GPL (probably a FAQ)

[graham_k]

Can someone tell me definitively - if I use a ten line GPLed function, say quicksort, in 500,000 lines of code which I write myself, do I need to GPL all of my source code and make the ode free for all?

[Adel Abushaev]

GPL is viral, one drop of it will make everything else GPL, especially
when you redistribute the code.

When there is a technical and legal due diligence, they use tools that
scan your source code and if there is a GPL or public code that is
also matching in their database (which is huge, believe me, even sites
that had forums that are down for a few years by now) - they flag it.

Cheers,

Adel.

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 8:28 PM, graham_k<nabble@...> wrote:
>
> Can someone tell me definitively - if I use a ten line GPLed function, say
> quicksort, in 500,000 lines of code which I write myself, do I need to GPL
> all of my source code and make the ode free for all?
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/GPL-%28probably-a-FAQ%29-tp24638096p24638096.html
> Sent from the gcc - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>

[Mark Mielke]

On 07/23/2009 11:28 PM, graham_k wrote:
> Can someone tell me definitively - if I use a ten line GPLed function, say
> quicksort, in 500,000 lines of code which I write myself, do I need to GPL
> all of my source code and make the ode free for all?
>    

If you want a definitive answer you should contact a lawyer.

What makes you think 10 lines would be exempt? Is there some part of the
GPL that makes you think this?

Realistically - the GPL would have some sort of limits that the
copyright owner would have difficulty enforcing. For example, a
copyright license is not the same as a patent or trademark and the
chances that I write 10 lines the exact same as 10 of your lines, for a
well known algorithm, are actually pretty high. If you GPL'ed your
lines, and I never looked at your lines - the GPL cannot stop me from
using my 10 lines even if they exactly match yours. However, it would
raise questions, and if you sued me, I would probably have to show
evidence that I had never seen your lines before.

This is why it's bad to even LOOK at GPL code. Above, it hints that you
have looked. If you have looked - how can you truly say that the lines
you reproduce from your head are not a derivation? Sure you could change
the variables around and move some of the blocks around to achieve the
same effect while making it look different - but in truth, you have
derived their source, and if you do not put the GPL on your software,
you are violating their rights. You would be stealing their
implementation without a valid license (in effect even if not in intent).

That all said - I see the GPL as being similarly evil to patents. The
concept is that the idea can be owned by a person or entity, and this
ownership grants the person the right to limit access to the idea. The
GPL is not a free license. It is a restrictive license that plays with
the concept of *enforcing* freedom. I want to see the patent office
closed, and I'd like to see the GPL invalidated in a court of law. 10
lines of code that provide nothing exceptionally unique that could be
easily re-written by somebody else who has knowledge of the algorithm
should not be possible to protect in ANY way. It is not providing unique
value that requires protection in order to encourage people to
contribute. The proof of this for me is that other licenses that are far
more free have communities that thrive just as well as the GPL
communities. People like the GPL, or they like the BSD license. But,
when it really comes down to it, a person looking to contribute to a
project does not usually say "I refuse to participate in your project
because it has a BSD license." The GPL is evil and deserves to be struck
down.

Oops - I think this will get me kicked out of the gcc@... list. :-)

Cheers,
mark

--
Mark Mielke<mark@...>

[Gregory Casamento]

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Mark Mielke<mark@...> wrote:
... snipped ...

> to contribute to a project does not usually say "I refuse to participate in
> your project because it has a BSD license." The GPL is evil and deserves to
> be struck down.

The GPL and LGPL achieve a delicate balance between the freedoms of
the author and the freedoms of downstream users to use and modify the
code for their own purposes.

The key is in redistribution.   With the GPL and LGPL you are obliged
to contribute your changes back to the library/application which you
modified.   Normal practice with these licenses is to use LGPL for
libraries, since it is not viral with respect to linking (GPL is viral
in this aspect) and GPL for programs or tools.

The BSD license allows downstream authors to make changes to the code
and keep it to themselves even if they redistribute it.  So, the BSD
license does not encourage or oblige the developer to contribute bug
fixes or new features back even if they distrubute the compiled
result.

It is up to you which license you feel is best for your purposes in any case.

Later, GC
--
Gregory Casamento
Open Logic Corporation, Principal Consultant
## GNUstep Chief Maintainer
yahoo/skype: greg_casamento, aol: gjcasa
[phone] (Cell), [phone] (Home)

[Ben Elliston]

This thread is off-topic for the GCC mailing list.  Please follow up on
gnu.misc.discuss or some other suitable forum.

Thanks,
Ben

[Alexandre Oliva-2]

On Jul 24, 2009, graham_k <nabble@...> wrote:

> Can someone tell me definitively - if I use a ten line GPLed function, say
> quicksort, in 500,000 lines of code which I write myself, do I need to GPL
> all of my source code and make the ode free for all?

The FSF offers an e-mail based service to answer this kind of question,
but this mailing list is not the way to request it.  The service is
offered gratuitously if you're developing Free Software, and for a fee
otherwise.  Send your question to licensing@....

--
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist      Red Hat Brazil Compiler Engineer

[Ian Lance Taylor-3]

This discussion is offtopic for the gcc@... mailing list.
Please send replies directly to me or to gnu-misc-discuss.


Adel Abushaev <adel.abushaev@...> writes:

> GPL is viral, one drop of it will make everything else GPL, especially
> when you redistribute the code.

Please try to avoid using words like "viral" when describing the GPL.
The GPL does not somehow infect the code that you write.  It only
imposes requirements on distribution of your code when linked with GPL
code written by other people.  This is no more "viral" than, e.g.,
linking with a proprietary library which requires royalty payments for
use.


Mark Mielke <mark@...> writes:

> On 07/23/2009 11:28 PM, graham_k wrote:
>> Can someone tell me definitively - if I use a ten line GPLed function, say
>> quicksort, in 500,000 lines of code which I write myself, do I need to GPL
>> all of my source code and make the ode free for all?
>>    
>
> If you want a definitive answer you should contact a lawyer.

Good advice, especially since some of your other comments are
incorrect.  The notion of "derived work" is based on copyright law, and
it doesn't mean what you think it does.


Again, please send replies directly to me or to gnu-misc-discuss.  I
wanted to follow up briefly on this thread to make sure that people
reading the archives do not think that the statements expressed here are
accepted facts.  You must judge for yourself.

Ian

[Robert Dewar]

Ben Elliston wrote:
> This thread is off-topic for the GCC mailing list.  Please follow up on
> gnu.misc.discuss or some other suitable forum.

it is also full of appalling misinformation, so I suggest everyone
delete it! There is good reason for keeping such threads off the list.
>
> Thanks,
> Ben
>