"Does the GPL matter?" from today's Insider
-
Gary Wheeler wrote:
What's even more insidious about the GPL is that if you use utility code covered by the GPL, the GPL metastasizes to include your application as well.
That is untrue. As long as you do not link against (on source level or binary level) GPL protected utilities, your application is not tainted. If the utility is LPGPL'd, it allows you to link against it on a binary level (dynamic loading due to technical reasons. Static linking is basically just a special case of linking against source...)
Gary Wheeler wrote:
They even claim (wink wink, nudge nudge) that you can charge for GPL'ed software. Why?
To demonstrate that you are free to do what you wish with it, as long as you don't take the freedom away from others. It's a philosophical standpoint on the definition of freedom.
Gary Wheeler wrote:
Frankly, I believe the purpose of the GPL is to make it easier for mother's basement boys like Richard Stallman to steal the hard work of their betters.
The GPL was created to prevent the reverse - to make it less easy for companies to just take their code and make it their own. + the usual philosophical crap from Stallman. I use plenty of GPL-licensed code in a way that doesn't taint our own products. Any modifications I've made, I publish as a zip-file on our web site.
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
According to legal opinions I've read, if you use GPL'ed source code anywhere in your application, that places the entire application under the GPL, regardless of any object/binary or other boundaries.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Russell Jones wrote:
Where GPL code is really useful commercially is in things like hardware development
In the case you site, the value in the product is the hardware, not the software. The software is the ugly little truth required to make it work, but is not viewed as 'value added'. For that reason, a free software solution is ideal. My objection to GPL'ed software in commercial applications is the scenario where the software itself is the value part of the product. The GPL makes it impossible to realize that value, by making the source code freely available. If the GPL was not 'viral' (in other words, did not extend itself to containing applications), it would be far more palatable.
Software Zen:
delete this;Gary Wheeler wrote:
If the GPL was not 'viral' (in other words, did not extend itself to containing applications), it would be far more palatable.
That's the point though, if you want to go your own way and develop the solution on your own, that's cool. If you want to use my code which I'll give you for free then you have to pass the favour on. I don't see that it can be seen as a good or bad thing, if you don't like the terms then don't use the code but it'll cost you more to develop your product.
-
According to legal opinions I've read, if you use GPL'ed source code anywhere in your application, that places the entire application under the GPL, regardless of any object/binary or other boundaries.
Software Zen:
delete this;Yes, if you link to it. If you do
ShellExecute("gpl.exe", ...);you're in the clear.-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
Gary Wheeler wrote:
If the GPL was not 'viral' (in other words, did not extend itself to containing applications), it would be far more palatable.
That's the point though, if you want to go your own way and develop the solution on your own, that's cool. If you want to use my code which I'll give you for free then you have to pass the favour on. I don't see that it can be seen as a good or bad thing, if you don't like the terms then don't use the code but it'll cost you more to develop your product.
It's the "pass the favour on" part that's the problem. According to the GPL, not only do I have to pass your free code on, I've just made my code free as well. I would have no problem making your code freely available if that is your wish. My source code, however, represents a substantial investment of time and money, and I intend to recoup that investment by charging for it. The GPL makes it impossible to do so effectively.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Yes, if you link to it. If you do
ShellExecute("gpl.exe", ...);you're in the clear.-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
I'm sure explaining that sort of distinction in a court of law is an easy task :rolleyes:.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
I'm sure explaining that sort of distinction in a court of law is an easy task :rolleyes:.
Software Zen:
delete this;Yes, yes it is actually. Especially when the GPL (v2 did at least, haven't read v3), explicitly states that executables aren't covered. Besides, the operating system is a mediator between you and the CPU. If the operating system could not be able to load the executable without being tainted by some foreign license, then the entire free software movement would've been shot to hell faster than Stallman is able to pronounce gee-pee-ell. They'd still be the three guys in the MIT basement.
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
Gary Wheeler wrote:
What's even more insidious about the GPL is that if you use utility code covered by the GPL, the GPL metastasizes to include your application as well.
That is untrue. As long as you do not link against (on source level or binary level) GPL protected utilities, your application is not tainted. If the utility is LPGPL'd, it allows you to link against it on a binary level (dynamic loading due to technical reasons. Static linking is basically just a special case of linking against source...)
Gary Wheeler wrote:
They even claim (wink wink, nudge nudge) that you can charge for GPL'ed software. Why?
To demonstrate that you are free to do what you wish with it, as long as you don't take the freedom away from others. It's a philosophical standpoint on the definition of freedom.
