Mono Relicensed MIT [LWN.net]

Mono Relicensed MIT

Posted Apr 6, 2016 23:33 UTC (Wed) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] (1 responses)

Let me repeat, Apple may be forced to disclose their proprietary code if they allow 3rd party applications into their App Store.

You mean, like Google is forced to disclose their proprietary code because they allow GPL applications to be sold through the Google Play Store? Yeah right.

Mono Relicensed MIT

Posted Apr 7, 2016 1:07 UTC (Thu) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]

You mean, like Google is forced to disclose their proprietary code because they allow GPL applications to be sold through the Google Play Store? Yeah right.

The relevant Android code (that most play store apps link to) is not proprietary. It is Apache-licensed. Some of the APIs connect to proprietary stuff like Google Play Services, but I believe the "system library" exception would apply there. (But then it would to Apple's iOS too.) Plus in Android's case there are two levels of linking -- you link to the open-source and Apache-licensed AOSP, which has APIs to connect to a proprietary Google Play Services; I doubt any court would claim that the proprietary stuff is thereby "infected".

Mono Relicensed MIT

Posted Apr 7, 2016 12:55 UTC (Thu) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]

Cyberax, that's just not true. No matter how many times you repeat it, it stays not true.

Mono Relicensed MIT

Posted Apr 7, 2016 13:51 UTC (Thu) by aggelos (subscriber, #41752) [Link] (13 responses)

Let me repeat, Apple may be forced to disclose their proprietary code if they allow 3rd party applications into their App Store.

The app store predominantly distributes 3rd-party applications. I'm assuming you misspoke here and meant to say GPLvX, for some value of X.

First, you persist in repeating the false claim that people would be forced to GPL stuff. Copyright does not work that way. All the GPL can do, and is trying to do, is to prevent people from creating proprietary derivatives of the GPL code, i.e. close it up. If you think that's unfair, let's talk about that, but you've been well aware for a while now that your claim above is false, only you keep repeating it as part of this FUD campaign.

Second, which components, specifically, do you claim would end up constituting a derivative of GPL code if apple were to amend their ToS and subsequently distribute GPL'd projects? Further, which specific clauses do you base this claim on?

Mono Relicensed MIT

Posted Apr 7, 2016 17:42 UTC (Thu) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (12 responses)

> First, you persist in repeating the false claim that people would be forced to GPL stuff.
A simple question: how do I release a software package linked with a GPL-ed library and which doesn't include its source code?

After all, nobody is forced to GPL anything, right?

Mono Relicensed MIT

Posted Apr 7, 2016 17:52 UTC (Thu) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]

A simple answer: by not using that GPL'd library. Nobody's forcing you to, right?

On Linux very few system libraries are GPL'd (readline is one of the few exceptions). On Android/iOS no system libraries are GPL'd.

Mono Relicensed MIT

Posted Apr 7, 2016 18:03 UTC (Thu) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]

I think what you're asking w.r.t. iOS/AppStore is the reverse of what you say -- how does Apple release an OS to which you're linking a GPL'd app that you seek to release through the app store?

Answer: the "system library" exception to the GPL applies.

Mono Relicensed MIT

Posted Apr 7, 2016 21:30 UTC (Thu) by aggelos (subscriber, #41752) [Link] (9 responses)

First, you persist in repeating the false claim that people would be forced to GPL stuff.
A simple question: how do I release a software package linked with a GPL-ed library and which doesn't include its source code?

Umm, to me this reads like "I want to violate the GPL and include copyleft code into a proprietary product". Is that what you mean? If not, please provide a specific scenario to clarify (and see also rssid's reply re: the system libraries).

After all, nobody is forced to GPL anything, right?

Not by the GPL or any copyright license. A license is not a contract; all it can do is dictate the terms under which you are allowed to use/modify/distribute/etc the software. If you infringe on the license, you may be liable for damages as prescribed by copyright law. Now if you're feeling helplessly drawn to integrating GPL code... you're still not forced. You're given an _incentive_ to produce free software (specifically, software under a GPL-compatible, i.e. necessarily free, license), so as to be able to make use of the existing code base. If that doesn't appeal to you, and as has been pointed out a few dozen times by now, by quite a few people, you're free to not create derivatives.

Mono Relicensed MIT

Posted Apr 8, 2016 2:09 UTC (Fri) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (8 responses)

> Umm, to me this reads like "I want to violate the GPL and include copyleft code into a proprietary product". Is that what you mean? If not, please provide a specific scenario to clarify (and see also rssid's reply re: the system libraries).
To me this means that GPL forces one to comply with its terms if one wants to use it in their products. In particular, it forces opening of the source code. The rest is just details.

> If you infringe on the license, you may be liable for damages as prescribed by copyright law.
And this is just useless lawyering.

It's kinda like saying that you're totally free to go and kill people, but if you do this you might be captured by law enforcement and put into jail for life. But nothing stops you from doing it!

