Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for December 5, 2013
Deadline scheduling: coming soon?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 27, 2013
ACPI for ARM?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 21, 2013
Odd choice of licences
Posted Jul 5, 2010 15:44 UTC (Mon) by tao (subscriber, #17563)
Posted Jul 5, 2010 15:58 UTC (Mon) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458)
The userspace pieces have to interact with assorted userspace programs, some of which are closed source, thus LGPL at most, preferrably MIT as that is the default license for X.org.
GPLv3 is out, as the kernel won't go GPLv3 in our lifetimes (and the need to exchange pieces with the userspace part is a real possibility); thus GPLv2+ is also out.
Posted Jul 5, 2010 16:16 UTC (Mon) by mjr (subscriber, #6979)
Posted Jul 5, 2010 16:46 UTC (Mon) by epa (subscriber, #39769)
Posted Jul 5, 2010 17:16 UTC (Mon) by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
Posted Jul 5, 2010 22:54 UTC (Mon) by airlied (subscriber, #9104)
Posted Jul 5, 2010 23:52 UTC (Mon) by elanthis (guest, #6227)
Posted Jul 8, 2010 19:28 UTC (Thu) by robert_s (subscriber, #42402)
Be warned if it's for LWN your ideas will have to be quite well thought out and cogent.
Talking about an "infectious GPL" isn't a good start.
Posted Jul 9, 2010 16:35 UTC (Fri) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784)
Posted Jul 9, 2010 17:24 UTC (Fri) by njs (guest, #40338)
When a library is under the GPL, that's not an infection, it's a price -- you can use the library if you pay it back by freeing your own software in return, or you can not use the library and not pay that price. Totally up to you.
Ironically, some of the people who hate the idea of this kind of quid-pro-quo rant about how it's 'communist'. (And, to drive the point home, also hate the first-sale doctrine, traditional contract law as applied to EULAs, etc.) Really it's 'capitalism' they seem to object to.
Posted Jul 12, 2010 9:03 UTC (Mon) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784)
Posted Jul 12, 2010 14:10 UTC (Mon) by njs (guest, #40338)
But that still has nothing to do with "infections".
Posted Jul 12, 2010 15:40 UTC (Mon) by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
I'm sympathetic to how it could appear like the license is trying to spread on its own. Obviously "infection" is not 100% accurate (what metaphor is?), but I haven't seen a better way to oversimplify this fairly unique aspect of the GPL. I'm afraid "infect" will be used until someone can think of a more appropriate term.
Posted Jul 12, 2010 15:44 UTC (Mon) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
Posted Jul 12, 2010 16:11 UTC (Mon) by nye (guest, #51576)
Posted Jul 14, 2010 10:55 UTC (Wed) by mtorni (subscriber, #3618)
I'd like to add two more options to permit a fair comparison:
#3 Relicense (buy) the free library under a license permitting use
#4 Use the library as such
Now the fair comparison goes:
To use an existing non-free library, apply option #1 or #3, #4
To use an existing GPL'd free library, apply option #1, #2 or #3
To use an existing MIT-licensed library, apply option #4 (option #2 and #3 are still recommended, and #1 might come later in the project if needs change)
With a GPL'd library you have one more choice in this setting.
The comparison becomes more interesting once you consider the options when using libraries in free software or BSD/MIT-licensed software.
It also happens frequently that most benefit would be had by not writing propriertary software at all to tap the most amount of existing free software and interested developers.
Posted Jul 8, 2010 20:29 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458)
Please do write your ideas up!
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds