Hello,
As the person who initially used the word viral in this thread, let me
ask you a question.
Personally I greatly dislike the GPL and variants. I and many believe
viral is what describes that nature of the GPL. However, I recognize
that there are reasonable people who like the GPL and greatly like that
aspect of its license. It is viral and does infect. It is seen by many
people something to avoid, just as one would avoid a virus or infection.
Yes these are negative terms.
You protest our use of these terms but do not offer alternatives that
you prefer. In the absence of acceptable alternatives that GPL
proponents prefer, then we left to terms that we naturally gravitate
toward using. So let me suggest that when you make your opinion heard,
please include what you would prefer. Otherwise it doesn't really help
you with your expressed desires of us not using said terminology.
So my question to you. What words would you use instead of viral and
infection that equally describe that characteristic of the GPL and variants?
Thanks.
Jimmie
On 09/20/2017 02:10 PM, Jose San Leandro wrote:
Nothing to add to the particular question, but I'm writing to express
how much I disagree when you use adjectives such as "viral" or nouns
such as "infection" to describe GPL.
I'm a FSF supporter for a long time, and while I'm used to people
choosing not to use free software licenses for the sake of reaching as
many business opportunities as possible, I care about the ethics
behind the free software movement.
I respect people not caring about that fundamental part of the Free
Software movement, but I cannot remain silent when everybody seems to
share the same unfortunate interpretation of what the GPL is about.
2017-09-17 18:59 GMT+02:00 Ben Coman <b...@openinworld.com
<mailto:b...@openinworld.com>>:
On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 7:00 PM, stephan <step...@stack.nl
<mailto:step...@stack.nl>> wrote:
>
> On 17-09-17 06:59, Jimmie Houchin wrote:
>>
>> And the GPL not be viral in my app provided I only use the GPL
library and am not modifying it in my app.
>>
>> Do I understand this wrong?
>
>
> Yes. With GPL everything is now GPL. With LGPL, as long as you
only link to it,
> the viral aspect is limited to the library. In Pharo, that means
you can use UFFI
> to connect to LGPL libraries, and you can probably create
plugins. Loading
> smalltalk libraries that are LGPL is not exactly the same as
linking, there is
> no clear boundary between compile-time and run-time, as
everything is in the image.
> That makes the LGPL difficult to interpret in the smalltalk
case, and potentially viral.
+1.
On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Hilaire <hila...@drgeo.eu
<mailto:hila...@drgeo.eu>> wrote:
> Regarding porting GPL software, I guess you mean rewriting with
Smalltalk,
> you should be free to license it as you want, for example as MIT.
> AFAIK there is no evil restriction as "seen the code" under the GPL.
It is not as clean as that. Many consider "seen the code" to
implicate "derived code". Whether a court of law agrees with this or
not is not what you should consider. The best advice I received from
a lawyer is that winning in court (sometimes after years of effort) is
still a loss, so you should position yourself so that no one even
thinks they can take you court.
> For library, alternative is LGPL and I read this interesting note:
> One should note that subclassing a Java (or other OO) class
licensed under the LGPL is regarded as a use of an interface of a
library comparable to a function call of a library. It is not
regarded as a modification of the original class. Therefore the
subclass does not fall under the requirements of the LGPL.
The definitive reference of Java + LGPL is
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.en.html
<https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.en.html>
which says: "The typical arrangement for Java is that each library an
application uses is distributed as a separate JAR (Java Archive) file.
Applications use Java's “import” functionality to access classes from
these libraries ... The LGPL permits this distribution ...
Applications need only follow the requirements in section 6 of the
LGPL"
but a Smalltalk Image runs foul of section 6 requiring... "A suitable
[shared library] mechanism ... that (1) uses at run time a copy of the
library already present on the user's computer system, rather than
copying library functions into the executable" where an Image is
considered to be the "executable".
So incorporating LGPL Smalltalk code into an Image causes all code in
the Image to be infected with the LGPL.
> So using a LGPL library, even extending it, does not force the
user to be in the GPL family license.
Using LGPL C libraries is fine and doesn't infect your Smalltalk code.
Using LGPL Smalltalk libraries does infect all Smalltalk code in your
Image. The concern is contributing a bug fixed in Pharo code from an
infected image technically infects the whole of Pharo - although you
are free to update a clean image with the same bug fix and contribute
from there - but thats an awkward process.
> The only restriction is the receiver should be capable to update
> the LGPL package independently of the application using the package.
> Anyway, I don't think you should worried about porting GPL/LGPL
libraries as long
> as your are rewriting it. You can license it under MIT. Then
LGPL is also possible.
The term "port" clearly implies "derived" so you cannot arbitrarily
re-license just by changing implementation languages. Otherwise for
example a GPL library could be relicensed by one team porting from C
to Python, then a second independent team ports from Python back to C
subverting the original copyright.
===============
Hmmm... actually refreshing myself with the newer license texts
just now
I notice GPL 3 has added some interesting definitions the GPL 2
lacks...
> The “Corresponding Source” for a work ... does not include the
work's System Libraries
>
> The “System Libraries” of an executable work include anything,
other than the work as a whole, that
> (a) is included in the normal form of packaging a Major Component,
> but which is not part of that Major Component, and
> (b) serves only to enable use of the work with that Major
Component, or to implement a
> Standard Interface for which an implementation is available
to the public in source code form.
>
> A “Major Component”, in this context, means a major essential
component
> (kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating
system (if any)
> on which the executable work runs, or a compiler used to
produce the work,
> or an object code interpreter used to run it.
>
> A “Standard Interface” means an interface that
> ... is widely used among developers working in that language.
which seems to open the door to a strong argument** that Pharo is such
a Major Component protected from even a full GPL3 coded application
being loaded and run - i.e. you could fix and contribute Pharo code
directly from such an Image - but other non-GPL Smalltalk libraries
you mix in may not be similarly protected. But it still seems a grey
area with compliance easier to manage using nonCopyLeft licenses.
cheers -ben
** You'd probably want the FSF to directly issue a statement on this.