Mono Relicensed MIT

Posted Apr 8, 2016 8:49 UTC (Fri) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] (6 responses)

Rubbish, rubbish, rubbish. You are deliberately ignoring the other option: Don't use the code whose licence has conditions that don't suit you.

That isn't even GPL or FOSS specific. Proprietary software could have disagreeable licence conditions too, not least the price.

If you disagree with that, then what you are disagreeing is the whole concept of authors having a say in how their code may be copied via copyright and/or you disagree with derivative works.

From reading your collective comments here on licensing make it clear that your problem is that you (and a few entities you favour) may not be able to do with other people's code exactly as you wish. Either that, or you simply don't have a coherent view of what rights you think a cod author should and should not have over that code, that doesn't reference your interests at least.

I ask again: Am *I* allowed to do whatever I want with *any* of _your_ code?

Mono Relicensed MIT

Posted Apr 8, 2016 20:07 UTC (Fri) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (5 responses)

> Rubbish, rubbish, rubbish. You are deliberately ignoring the other option: Don't use the code whose licence has conditions that don't suit you.
What part of: "GPL forces you to disclose your source code if you distribute it as a part of your product" is incorrect?

> If you disagree with that, then what you are disagreeing is the whole concept of authors having a say in how their code may be copied via copyright and/or you disagree with derivative works.
No, I'm not. You're just misrepresenting the truth by cowering behind technicalities.

Mono Relicensed MIT

Posted Apr 8, 2016 20:14 UTC (Fri) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link] (3 responses)

> What part of: "GPL forces you to disclose your source code if you distribute it as a part of your product" is incorrect?

The part where the GPL isn't applicable to code that you don't ship in the first place?

> No, I'm not. You're just misrepresenting the truth by cowering behind technicalities.

Um…wow. You're saying people shouldn't be free to license their code under the GPL because you (and Apple) don't like it.

Mono Relicensed MIT

Posted Apr 8, 2016 20:18 UTC (Fri) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (2 responses)

> > What part of: "GPL forces you to disclose your source code *if* *you* *distribute* *it* as a part of your product" is incorrect?
> The part where the GPL isn't applicable to code that you don't ship in the first place?
Highlighted.

> Um…wow. You're saying people shouldn't be free to license their code under the GPL because you (and Apple) don't like it.
Uhm, sorry I was not clear. I meant that I absolute agree that authors should be able to use whatever license they want for their code. It's just that GPL is almost never a _good_ choice.

Mono Relicensed MIT

Posted Apr 8, 2016 20:43 UTC (Fri) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]

Well, yeah, if you ship code deriving from GPL code, you have to ship your source as well. In aggregate, only the GPL bit needs source (though I'm not as familiar with GPLv3 here, care to fully quote the relevant section(s)?). The alternative to not shipping code for your code is to not have the GPL code in there in the first place.

> Uhm, sorry I was not clear. I meant that I absolute agree that authors should be able to use whatever license they want for their code. It's just that GPL is almost never a _good_ choice.

In your opinion. Others have different weighting functions.

Mono Relicensed MIT

Posted Apr 8, 2016 20:55 UTC (Fri) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]

"It's just that GPL is almost never a _good_ choice for Cyberax."

Fixed it for you.

Mono Relicensed MIT

Posted Apr 8, 2016 20:52 UTC (Fri) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]

In a very strict reading of just that part of your comment, it's correct. However, each of your comments is part of a body that paints the fuller picture of your opinion. To walk back up 2 nodes in this thread tree to your original question:

"how do I release a software package linked with a GPL-ed library and which doesn't include its source code?"

That is the context for that statement in the child comment of "GPL forces one to comply with its terms if one wants to use it in their products.", along with the wider context of your comments which make it clear you have a major issue with the fact that some people might write code and make it generally available under conditions that don't suit you.

Why don't you just move on? Go find a BSD/MIT/Apache version, or a proprietary for-€ version, or else write it yourself, why not do that?

Why is it you find it so hard to accept that other people have made decisions about the conditions on their code that aren't "Let Cyberax (and other entities he favours) do whatever they want with the code, for no consideration in return"? If you don't have a problem with the notion of copyright, then what's the issue? Do you similarly go on long campaigns on forums of proprietary software? Or is just GPL?

Tell me, what are all the licenses that code you have copyright over is under? In particular, do you ever write proprietary software?

Mono Relicensed MIT

Posted Apr 9, 2016 7:10 UTC (Sat) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link]

To me this means that GPL forces one to comply with its terms if one wants to use it in their products.

It's a copyright license. What do you expect it to do?

If you don't like the terms of the GPL, don't base your code on GPL'ed software. If you don't like the terms of Microsoft's proprietary SDK license, don't base your code on Microsoft's proprietary SDK. Same difference. Your choice.