GPL'd Source Code • Hacker News Board

Re: GPL'd Source Code

#21

Post by twak » Sun, Apr 27, 2008, 5:08 PM UTC

"So is it fair that the GPL doesn't give back to the proving ground of new ideas, the commercial world?" http://moviestorm.blogspot.com/2008/01/gpl-vs-startups.html

Re: GPL'd Source Code

#22

Post by dgl » Sun, Apr 27, 2008, 11:08 PM UTC

ykristiawan wrote: post #20

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?

Yes, the GPL requires the complete program to be available under the GPL (with explicit exceptions for system libraries).

For example this is the case with MySQL, where the client library is licensed under the GPL, therefore any client program linking to it has to be GPL (unless you pay for a commercial license).

Re: GPL'd Source Code

#23

Post by xenoterracide » Mon, Apr 28, 2008, 2:54 AM UTC

Herring wrote: post #11

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?

yes, but it is more viral than an MIT or BSD license.