGPL) source, you have to make that source, plus any of your changes, plus instructions/tools to build the program to those to whom you have distributed the program (no distribution -> no requirement), and you can not use a more-restrictive license on the program source. Putting the bundle on a web site is acceptable, but NOT a requirement, as long as you provide the bundle at nominal charge to the recipients of the program. You do NOT have to give it to anyone else.

Re:not that complicated

[Kjella]

People who READ the GPL can figure it out. Those who INTERPRET it to suit their own agenda get it wrong (...) If you publish a program that incorporates GPL (not LGPL) source

Actually I'd say it is a mess, not because of the GPL but the way software works. Any time you make a function, you make an interface. Any time you have an interface, you can have multiple implementations that don't really derivate from each other. Principally there's no difference between the Linux kernel's user API, module API and internal API. It's just ways for code to call other code. Or an application and plug-ins. Or a command line tool and a GUI. Or a service and its administration tool. What about interpreted languages, web services, JVMs and so on if you call it, you incorporate it?

They try to exclude some bits:

However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

What if you're making a set top box, could you distribute an open source tool on a proprietary OS if they accompany each other?

The FSF is admitting this is a bit wobbly:

Where's the line between two separate programs, and one program with two parts? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are interchanged).

If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication between them is limited to invoking the âmainâ(TM) function of the plug-in with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline case.

And these questions presume the plug-in knows what's on the other side of the interface.

Can I apply the GPL when writing a plug-in for a non-free program?
Can I release a non-free program that's designed to load a GPL-covered plug-in?

What if it's a standard? Say for the sake of argument both Photoshop and GIMP had a common tool plug-in. Could you legally write GPL plug-ins for it? Proprietary plug-ins? Could they live together on a CD?

A modern service bus or something like that really makes a mess of the simple compiled/linked world of the GPL.

Re:not that complicated

[phantomfive]

Note that this question is very likely to be clarified in the next year or so as Google vs Oracle goes back to the appellate court.

Re:not that complicated

[AmiMoJo]

What if you're making a set top box, could you distribute an open source tool on a proprietary OS if they accompany each other?

This has been clarified in V3. And yes, you can distribute OS tools on a proprietary operating system, it happens all the time.

Can I release a non-free program that's designed to load a GPL-covered plug-in?

Note that this only applies to someone requiring or shipping a GPL plug-in with their proprietary app. If they just implement a common interface and the user chooses to load a GPL plug-in, that's fine.

It's to cover proprietary apps using GPL dynamic libraries loaded at run time. Otherwise developers could use GPL code in their proprietary apps by just compiling it into a DLL rather than statically linking at compile time.

Admittedly, this could be made a bit clearer in their FAQ.

Re:not that complicated

[TemporalBeing]

t's to cover proprietary apps using GPL dynamic libraries loaded at run time. Otherwise developers could use GPL code in their proprietary apps by just compiling it into a DLL rather than statically linking at compile time.

Admittedly even Rosen - one of the authors - admits there is a gray area regarding linking and where the boundary falls. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Linking_and_derived_works)

Really?

[JediJorgie]

How is there even any wiggle room? If you distribute a app that contains GPL code, you must make your source code available, period.

Folks in general tolerate a little lag between app release and code release, but if you actually want to follow the spirit of the GPL, your source should be available at the time of distribution because you don't really have a fully valid license to distribute your GPL containing work until it is.

Re:Really?

[whoever57]

If you distribute a app that contains GPL code, you must make your source code available,

That depends on how your app "contains" the GPL code. This part of the GPL V2 is applicable:

If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

> If you distribute a app that contains GPL code, you must make your source code available, period.

Technically not always correct.

If I wrote some code, released it as gpl, then used it in my proprietary app, i'm golden. Because even though it's released as gpl, I still am the creator and owner and can use it however I like. It's other people who want to use that bit of code who have to obey the gpl license applied to it.

I have no idea if that's what's going on here, but always worth remembering the caveats of any situation.

Re:Really?

[Immerman]

That's kind of riding the ragged edge of pedantry, though still worth mentioning since that's pretty much the rule with legal topics.

Generally speaking though, "GPLed code" refers to "code that you have license to use under the GPL" - which is not the case if you're the actual copyright holder, in which case you have pretty much absolute unrestricted rights to use and license it as you see fit.

Though of course that changes dramatically if you accept contributions without a copyright assignment. In which case you only have license to those contributions, and everything derived from them, under the GPL, and it can become extremely difficult to extricate "your" code from the GPLed collaborative work.

Re: Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are not getting it.

Who says they have gpl source code? They might just be using binaries.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

>That's kind of riding the ragged edge of pedantry, though still worth mentioning since that's pretty much the rule with legal topics.

Maybe so, but in this world of gross over generalizations, it's worth pointing them out when they're wrong.

caught redhanded

[Swampash]

Mullenweg: your app uses GPL code so you have to obey the licence, which you're not doing.

Abrahami: OH WE LOVE OPEN SOURCE WE PUT STUFF ON GITHUB ALL THE TIME

what a prick

Re:caught redhanded

[megamind]

Who cares about wix?

Re:caught redhanded

[Anonymous Coward]

Wix is pretty crap.

Which is why I wondered the same thing.

Re:caught redhanded

[Anonymous Coward]

Presumably, whomever is paying for all that advertising I'm seeing on websites now.

Still don't know what 'wix' is, nor do I care.

Holy Racist Batman wow

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck is wrong with you? Please seek professional therapy immediately. If you are currently in therapy find a different therapist.

Re:Holy Racist Batman wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe he is a therapist himself. "Alternative Yoda Therapy" That would explain a lot.

Why would any audio device

[Anonymous Coward]

....bother to reproduce sounds that can't be heard, possibly disrupting other services in that spectrum? Maybe the FCC needs to get involved.

Re:First Comment - Obama Loretta Lynch NIGGER

[Anonymous Coward]

Shit effort on the song dude - it could be funny:

Wordpress code

[Anonymous Coward]

Outside the arguments about GPL and licensing, etc, etc., my first thought was: why would you choose to use the wordpress editor source? First, there have got to be 50 other basic markup editors out there and Second, why would you taint your personal code with any of the sh-t code that most of wordpress contains? Unless you're a ex-wordpress plugin writer then it makes a bit of sense. Seriously, not withstanding the popularity of wordpress, in a code review wordpress is like reading badly written perl. If you respond to this post, I trolled ya!

Insert anti GPL FUD

[khz6955]

'Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) versus Xterasys Corporation and High-Gain Antennas, LLC'

A Practical Guide to GPL Compliance --

"How exactly the GPL works is still unclear as not many cases have gone through the courts. I know that because of this most companies absolutely prohibit any open source code within a mile of their commercial applications, even in cases where a light reading of the GPL would suggest it is ok to do so. Remember the GPL is designed to be viral. You don't want to run the risk of violating the GPL by inadvertently infecting your proprietary closed source code." link

He doesn't understand it but...

[Anonymous Coward]

The other guy is wrong, but we made a mistake? What this is ignorant, they did it, they knew they did it, now they are lying. Is everyone else tired of the lies from everyone, but its your fault for letting me lie mentality?

Ahem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright infringement is not stealing. *ducks*

BSD/MIT/Apache2

[Anonymous Coward]

So, this leaves only option 3 - remove all GPL'd code from your project and write your own.

Or, instead of writing your own, use a non-copyleft licensed open source code. BSD/MIT/Apache-licensed stuff is also available.

A bit of hyperbole

[laughingskeptic]

Stolen -- incorrect and inflammatory verb use.

Unattributed -- The repo is named "wix/WordPress-Editor-Android" ... I would call that a pretty explicit case of attribution.

Wix seems to be in compliance with the GPL. The source for the entire version of their editor is available on GitHub. Matt Mullenweg seems to be aware of this repo and yet he insists that there is some additional and unidentified code that is not publicly available. When one uses terms like "stolen", it is irresponsible to not be explicit about the details.

Re:A bit of hyperbole

[Anonymous Coward]

Stolen -- incorrect and inflammatory verb use.

Unattributed -- The repo is named "wix/WordPress-Editor-Android" ... I would call that a pretty explicit case of attribution.

Wix seems to be in compliance with the GPL. The source for the entire version of their editor is available on GitHub. Matt Mullenweg seems to be aware of this repo and yet he insists that there is some additional and unidentified code that is not publicly available. When one uses terms like "stolen", it is irresponsible to not be explicit about the details.

The question is if the distributed Wix mobile app linked to the GPL code. If it's linked, then you also need to post the source code to the Wix mobile app.

Re:A bit of hyperbole

[TemporalBeing]

Stolen -- incorrect and inflammatory verb use.

Unattributed -- The repo is named "wix/WordPress-Editor-Android" ... I would call that a pretty explicit case of attribution.

Wix seems to be in compliance with the GPL. The source for the entire version of their editor is available on GitHub. Matt Mullenweg seems to be aware of this repo and yet he insists that there is some additional and unidentified code that is not publicly available. When one uses terms like "stolen", it is irresponsible to not be explicit about the details.

The question is if the distributed Wix mobile app linked to the GPL code. If it's linked, then you also need to post the source code to the Wix mobile app.

Depends on how it is linked - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... - but you could be riding a dangerous line.

That said, I opened up Wix's GitHub site, did a search for "word" and found 3 repos - 2 were forks, and the third is likely the project in question. Analyzing that third project (licensed under a MIT permissive license) - it's got some Java (Android) and Objective C (iOS) code; and I think you'd be hard pressed to call it linking by any form. Both rely on a third party parser to do the JavaScript interactions (as applicable for each OS) using WordPress JS API names for sake of the parser and interfacing appropriately there. So it's very likely in that gray area of controversy - an area not well covered by the GPL or community norms; and the App store policies don't help matters at all either.

This is all fucked up

[Sulik]

What's really fucked up is that many/most large GPL projects include code from public-domain or non-GPL, but the derived work is now under the GPL license, so everyone using the original work (including the original author(s)) now have the burden to prove that they're innocent. GPL became lawful evil - only lawyers benefit from this scam.

millions of retards who want a point n click

[Anonymous Coward]

wix makes many hundreds of millions of dollars of retards who want a point n click shiny

One time some old guy in his 60's told me he wanted to make a craigslist using wix, my head just about exploded

Re:Getting SAMBA

[hackwrench]

I went to the samba site to see how hard it would be to get a mac version and it appears to be hard to get either a Mac or Windows version, but that seems to be an issue with the developers and not GPL 3. https://www.bing.com/search?q=... turns up some results.

Re:Getting SAMBA

[PhunkySchtuff]

It's trivial to install Samba on OS X.
Step 1. Install Xcode
Step 2. Install MacPorts
Step 3. sudo port install samba3 or sudo port install samba4

Apple can't include Samba out of the box with OS X due to issues linking to GPL v3 libraries and issues due to foregoing patent lawsuits if using GPL v3 code, but there's nothing stopping you from adding it yourself.

Entrepreneurs

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course they are stealing code, Ahmed or Kumar or whatever the great entrepreneurs name is. That's what all the IT startup industry is all about. Will not be surpriesed if the stealers got funded through YCombinator.