| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Viral properties of the GPLViral properties of the GPLPosted Oct 13, 2008 11:58 UTC (Mon) by Felix.Braun (subscriber, #3032)In reply to: LK2008: The values of the Linux community by danielpf Parent article: LK2008: The values of the Linux community
The qualification of the GPL as "viral" is utterly wrong and it's sad to see people who should know better perpetuate this meme.
The GPL only requires you to put any derived works of GPL'd software under the GPL. This means that you are not allowed to take GPL'd software, modify it and then distribute the result under a different license. However, you are free to publish your own changes seperately under whichever license you please. Even if you have once published a derived work under the GPL, you may later change your mind and publish new versions of your work under a propietary license or any other license that you can think of.
So the GPL only does one thing: it prevents appropriation of work by other people. You can not take my code, slap a patch on it and then take the whole thing for yourself. So the GPL's only effect is, that the work other's have placed under it is removed from your control. You are completely free to do whatever you please with your own creations. You just can't climb on the shoulder of giants and claim the whole view for yourself.
Characterising this as "viral" can only be called misleading propaganda, IMNSHO.
(Log in to post comments)
Properties of the GPL leading to wider use Posted Oct 13, 2008 15:06 UTC (Mon) by danielpf (subscriber, #4723) [Link]
So what is your proposition for a better wording? If you leave the space empty the current memes will just fill it. Actually your new thread title helps the propagation of what you dislike!
The idea to convey is that once GPL is adopted for a piece of software, it cannot be changed back, only expand the GPL realm as the software grows.
Here are a few adjective conveying roughly this idea:
Since English is not my original language, I am convinced better propositions with more positive connotation can be made.
Properties of the GPL leading to wider use Posted Oct 13, 2008 16:06 UTC (Mon) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link]
The better word is "copyrighted". None of the restrictions of the GPL are any greater than any other standard non-licensed copyrighted work. The GPL simply adds to what you can do with a copyrighted work, it does not take anything away. So debated the poor use of the term viral if you will, but it neglects the primary point, this "viral nature" is not a GPL specific feature, but a copyright specific feature.
So it's silly to say that the GPL is viral unless you are saying it as an extension of the fact that any copyrighted work is viral. If you insist on using the term viral, simply apply it to copyright and the way it applies to derived works. Point the finger in the right place, at copyright. The GPL takes advantage of this feature of copyright law just like almost any other copyrighted work, especially proprietary software, does!
Properties of the GPL leading to wider use Posted Oct 13, 2008 18:53 UTC (Mon) by Felix.Braun (subscriber, #3032) [Link] Good point, that I was propagating the meme myself :-) I should have been more careful :-) Anyway, my main point is, that what you discribe is not a property of the GPL or even GPL'd software. It's the lazyness of people who shy away of re-inventing the wheel. People who moan that the GPL is viral are just too lazy to do all of the work themselves. They want to base their work on work done by others and claim the end result as their's to do as they whish. Nothing in the GPL prevents them from doing all the ground work, coming up with their own solutions to age old problems long solved by some other piece of code. Nothing except their own lazyness. That is not bad at all. As we all know the correct mix of lazyness and hubris lies at the heart of all innovation ;-) However, it strikes me as pretty disingenuous to start whining that all the people how have come before you, whose work you are building on, somehow force you to choose the GPL. The the GPL "infected" your work without your consent. That the GPL is doing something. In fact, all the GPL does is to pander to a very powerful human trait: lazyness. The GPL allows you to stand on the shoulders of giants, or, more specifically, those giants allow you to use their previous work by means of placing the fruits of that labour under the GPL. You are by no means forced to do that. So if we'd have to label the GPL by some adjective, I'd say it is "seductive" because it attracts lazy people who like to innovate and allows for that lazyness through the exchange of ideas.
Not "viral". Try "Protective" (vs. "permissive"). Posted Oct 16, 2008 18:36 UTC (Thu) by dwheeler (guest, #1216) [Link] A common term for GPL-like licenses is "protective"; in contrast, BSD-like licenses are often termed "permissive".For example, see: http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/floss-license-slide.html.
|
|
||||||||||||