Gary Wheeler wrote:
Frankly, I believe the purpose of the GPL is to make it easier for mother's basement boys like Richard Stallman to steal the hard work of their betters.
The GPL was created to prevent the reverse - to make it less easy for companies to just take their code and make it their own. + the usual philosophical crap from Stallman. I use plenty of GPL-licensed code in a way that doesn't taint our own products. Any modifications I've made, I publish as a zip-file on our web site.
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
Gary Wheeler wrote: What's even more insidious about the GPL is that if you use utility code covered by the GPL, the GPL metastasizes to include your application as well. That is untrue. As long as you do not link against (on source level or binary level) GPL protected utilities, your application is not tainted. If the utility is LPGPL'd, it allows you to link against it on a binary level (dynamic loading due to technical reasons. Static linking is basically just a special case of linking against source...)
You are the one that is wrong. There are several existing case law judgements in favor of GPL for just that. The most famous one being where MySQL was used as a data repository for a proprietary application. GPL won and the company lost the rights to their own code. (has happened at least twice on a major scale now)
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
Gary Wheeler wrote: Frankly, I believe the purpose of the GPL is to make it easier for mother's basement boys like Richard Stallman to steal the hard work of their betters. The GPL was created to prevent the reverse - to make it less easy for companies to just take their code and make it their own. + the usual philosophical crap from Stallman.
And wrong again. Copyright actually covers the case you state. GPL does actually address allowing others to use your contributions freely. That IS what GPL is all about. Allow you to make modifications to code I wrote under a GPL without you being fearful of a lawsuit from me.
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
Gary Wheeler wrote: What's even more insidious about the GPL is that if you use utility code covered by the GPL, the GPL metastasizes to include your application as well. That is untrue. As long as you do not link against (on source level or binary level) GPL protected utilities, your application is not tainted. If the utility is LPGPL'd, it allows you to link against it on a binary level (dynamic loading due to technical reasons. Static linking is basically just a special case of linking against source...)
You are the one that is wrong. There are several existing case law judgements in favor of GPL for just that. The most famous one being where MySQL was used as a data repository for a proprietary application. GPL won and the company lost the rights to their own code. (has happened at least twice on a major scale now)
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
Gary Wheeler wrote: Frankly, I believe the purpose of the GPL is to make it easier for mother's basement boys like Richard Stallman to steal the hard work of their betters. The GPL was created to prevent the reverse - to make it less easy for companies to just take their code and make it their own. + the usual philosophical crap from Stallman.
And wrong again. Copyright actually covers the case you state. GPL does actually address allowing others to use your contributions freely. That IS what GPL is all about. Allow you to make modifications to code I wrote under a GPL without you being fearful of a lawsuit from me.
Brian W King wrote:
The most famous one being where MySQL was used as a data repository for a proprietary application.
I've not read the details of the hearings or the verdicts from that case. I do know however that if you want to use MySQL successfully, you should use their client libraries. They are GPL:ed, which means that you may NOT link with them. I very much doubt they access the database using command line applications (or whatever). If you can write your own client libraries, or use others that aren't GPLd, for communicating with the MySQL database, the license can't touch you or your application. Everything else is FUD.
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
It's the "pass the favour on" part that's the problem. According to the GPL, not only do I have to pass your free code on, I've just made my code free as well. I would have no problem making your code freely available if that is your wish. My source code, however, represents a substantial investment of time and money, and I intend to recoup that investment by charging for it. The GPL makes it impossible to do so effectively.
Software Zen:
delete this;On the other hand, what makes it right for you to capitalize on others' time and investment?
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
Brian W King wrote:
The most famous one being where MySQL was used as a data repository for a proprietary application.
I've not read the details of the hearings or the verdicts from that case. I do know however that if you want to use MySQL successfully, you should use their client libraries. They are GPL:ed, which means that you may NOT link with them. I very much doubt they access the database using command line applications (or whatever). If you can write your own client libraries, or use others that aren't GPLd, for communicating with the MySQL database, the license can't touch you or your application. Everything else is FUD.
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
Whatever tact you want to take. There may be a way to circumvent the issue as you suggest. The real question is however, if you own the company, what kind of litigation do you want to expose your business to and can you fiancially survive the consequences. GPL has catastrophic consequences for your company should you be wrong. That alone keeps a great number of companies away from anything GPL. Financial statements from the likes of MS, Oracle and SUN all emphatically support that logic.
