Wordpress Founder Accuses Wix Of Stealing Code (ma.tt) 176
An anonymous reader writes:
"Wow, dude I did not even know we were fighting," Wix CEO Avishai Abrahami posted on the company's blog Saturday -- responding to Wordpress creator Matt Mullenweg, who on Friday accused Wix of stealing their code. "The claim is that the Wix mobile apps distribute GPL code and aren't themselves GPL, so they violate the license," Mullenweg wrote.
Abrahami argued that "Everything we improved there or modified, we submitted back as open source," adding "we will release the app you saw as well... " Mullenweg responded "It appears you and [lead engineer] