Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GPL'd Source Code

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 23 posts

Re: GPL'd Source Code

#11

Post by Herring »

xenoterracide wrote: post #2

not a lawyer... not legal advice. The first is (I think). However if you want to share any GPL-ed Code it must be released as GPL. GPL is viral like that.

GPL isn't any more viral than ordinary copyright. You can never distribute copyrighted material except under terms that the author grants.

It's like saying the windows license (no unauthorized distribution) is viral because if you got the windows source code & used bits in your program you wouldn't be able to distribute the program at all without getting sued to hell. Did the windows license spread to your program?

Re: GPL'd Source Code

#12

Post by yawl »

Harkins wrote: post #5

If you started from GPL code, what you produce is a derivative work and must always stay GPL. It does not matter how much you simplify, change, fix, improve, or extend: if you start from GPL you have to stay GPL.

Right. There is no way you can relicense it. The derived code is still GPL.

Re: GPL'd Source Code

#13

Post by ubudesign »

if you can separate your code from the GPL in such a way that the GPL version becomes only a lib (unmodified), then you can close or do any licensing you like.

for example.

package com.mycompany.lib

import org.someGPL.lib.A;

myClass B extends A {}

In this case you simply include the GPL lib as GPL and your Lib as any type of license

in your class B you can override functions you don't like and add more of your own functions.

Finally when you release your code you have to say that this code uses the following GPL code...

Re: GPL'd Source Code

#14

Post by dhouston »

ubudesign wrote: post #13

if you can separate your code from the GPL in such a way that the GPL version becomes only a lib (unmodified), then you can close or do any licensing you like. for example. package com.mycompany.lib import org.someGPL.lib.A; myClass B extends A {} In this case you simply include the GPL lib as GPL and your Lib as any type of license in your class B you can override functions you don't like and add more of your own fu…

this is just wrong; if you're talking about LGPL code (not GPL), this is correct

Re: GPL'd Source Code

#15

Post by SwellJoe »

Have you actually read the GPL? It is not that complicated of a document...and it's quite clear that neither of your desires would be legitimate uses of code licensed under the GPL.

I can't understand how so many people manage to misunderstand the license in so many ways. Read the license, and if you don't understand it, read the FAQ. Every question you can possibly come up with will be answered by one or both of them.

Re: GPL'd Source Code

#16

Post by tlrobinson »

cstejerean wrote: post #9
tlrobinson wrote: post #7

If it's a plugin that's distributed separately from the base application I suspect you would only have to release the source to the actual plugin. Look at it this way: Photoshop is a proprietary application, but anyone can write a plugin. If someone wrote a Photoshop plugin using GPL'd software and distributed it independently, Adobe would not have to GPL all of Photoshop. They would have to release the source code t…

If Adobe distributes Photoshop and the plugin together they will likely be violating the GPL (see the GPL FAQ). I think it's only OK to use GPL plugins in non-GPL software if the GPL plugins are distributed separately by a third party (but then again I'm not a laywer).

"plugin that's distributed separately"

"distributed it independently"

Re: GPL'd Source Code

#18

Post by failfaiilfail »

FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL

Re: GPL'd Source Code

#19

Post by johnm »

(A) Definitely read the GPL itself.

(B) There are a couple of books about open source license that explain the various bits pretty well -- you might want to read them, too.

(C) On your first question, no that's not allowed by the GPL. You've created a derivative work and it must remain GPL'd.

(D) Your "new functions", if they are truly your own independent creations can potentially be separated out into their own e.g., library and you can release just that under whatever license you like.

(E) In terms of your second question, that depends on what you mean by "new source code". If you mean "only the completely new source code that you've written independently" then yes as long as you don't include that code as an integral part of GPL'd code in creating a derivative work. The other cases have been covered above.

(F) IANAL. Seek competent, professional legal advice.

Re: GPL'd Source Code

#20

Post by ykristiawan »

The second question should be clear, now: I should release the new source code (the plugin, not the closed source) as GPL.

Still not sure about the first question. This is not my case, but just to clarify: if somebody writing a closed-source program and sell it, and that program is using GPL'd DLL, is that violating the GPL license?

Post reply on HN