GPL software library

A:

The GPL is not "viral" -- contrary to propaganda, it does not infect other software. While some companies balk at using a library available only under the GPL, there is no harm in using a library available under the GPL as long as a proprietary version is available as well.

John Millikin 2009-08-20 03:58:44

What you say is true of LGPL, but it's also exactly the reason why LGPL is a different license from GPL. FSF's doctrine (how much support it has from court decisions is a different issue) is that linking a GPL library makes the result a derivative work thereof.

Alex Martelli 2009-08-20 04:01:57

GPL is a strong viral license. Linking forces GPL or compatible license. Derivative works are GPL as well.

TheJacobTaylor 2009-08-20 04:06:03

No, nothing forces the application of the GPL to your software. If you distribute a work derived from GPL'd software, then you must comply with the terms of the GPL. However, you don't have to distribute under the GPL if another license is available.

John Millikin 2009-08-20 04:25:26

Quite true. Your post above reads a little differently to me. If you are not modifying the source code, and you do not distribute your software linked to a GPL version of the library, or modify a GPL library and then distribute it, you do not have to GPL your code. If you do distributed linked to a GPL version of a library, then, in my understanding, your code must be either GPL itself or a compatible license (a.k.a comply with the terms of the GPL). If you code against a library and swap it out for a Pro version for distribution, you would be fine.

TheJacobTaylor 2009-08-20 04:41:23

@Jacob: there doesn't have to be such thing as a "GPL version". If I have some software which links against a dual-license library, I can choose whichever of those licenses I want to distribute it under. If one of those is the GPL and one is commercial, then I have the choice between releasing *my* software as GPL, or paying the licensing fee. This isn't a technological distinction, it's a legal one; the end result could be bit-for-bit identical on the distributed disks.

John Millikin 2009-08-20 14:59:08

GPL is viral if you accept the GPL license

anon 2009-08-20 20:26:54

+4 A:

IANAL, but, AFAIK, as long as you don't redistribute, in any form, the software you write that's a derivative work of a GPL one, having to put your own derivative work under GPL puts no obligation on you; IOW, a company that does its own in-house software based on your framework (as opposed to writing such software for third parties) should not care that it's GPL. Of course, whether IT departments understand this is a different question;-).

Alex Martelli 2009-08-20 04:00:01

+4 A:

As someone who makes a couple software licensing decisions for a small company, I stay away from GPLed software. Under the GPL, if you distribute derivative works, they must also under the GPL.

Maybe GPL is still the right case for you -- if the other businesses cannot or will not redistribute your product, GPL might be acceptable. A commercial license option would be nice both to allow redistribution and to offer support -- management loves knowing software support is available.

But if your product is intended to be used as a library, I would still stay away from it due to the general legal uncertainty of the GPL. There are so many other options that don't restrict (as much) what I can do with a piece of software; to name a few, LGPL, BSD, MIT, Apache, and of course public domain.

Like I said, GPL might be right for you, but that's usually the first thing I filter out when I'm evaluating open source software for use.

Mark Rushakoff 2009-08-20 04:00:33

I would correct this. You do not have to distribute derivative works. If you do distribute derivative works, then you need to also distributed the source code under the same GPL terms under which you received it. Nothing requires you to distributed the derivative work.

TheJacobTaylor 2009-08-20 04:04:43

You're right. That's what I meant, but it was kind of ambiguous. Fixed.

Mark Rushakoff 2009-08-20 04:10:25

I felt it was a key point, I turned off my whine mod. :) so +1 or anti -1 right back.

TheJacobTaylor 2009-08-20 04:26:20

You would avoid using this library merely because it's available under the GPL? That's absurd. If you intend to create a proprietary derived work, just buy a license and it'll be no different from *every other* software library.

John Millikin 2009-08-20 04:27:55

If there are multiple libraries available that perform the same functionality, and some are proprietary, some are GPL-licensed, and some are BSD-licensed, my *first* pass of filtering out what to use excludes proprietary and GPL. If the GPL library was the *only* one that did what I needed it to do, that would be a completely different story.

Mark Rushakoff 2009-08-20 11:21:15

+2 A:

Many companies shy away from GPL code due to its strong restrictions on linked or modified code, enforcing the rights of the original developers to require the availability of such code. Since it is very easy to expand the code covered by the freedom preserving terms of the GPL (just by linking and distributing, for example), many companies are wary.

If you are using GPL code to process data, that is a great use. The GPL license does nothing to the data that is sent through the code, just modifications to the code and/or products that link to the code.

Many companies now actually have policies about open source licensing. Most companies probably do not yet. Also, there are a lot of users/employees that either do not know about, or do not stand aforementioned policies, even if they do exist.

As a data processing framework, you would actually be ok using a GPL version if there is a front end UI and they do not need to link to your code. I believe SOAP APIs, Web interaction, data file loading and saving, ... will not incur any obligation under the GPL. That being said, if you do not require them to link to your library, the GPL license is not going to protect you nearly as much as you might like when you open source for trial purposes. If you are not having the community help with development, or extend your product, why not use a traditional trial license model?

Tread carefully and respectfully. (and sadly, by using a potentially offensive term in the first paragraph, I unintentionally missed on the respectfully part)

Jacob

TheJacobTaylor 2009-08-20 04:08:37

Dare I ask why the -1?

TheJacobTaylor 2009-08-20 04:41:54

The GPL is *not* viral. And if it *were* viral, that would be illegal, maybe even unconstitutional. The term "viral" was invented by a PR firm for Microsoft's "Linux is cancer" FUD scare tactics campaign. Please do not repeat that crap, heck, even Microsoft doesn't believe in it anymore. Just in the past couple of weeks they released several different pieces of code under the GPL, among them a set of Linux drivers that they submitted for inclusion in the official kernel tree.

Jörg W Mittag 2009-08-20 09:11:44

I guess I think of viral in terms of viral marketing more than sickness in this case. The GPL code has very strict notions of what you can do with it, what restrictions you can put on it, and what kinds of code can be linked with it. Do you have a better term for classifying licenses that place restrictions on nearby code vs the ones that do not? Viral and non-viral are what I have been using. I can see how that might be offensive and would love another term. I will edit my comment around a little bit to remove the world viral.

TheJacobTaylor 2009-08-20 20:03:35

Thank you for your description by the way. I appreciate it. If you would be willing to take this conversation offline, I would love to continue it a bit. My email is my first name '.' my last name @gmail.com

TheJacobTaylor 2009-08-20 20:07:12

A:

I'm comfortable using LGPL libraries. But I will almost always shun GPL libraries, because there are too many gray areas with GPL libraries, and I neither understand, nor have the resources to get a definite answer on, to what extent the GPL license will "spread" into the application I write, and how to manage that "spreading".

Jason S 2009-10-21 14:54:38

ansaurus

tags:

views:

answers:

GPL software library

related questions