-
My answer: Not in the commercial world it doesn't, it never has, and probably never will. Any license that requires you give away the source code is foolish. What's even more insidious about the GPL is that if you use utility code covered by the GPL, the GPL metastasizes to include your application as well. I don't believe the crap from the Free Software Foundation about ensuring 'freedom' for users to copy and change software. They even claim (wink wink, nudge nudge) that you can charge for GPL'ed software. Why? One person buys it, and then posts it on a file sharing site. Under the GPL, you have no legal recourse, as the GPL renders all software into the public domain. Frankly, I believe the purpose of the GPL is to make it easier for mother's basement boys like Richard Stallman to steal the hard work of their betters. For this reason, I will never use GPL-licensed code in any application I write.
Software Zen:
delete this;Correction: It's not "public domain" (which would allow me to derive a closed-source project), though the effects - from a commercial standpoint of the writer - are similar. I also don't think it's about stealing - since the annoying things of GPL are the thigns you can't do. I prefer free-beer-free, thank you. Other than that, yeah. The proposed business model is basically "support and services around the actual software" - not necessarily bad as such - but one also needs to consider the effect such a business model has on the software. I doubt that "money from unusability" doesn't compromise quality. Beyond that, there's a single business model for open-source based web applications (google ads), and there's no generic one for the desktop. But friends don't let friends get hooked on sects. And FSPS - especially GPL - comes with to much religous baggage attached.
Personally, I love the idea that Raymond spends his nights posting bad regexs to mailing lists under the pseudonym of Jane Smith. He'd be like a super hero, only more nerdy and less useful. [Trevel]
| FoldWithUs! | sighist -
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
Gary Wheeler wrote: What's even more insidious about the GPL is that if you use utility code covered by the GPL, the GPL metastasizes to include your application as well. That is untrue. As long as you do not link against (on source level or binary level) GPL protected utilities, your application is not tainted. If the utility is LPGPL'd, it allows you to link against it on a binary level (dynamic loading due to technical reasons. Static linking is basically just a special case of linking against source...)
You are the one that is wrong. There are several existing case law judgements in favor of GPL for just that. The most famous one being where MySQL was used as a data repository for a proprietary application. GPL won and the company lost the rights to their own code. (has happened at least twice on a major scale now)
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
Gary Wheeler wrote: Frankly, I believe the purpose of the GPL is to make it easier for mother's basement boys like Richard Stallman to steal the hard work of their betters. The GPL was created to prevent the reverse - to make it less easy for companies to just take their code and make it their own. + the usual philosophical crap from Stallman.
And wrong again. Copyright actually covers the case you state. GPL does actually address allowing others to use your contributions freely. That IS what GPL is all about. Allow you to make modifications to code I wrote under a GPL without you being fearful of a lawsuit from me.
I don't believe there is any case law. To my knowledge, FSF has always settled before getting to trial. This is unfortunate, because it creates a serious legal vacuum where the rules are very unclear. It is especially for this reason that I concur with Gary and believe that GPL code should never been used outside of products you intend to also have covered by GPL (the exception being a GPL application that you spawn.)
-
It's the "pass the favour on" part that's the problem. According to the GPL, not only do I have to pass your free code on, I've just made my code free as well. I would have no problem making your code freely available if that is your wish. My source code, however, represents a substantial investment of time and money, and I intend to recoup that investment by charging for it. The GPL makes it impossible to do so effectively.
Software Zen:
delete this;Disclaimer: I have what I think is a neutral perspective on this: I don't get to choose which libraries or tools to use, all those decisions are made far higher up. Also, I don't do any programming at home.
Gary Wheeler wrote:
I would have no problem making your code freely available if that is your wish.
Huh? What are you talking about? 'His' code is already freely available.
Gary Wheeler wrote:
My source code, however, represents a substantial investment of time and money, and I intend to recoup that investment by charging for it.
His code represents a substantial investment too, and he wants people who use it to pass it on. Why are you getting all worked up about this? I don't like metal or rap, I don't listen to it. You don't like GPL'ed software, don't use it.
Cheers, Vikram. (Proud to have finally cracked a CCC!)
Recent activities: TV series: Friends, season 10 Books: Fooled by Randomness, by Nassim Nicholas Taleb.
Carpe Diem.
-
Disclaimer: I have what I think is a neutral perspective on this: I don't get to choose which libraries or tools to use, all those decisions are made far higher up. Also, I don't do any programming at home.
Gary Wheeler wrote:
I would have no problem making your code freely available if that is your wish.
Huh? What are you talking about? 'His' code is already freely available.
Gary Wheeler wrote:
My source code, however, represents a substantial investment of time and money, and I intend to recoup that investment by charging for it.
His code represents a substantial investment too, and he wants people who use it to pass it on. Why are you getting all worked up about this? I don't like metal or rap, I don't listen to it. You don't like GPL'ed software, don't use it.
