Open Source Software Shows Its Muscle (Law.com) [LWN.net]

Open Source Software Shows Its Muscle (Law.com)

Posted Jun 4, 2008 19:12 UTC (Wed) by mheily (guest, #27123)
Parent article: Open Source Software Shows Its Muscle (Law.com)

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
  - Shakespeare, "Henry V"

Even though this lawyer is a dangerous idiot, some of the points he raises are not new. There
is always a cloud of uncertainty around the mixing of GPL and non-GPL code because the concept
of a 'derived work' is not always clear. For example, there are some Linux kernel developers
who believe that all third-party kernel modules are derived works and must be released under
the GPL. There are others, like Linux, who take a more permissive approach to non-GPL kernel
modules, as long as they were written from scratch and not directly based on GPL code.

Now that there are five actively used GPL licenses (GPLv2, LGPLv2, GPLv3, LGPLv3, Affero GPL),
the situation is even more confusing. Who can blame this lawyer for taking advantage of the
fear and confusion to sell his questionable advice?

The best thing to do would be to distribute free software without attaching complex legal
documents such as the GPL. Licenses such as the ISC license (BIND), the MIT license (X11), and
new BSD license are simple enough to be understood by non-lawyers. You could even put software
in the public domain, like SQLite and qmail have done. Programmers should stick to programming
and keep the lawyers out of it.

(Log in to post comments)

Sense!

Posted Jun 5, 2008 3:55 UTC (Thu) by mheily (guest, #27123) [Link]

The "Linux ecosystem" is more diverse than you realize, and does not depend on one single licensing model.

I'm guessing you are a Linux user, so let's assume you are running a "typical" Linux desktop (if there is such a thing). You are probably running Firefox, which is licensed under the MPL. You are probably running Gnome, which is LGPL. Firefox, Gnome, and all your other graphical programs run under the X Window System (X.org) which is MIT licensed.

So your desktop environment is mostly non-GPL software, what about the LWN web site you are visiting? The custom front-end code is written in Python, which is released under the Python license. The custom code runs inside a web application framework named Quixote, which also uses the Python license. Underneath all this Python code is an Apache webserver, which is under the Apache license. The database that stores all this interesting LWN content is running under PostgreSQL, which is BSD licensed.

All of the licenses I just mentioned are in the BSD family of licenses and lack the viral qualities of the GPL. If this offends you, maybe you should create a new Linux distribution with only GPL-licensed code. Rip out Firefox, Gnome, and X Windows, and then you can work at the console and use Lynx to browse the web. What would be a good name for this new GNU/Linux distribution? Hmmmm... how about calling it gNonSense!

Sense!

Posted Jun 5, 2008 4:49 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link]

> All of the licenses I just mentioned are in the BSD family of licenses and lack the viral
qualities of the GPL.

Those "viral qualities" are exactly the qualities that those who choose the GPL are selecting
for. You might not like that, but sneaking in anti-GPL campaigning under the guise of
recommending against licence proliferation is just plain dishonest.

Sense!

Posted Jun 5, 2008 17:47 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

You seem to have forgotten KDE (GPL-licensed), perhaps because it 
torpedoes your ridiculous, hopeless attempt to get everyone to not use the 
single most popular family of free software licenses in existence.

(Why yes, your comments *do* reek of bias.)

Sense!

Posted Jun 5, 2008 17:49 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Your claim that the LGPL is not a GPL-family license is also extremely 
silly, and leaves you with basically no argument.

Open Source Software Shows Its Muscle (Law.com)

Posted Jun 5, 2008 4:45 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link]

> The best thing to do would be to distribute free software without attaching complex legal
documents such as the GPL.

But what, then, does one do if one doesn't want one's software incorporated into proprietary
works under any circumstances, but don't mind its incorporation into other free software? Your
recommendation appears to suggest that this is not a desirable outcome - which may be how you
see it, but if so you should really state that your advice comes with a distinct agenda.