Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.

Re: A softer GPL?

Author:Ken MacLeod
Posted:8/24/2000; 8:44:10 AM
Topic:A softer GPL?
Msg #:20095 (In response to 20085)
Prev/Next:20094 / 20096

"infectious" is such a foul term. Can one get personal against a group of people? calling GPL "infectious" probably does that.

When people call the GPL "viral", what they mean is that someone who wants to link with that code must also make their code GPL (or GPL compatible). If someone doesn't choose to do this, then they need to find an alternate source for their needs.

Developers who use other people's code without checking the license of that code are in for a serious awakening if they use some developer's code. A common occurrence is that a developer will start using somebody else's code, and then weeks or months later find that they're in a bind because they didn't realize the implications. Ladies and gents, the GPL is rather meek in that area, compared to a lot of published source code that doesn't even have an open source license.

The LGPL removes the "linking" requirement, and makes it only that you have to publish your changes to the LGPL'd package itself, not any code built on top of it. (And in both GPL and LGPL, this applies only to code that is redistributed [binary or source], not code that is used solely in-house, where you can make and keep as much proprietary code as you'd like.)

There are responses to this message:

This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:56:13 PM.

© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.