Cheers, Vikram. (Proud to have finally cracked a CCC!)
Recent activities: TV series: Friends, season 10 Books: Fooled by Randomness, by Nassim Nicholas Taleb.
Carpe Diem.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Huh? What are you talking about? 'His' code is already freely available.
The GPL requires that I redistribute his code if I use it. The fact that his code is available from other sources is immaterial.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Why are you getting all worked up about this?
I'm not 'worked up' about it. I'm simply stating the position that open source advocates don't like to hear: GPL licensed code can not be used in commercial applications without clumsy mechanisms (separate executables for the GPL bits) or incurring significant legal risk.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Huh? What are you talking about? 'His' code is already freely available.
The GPL requires that I redistribute his code if I use it. The fact that his code is available from other sources is immaterial.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Why are you getting all worked up about this?
I'm not 'worked up' about it. I'm simply stating the position that open source advocates don't like to hear: GPL licensed code can not be used in commercial applications without clumsy mechanisms (separate executables for the GPL bits) or incurring significant legal risk.
Software Zen:
delete this;Oh, I agree it's dicey. I feel too many people are pissed off and ranting about it, nothing else. :)
Cheers, Vikram. (Proud to have finally cracked a CCC!)
Recent activities: TV series: Friends, season 10 Books: Fooled by Randomness, by Nassim Nicholas Taleb.
Carpe Diem.
-
Oh, I agree it's dicey. I feel too many people are pissed off and ranting about it, nothing else. :)
Cheers, Vikram. (Proud to have finally cracked a CCC!)
Recent activities: TV series: Friends, season 10 Books: Fooled by Randomness, by Nassim Nicholas Taleb.
Carpe Diem.
I've just been hit up with too many open source bigots here lately. The Insider caught me before my coffee this morning, hence my rant :sigh:.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Huh? What are you talking about? 'His' code is already freely available.
The GPL requires that I redistribute his code if I use it. The fact that his code is available from other sources is immaterial.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Why are you getting all worked up about this?
I'm not 'worked up' about it. I'm simply stating the position that open source advocates don't like to hear: GPL licensed code can not be used in commercial applications without clumsy mechanisms (separate executables for the GPL bits) or incurring significant legal risk.
Software Zen:
delete this;Gary Wheeler wrote:
I'm not 'worked up' about it. I'm simply stating the position that open source advocates don't like to hear: GPL licensed code can not be used in commercial applications without clumsy mechanisms (separate executables for the GPL bits) or incurring significant legal risk.
The ones I've talked with consider this a feature. It forces you to GPL your code as well. :rolleyes:
The European Way of War: Blow your own continent up. The American Way of War: Go over and help them.
-
I don't believe there is any case law. To my knowledge, FSF has always settled before getting to trial. This is unfortunate, because it creates a serious legal vacuum where the rules are very unclear. It is especially for this reason that I concur with Gary and believe that GPL code should never been used outside of products you intend to also have covered by GPL (the exception being a GPL application that you spawn.)
Denotation of precidence regarding GPL with proprietary code[^] Just because a case doesn't make it to pass/fail verdict (i.e. settlement), doesn't mean it has no bearing on future cases. In fact, those are actually the cases that form the legal basis for further suits in many cases. Many things were decided by the court in the couple of cases that have been heard so far. The other actual case that was heard was in Germany. I have not spent an ounce of time looking for reference, but it exists and is used as basis in legal challenges already. Once a case makes it to decision, that one will trump the others, but to suggest they have no bearing is not correct. Whether you believe that there is basis in fact or not, the cases themselves show that you are definately opening yourself up for litigation if you operate anywhere in the proprietary world. Most companies are not going to hire a lawyer first to decide what products to use to build a saleable product for themselves. They are going to take the road that they know they are protected in without the expense of an attorney. GPL has its purpose and use, its just not very compatible with corporate law and profit taking. Is that a bad thing? That's your decision not mine. Do you wear dancing shoes to a foot race?
-
Whatever tact you want to take. There may be a way to circumvent the issue as you suggest. The real question is however, if you own the company, what kind of litigation do you want to expose your business to and can you fiancially survive the consequences. GPL has catastrophic consequences for your company should you be wrong. That alone keeps a great number of companies away from anything GPL. Financial statements from the likes of MS, Oracle and SUN all emphatically support that logic.
To each his own, I suppose. Nobody is forcing anyone to use GPLd software. Personally, I don't see any risks in using GPLd software after having read the actual license. Unlike many EULAs, the GPL isn't hard to read.
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit