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

Re: It's even worse than it appears

Author:Chaz Larson
Posted:9/1/2000; 9:10:01 AM
Topic:scriptingNews outline for 8/28/2000
Msg #:20689 (In response to 20645)
Prev/Next:20688 / 20690

Let me try this hypothetical.

Dave GPL's the MacBird source, which includes the Applet Toolkit.

I, as a developer, look at the Applet Toolkit source and think, "Cool, this does some of the stuff I need done for my [proprietary and closed] WizzyApp 1.0!"

I believe the "poison pill" problem there is that I, as a developer of proprietary closed software, would then have to either GPL WizzyApp 1.0, or I would have to seek out special permission [and licensing] from you.

If not for the latter possibility, I can see where a guy might see this as a poison pill against developers of closed and proprietary software. A developer of closed and proprietary software cannot use that source without putting his own work under the GPL. Period.

However, a guy can always contact the original developer and ask for permission to use the GPL'ed source in a closed and proprietary software product. This special permission/license would not require a guy to put the closed and proprietary derivative work under the GPL.

Correct?

If so, that would seem to eliminate the alleged anti-closed/proprietary-developer tone of the GPL. In that event, the GPL is really just saying "If you don't ask, you have to GPL anything you do with this code. If you want to do anything else, ask me first."

I suppose if the original developer is unavailable or unresponsive, then that special permission is unavailable, and developers of closed and proprietary software are precluded totally from using Mr. Unavailable Developer's source.

There are responses to this message:

This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:56:27 PM.

© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.