Examining an attack on the GPL

Examining an attack on the GPL

There're a few things that are generally interpreted the wrong way regarding GPLed code inclusion.

1) It's actually *not* different from the inclusion of code licensed differently. Say one of my coders managed to get the source code of the product from another company and includes it in our product. The rest of your scenario is the same. If the other company finds out, we're all in big trouble, and that's called copyright infringement too, like for the GPL. Generally the case is settled by paying a lot of money to whomever owns the rights. The fact that GPLed code is easier to come by than, most of the time just by downloading it, doesn't change the fact that somebody *owns* the rights for this code. Again, if you already distributed the product to a bunch of people and the copyright owner doesn't want to settle the case, you're in trouble.

2) as somebody else pointed out, releasing an application with any license when GPLed code is included doesn't mean the application becomes GPLed, nor that the GPLed code changes license. It only means the license for the whole product is invalid and it cannot be distributed until the issue is fixed: either by removing the GPLed code, or by re-licensing the product to GPL-compatible license, or by having the copyright-owners of the GPLed relicense their code to something else (I'm sure a lot of money can convince them to do so in this case too, but sometimes you'll need to talk to many different persons). But the application you released under an invalid license by itself: you have to explicitly release it under the GPL for it to become GPLed entirely. (NB: one thing you cannot do is explicitly release under the GPL, then change your mind)

3) Just because you GLP your code doesn't mean you must let anybody download it. It means that the people *buying* the application must be given the source code too for free, and only them. Example: Sony did a release of the gcc for their PS2 development kit (with PS2 chips specific stuff in it) that's only distributed to official developers. Those developers have the source code, but they won't distribute it (I'm pretty sure that by contract they will loose their right to produce PS2 games if they distribute it). That's allowed.

So, the GPL is just another license that protects the copyrights like other licenses, with one additionnal way to do the right thing, that is GPL your own code. But it's not mandatory.

So, to summarize, the GPL "looks" problematic because:
- the code can be downloaded easily, but you cannot use it in a proprietary product
- the only visible way out is to GPL your own code, but the usual copyright settlements are also possible
- GPL looks like public domain code, but it's not: you don't have to give for free you source code to anyone who asks for it, you still own your code!

Actually it's not more problematic than other proprietary licenses. In GPL, money is not the only way to settle things, and that's probably why people are freaking out.

Best,
EG

PS: if people get your GPLed code, they can release your own product and compete against you, right?. But you can do that too, right? Because they must do their release under GPL too! Right!