Thankfully "every contributor" already did so... by just applying GPL license to the code!
Posted Apr 2, 2009 9:14 UTC (Thu) by khim
In reply to: Oh, What A Tangled Web We Weave ...
Parent article: OSBC: Life at the edge of the GPL
So regardless of any exceptions free software advocates might
want to write into their own license, the adoption by the courts of the
dynamic linking equals prohibited derived work argument would make running
GPL software on Windows boxes illegal without the consent of both Microsoft
and *every* contributor to existing GPL software packages.
Have you actually read the GPL? Such consent already embedded in both
GPL2 and GPLv3.
GPLv2: As a special exception, the source code distributed need not include
anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form)
with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating
system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself
accompanies the executable.
GPLv3: The Corresponding Source for a work in object code form means all
the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work)
run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control
those activities. However, it does not include the work's System Libraries,
or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are
used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of
In addition, given the dubious distinction between library and
system call interfaces, it could become illegal to run proprietary software
on the same Linux box with GPL software. If they are both loaded on the
same storage medium, they become a collective derived work, right?
Absolutely true and completely irrelevant. Again: GPL specifically says
that it does not care about such cases.
Do we really want a world where companies have to partition
their operations into a GPL-net and a proprietary net, and at a minimum run
a firewall so there can be no possible communication or interoperability
That's the point of GPL, you know. It specifically says how the firewall
must be designed to comply with GPL. And the reason is to avoid
marginalization or assimilation of free software. If it said that you can
not ever mix GPL and proprietary software in a box - it'll lead to
marginalization (as you've clearly described), if it allowed close ties to
proprietary software - the door to "embrace, extend, extinguish" approach
will be wide open.
Because that is the logic of where all these expansive
conceptions of derived works are heading - namely tying software and
hardware developers hands so that no system can ever be constructed without
the explicit permission of every producer of every component in the whole
That's very true but you are forgetting that GPL is such explicit
permission and it does include clear demarcation line.
The GPL will become a dead letter overnight.
I fail to see why.
to post comments)