[PD] Legal restrictions for apps

[Jonathan Wilkes]

On 02/05/2014 08:56 PM, Simon Wise wrote:
> On 06/02/14 00:36, Dan Wilcox wrote:
>> Short answer: yes, it's sufficient to provide the object files and 
>> static
>> libs
>>
>> As far as my understanding of GPL&  LGPL goes, you do not need to 
>> publish
>> your app sources when using LGPL libraries as the "Lesser" part of 
>> the LGPL
>> allows for distribution and is not viral.
>
> yes, though 'viral' is a misleading term  ... the GPL does not, 
> cannot, change any license for any other code, it is not infectious.
>
> The GPL is certainly more restrictive (regarding re-distribution, not 
> use, of the code covered) than for example the BSD or LGPL. It 
> restricts the right to distribute/propagate as part of a larger work 
> to works where the whole of the source code of that work is made 
> available for reuse, modification and re-distribution either under the 
> GPL or in any less restrictive way.
>
> In the second case the GPLed code would no longer be licensed for 
> distribution (and would have to be replaced or dropped or a different 
> license negotiated with its copyright owners) if the work as a whole 
> was modified and distributed with a more restrictive license. Whether 
> this is useful or not has been very widely debated.

There are two debates.

One is between devs who license their code with the GPL and devs who 
license their code with 3-clause BSD.  Both share what they make with 
the world.  Both keep publicly auditable databases of the changes to the 
software.  Both encourage smart, safe ways to design and maintain 
software and operating systems.

BSD devs notice that when they share with GPL devs, the GPL devs say, 
"Thanks."  But when the BSD devs try to use what the GPL devs write they 
have to fuss with the license.  This is because the GPL essentially puts 
the golden rule into the license, whereas the BSD devs have a minimal 
license (probably as minimal as a license can be) and just follow the 
golden rule as human beings.

There are good reasons for both camps to do what they do, but it ends up 
requiring the BSD folks to care more about licenses than they'd like-- 
their license is only 3 clauses, after all!  So the BSD camp complains 
that when the GPL devs (like Linux Kernel devs) improve on code that was 
originally BSD, it comes back to the BSD folks "infected" with the GPL 
license which requires them to then care about licenses.  This is where 
the "viral" taunt comes from-- a genuine argument between two camps, 
both sharing what they make with everyone else to encourage a free and 
safe software ecosystem.

Another debate is between any company that produces proprietary software 
and a straw man in a corn field.  Here "viral" is irrelevant because the 
company isn't giving improvements back to the community.  Unfortunately 
this is probably what first pops to mind when people hear this 
argument-- that, somehow, the GPL can "infect" the business of selling a 
product and make it impossible for a company to make money.

But for better or for worse, we don't even need to consider minimal 
moral principles.  It's demonstrably dangerous to rely on software that 
doesn't have a pubic codebase and revision history. (Unfortunately I 
think it's for the better since most devs seem allergic to stating 
minimal moral principles.)

-Jonathan

> The motivation for the GPL is stated in the license and the LGPL was 
> written to cover some cases where the authors considered a less 
> restrictive license useful.
>
>
> Simon
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>
>