[haiku-development] Re: INPUT / VOTE : --include-gpl-addons
- From: Urias McCullough <umccullough@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: haiku-development@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:58:44 -0700
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 1:04 AM, Niels Reedijk<niels.reedijk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Bruno,
>
> 2009/8/20 Bruno Albuquerque <bga@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 16:23:04 -0700, Urias McCullough said:
>>
>>> I'd love to hear the interpretation from someone who is very much in
>>> the know, but who is not also a GPL zealot...
>>
>> And this is the reason for my meeting on Monday. Daniel Berlin is
>> actually a lawyer specialized in open source. Chris DiBona is
>> responsible for making sure we conform to open-source licenses at
>> Google.
>
> Good idea.
>
>
> However, and you may curse me, but part of the GPL is not the actual
> letter of the license, but the spirit. Peope that consciously release
> their work under the GPL, do this in part because they believe in the
> free eco-system where people distribute their work, improve it and
> share these changes. The license was written to support exactly that.
>
> Licensing under the GPL gives you protection that your work is not
> used in closed-source work.
And of course, we are not using GPL code in a closed-source work. So I
don't see how we're violating the terms, nor the spirit.
> This also means that it cannot be used in work that is licensed less
> restrictively, like ours. Sometimes that's a conscious decision, since
> they believe in the forced-free eco-system that the GPL creates
> (paradox not intended), but sometimes they just chose the GPL because
> it was the popular choice.
But you keep going back to the source code, not the work itself. The
"work" is the released product, not the source that was written for
it.
When using GPL sources to produce your work, your work must be
released under terms of the GPL. That doesn't prevent someone from
taking the GPL sources out and producing a version of the work that
isn't under GPL.
AFAICT, there's no stipulation in the license that ALL of the source
code used to create the work must be released as GPL, only that the
work itself must be (which then requires you to release all source
code used to create said work). This is where people (usually
developers I notice) tend to get all wrapped up. We are not violating
the spirit of GPL at all, as long as we release the source code, per
the terms of the license, we have done exactly what was necessary -
given the end user the full freedom to modify/edit and redistribute
the work.
Where would we have failed?
> Now intuitively I feel (and I hope others see why) that using a GPL
> library as an add-on to is actually extending that application, and
> that you are using GPL code to perform a function of your application.
And if this is true, all that means is my above statements go into
effect, and we must release our source code per the terms.
> That's why I feel that no matter what the outcome is with the meeting
> with your lawyer, that it is in the spirit of the GPL to just ask the
> authors/copyrightholders (the latter could be a whole lot though) to
> grant us an exception. Some of them probably didn't even know the GPL
> would be so strict, others might consciously choose to give us an
> exception.
>
> Depending on the outcome with the meeting with the lawyers this can be
> a formal (written) exception, or just an informal one.
>
> Having said that, my brain opens up a whole new can of worms when it
> comes to derived works of the Haiku codebase, but I'll keep it in my
> brain for the time being.
I still totally fail to see why this is a problem. Using GPL code in a
program doesn't make the rest of that program's source code GPL.
- Urias
Other related posts:
