HOWTO: Pick an open source license (part 1) (ZDNet) [LWN.net]

HOWTO: Pick an open source license (part 1) (ZDNet)

Posted Jun 14, 2006 21:05 UTC (Wed) by kornak (guest, #17589)
Parent article: HOWTO: Pick an open source license (part 1) (ZDNet)

quote from article:

"GPL, a restrictive "free (libre) software" license that actively promotes user choice at the expense of direct commercial interests. For the most part, GPL'd code can only be used with other GPL'd code, and in fact if you start using some GPL code in a program you wrote then you either have to release your program under GPL as well or quit using that code. This is why GPL is sometimes described as "viral". Examples: Emacs, Linux kernel."

Seems rather misleading. "Restrictive" and "Free"?! Isn't that a
contradiction? GPL code can only be used with other GPL code?
Never mind the re-hashing of the "viral" rhetoric!

to post comments

HOWTO: Pick an open source license (part 1) (ZDNet)

Posted Jun 15, 2006 0:55 UTC (Thu) by maney (subscriber, #12630) [Link] (3 responses)

Nope, that part's exactly right - the insane greatness of the GPL is that it imposes some restrictions on the use of the code in order to keep it free. The author also seems to have the other end pretty well identified: the BSD type license (at least without the problematical clauses that have sometimes been attached) is about as no-strings as it gets, but doesn't even pretend to preserve the code's freeness down the line.

Given that he's writing, I believe, for an audience that is mostly unfamiliar with free and open-source software and its licenses, his cautions about the GPL are more blunt than prejudicial. That audience is, on the record, likely to get in trouble if they use the GPL without carefully considering what it may oblige them to do down the road. OTOH, you could say that about *any* license they might use without proper consideration (and probably competent legal advice - if there's a serious flaw in this article it's that he didn't beat that drum).

HOWTO: Pick an open source license (part 1) (ZDNet)

Posted Jun 15, 2006 13:40 UTC (Thu) by zotz (guest, #26117) [Link]

["GPL, a restrictive "free (libre) software" license that actively promotes user choice at the expense of direct commercial interests.]

GPL, a "free (libre) software" license that actively protects and promotes user freedom.

Not choice, not at the expense of anything. Of course, I could be wrong.

[For the most part, GPL'd code can only be used with other GPL'd code.]

Nope. There are many other licenses that are GPL compatible. GPL code does need to stay GPL code though.

[and in fact if you start using some GPL code in a program you wrote then you either have to release your program under GPL as well or quit using that code.]

Nope, seriously wrong. Use all you want, just don't distribute. How long will it take for this distinction to be stated clearly in discussions?

[This is why GPL is sometimes described as "viral".]

I doubt this. In my opinion, the reason the GPL is sometimes described as "viral" is because "viral" has negative connotations and the persons making the statement want others to think of the GPL in a negative light.

all the best,

drew

response to maney...

Posted Jun 15, 2006 15:25 UTC (Thu) by kornak (guest, #17589) [Link] (1 responses)

"Nope, that part's exactly right - the insane greatness of the GPL is that it imposes some restrictions..."

Strange, I thought I could use GPL code in anything I wanted without
restriction. How am I restricted? I understand that if I use the code
in a commercial product I am rewuired to share the code, but, do you
comsider this restrictive somehow? It seems to me that perpetuates the
freedom rather than restricting it.

response to maney...

Posted Jun 15, 2006 17:09 UTC (Thu) by markhb (guest, #1003) [Link]

What's restricted is your ability as a software author to use the GPL'd code in a program or linked suite of programs that are distributed under a license that isn't the GPL or very similar to the GPL. Contrast with a paid license for a proprietary development library that allows you to distribute the library with your product in compiled binary form under any terms you wish, but that restricts you from distributing the source code (or at least the source code and headers for the proprietary library).