Twenty questions about the GPL • Hacker News Board

Re: Twenty questions about the GPL

#41

Post by kingkilr » Mon, Jul 13, 2009, 9:29 PM UTC

callahad wrote: post #23

Quick attempt to answer these based on my understanding of the GPL, and just a quick cursory skim of version 3. I am not a lawyer. [Edit: It seems like my answers to the first few are a bit contentious and should really be "it depends"; see comments below.] 1. Yes, by using foo.py as a library, your bar.py must also be GPL'd. This would be different were foo.py under the Lesser GPL. 2. Not shipping foo.py does not ch…

You answer the first 3 questions quite definitively, however I spoke with the Software Freedom Law Center just this past week about these same questions and was told the answer to all of them was "maybe" as this has never been tested in court.

Re: Twenty questions about the GPL

#42

Post by tjr » Mon, Jul 13, 2009, 9:31 PM UTC

theBobMcCormick wrote: post #2

This would be a much more interesting article if the author had at least tried to get answers to his questions (perhaps from the GNU foundation or the Software Freedom Law Center, etc) and included that with his questions. That would have been an interesting article, and possibly useful to hackers and software entrepreneurs. As it is, I'm surprised and disappointed that an article with so little substance has made it…

Yes, it would be more interesting. These questions may very well shed light on ambiguities in GPLv3. If so, then I imagine that the FSF would want to take this into consideration for GPLv4.

Re: Twenty questions about the GPL

#43

Post by callahad » Mon, Jul 13, 2009, 9:40 PM UTC

jballanc wrote: post #32

callahad wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've found that most of the fear comes from the misconception that the GPL could force your code open against your wishes. In the US, that's simply not possible. Check out this article on Groklaw ("The GPL is a License, Not a Contract, Which is Why the Sky Isn't Falling") for more: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851 I've found it helpful to clear up that misconception, point to past infraction…

I've never thought the fear was that proprietary code would be forced to have its source opened. I was under the impression that the fear for large companies has more to do with injunctions on sale and/or distribution as a result of license violation. Try to tell Microsoft that they can't sell Windows for the next week and see what they think of that...

Both are very real concerns; the CTO of our division, representing a large chunk of a 50,000 person organization, was certainly very concerned about the chance that things would be forced open.

Re: Twenty questions about the GPL

#44

Post by benatkin » Mon, Jul 13, 2009, 9:40 PM UTC

jrockway wrote: post #33

theBobMcCormick wrote: post #2

This would be a much more interesting article if the author had at least tried to get answers to his questions (perhaps from the GNU foundation or the Software Freedom Law Center, etc) and included that with his questions. That would have been an interesting article, and possibly useful to hackers and software entrepreneurs. As it is, I'm surprised and disappointed that an article with so little substance has made it…

HN is largely anti-GPL. You are being dowmodded for that reason.

No, he's being downmodded for suggesting that the author should have to contact one particular organization to get answers to simple questions about something as widely used and discussed as the GPL.

Re: Twenty questions about the GPL

#45

Post by tptacek » Mon, Jul 13, 2009, 9:44 PM UTC

blasdel wrote: post #5

Jacob brings up a point I haven't seen clearly expressed before -- the GPL's design directly leads to questions like these (now more than ever with Python/Ruby and Javascript), but the FSF not only does not provide clear or useful answers, there is no mechanism for arriving at decent answers . The problem with the GPL is not really the evangelical copyleft (as annoying as those people can be), the problem is that it'…

The complexity is a feature. Simply put: if you want to work in the open, noncommercially, with maximal sharing, use something other than GPL. If you ever intend to commercialize your work, use GPL.

GPL's complexities are a problem for downstream developers, not for the author. That's essentially what you want if you're doing the Open Source / Commercial dual license play.

Re: Twenty questions about the GPL

#46

Post by callahad » Mon, Jul 13, 2009, 9:48 PM UTC

kingkilr wrote: post #41

callahad wrote: post #23

Quick attempt to answer these based on my understanding of the GPL, and just a quick cursory skim of version 3. I am not a lawyer. [Edit: It seems like my answers to the first few are a bit contentious and should really be "it depends"; see comments below.] 1. Yes, by using foo.py as a library, your bar.py must also be GPL'd. This would be different were foo.py under the Lesser GPL. 2. Not shipping foo.py does not ch…

You answer the first 3 questions quite definitively, however I spoke with the Software Freedom Law Center just this past week about these same questions and was told the answer to all of them was "maybe" as this has never been tested in court.

I'd love to gain a better understanding of these matters; did the SFLC cite any scenarios where those first three would tip the other way? That was really an attempt to lay out my understanding of the situation, not provide definitive answers. Any corrections or refinements you can provide would be awesome. Sorry if I sounded a bit more confident than warranted.

I'm mainly basing my response to the top 3 on what I recall of the readline debate, and the personal idea if those worked any other way, there wouldn't be much of a reason for the LGPL to be around. Or at least, I think the answers to #2 and #3 are clearly defined for an LGPL'd foo.py.

Re: Twenty questions about the GPL

#47

Post by tjr » Mon, Jul 13, 2009, 9:49 PM UTC

benatkin wrote: post #44

jrockway wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN is largely anti-GPL. You are being dowmodded for that reason.

No, he's being downmodded for suggesting that the author should have to contact one particular organization to get answers to simple questions about something as widely used and discussed as the GPL.

Then he's being downmodded unjustly, as he listed two specific organizations, included an "etc." in his list of organizations, and prefaced the entire list with a "perhaps".

Regardless of where the answers to these questions come from, it would be good to share the confusion with the FSF, in hopes that they can remedy it. I do not believe their goal is to inflict confusing licenses upon the general public, but they do have rather specific goals and attempt to address those goals in their licenses.

Re: Twenty questions about the GPL

#48

Post by callahad » Mon, Jul 13, 2009, 10:01 PM UTC

theBobMcCormick wrote: post #2

This would be a much more interesting article if the author had at least tried to get answers to his questions (perhaps from the GNU foundation or the Software Freedom Law Center, etc) and included that with his questions. That would have been an interesting article, and possibly useful to hackers and software entrepreneurs. As it is, I'm surprised and disappointed that an article with so little substance has made it…

Just because "this is broken" wasn't followed by "...and here's how to fix it" doesn't mean that pointing out the initial flaw was without merit or substance. Still, I too wish someone at a qualified institution (FSF, SFLC, etc) would weigh in.

Re: Twenty questions about the GPL

#49

Post by vinutheraj » Mon, Jul 13, 2009, 10:07 PM UTC

callahad wrote: post #23

Quick attempt to answer these based on my understanding of the GPL, and just a quick cursory skim of version 3. I am not a lawyer. [Edit: It seems like my answers to the first few are a bit contentious and should really be "it depends"; see comments below.] 1. Yes, by using foo.py as a library, your bar.py must also be GPL'd. This would be different were foo.py under the Lesser GPL. 2. Not shipping foo.py does not ch…

Do you mean that if you call any function which is part of a GPL'd library then consequentially your work is a derivative. Going by that logic can anything running on Linux be a non-GPL'd commercial product ?! I am really confused right now !

Re: Twenty questions about the GPL

#50

Post by gchpaco » Mon, Jul 13, 2009, 10:11 PM UTC

callahad wrote: post #39

blasdel wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GNU Readline is a GPL library controlled by the FSF, that implements basic interactive line editing. For a long time it was more or less the only one. RMS believes that if you link with it in any way, even as a compile-time default-off option, your product must be GPL: http://clisp.cvs.sourceforge.net/*checkout*/clisp/clisp/doc/... As a result, for years and years , non-GPL (not just closed-source, BSD too) programs…

I think that particular area is ripe for further exploration. Especially in the context of Jacob's second and third questions: Does the answer change if foo.py does not ship with bar.py, but nonetheless requires foo.py to function? Does the answer change if foo.py does not ship with bar.py and does not require its presence to function? If GPL foo.py is the only library that can fill that void, then sure, once your ap…

This is actually a very practical question, as IIRC Editline was readline compatible on some levels.

What follows is all my hazy recollection. If memory serves, the answer was this, although obviously if you ask RMS you get slightly different answers depending: you have to GPL your code (if you distribute it) if you link to GPL code. If you can plausibly link to several different libraries, not all of which are GPL, you don't. So when readline was alone in the world, everything that used it had to be GPL. The BSD folks wrote editline specifically to avoid this--initially, editline was extremely lame compared to readline and I think might still be, but because the API was equivalent they could say "We're BSD licensed through and through; use our code for anything you want" and still have a non-horrible CLI and yet at link time decide to use the good library.

I think the reason this works legally, although I'm not a lawyer, is because yes, when you link your program with readline that executable cannot be distributed except under the terms of the GPL. Because you have multiple potential targets for this sort of thing, nobody can argue that you are trying to technically evade the requirements.

But apparently this is still contentious.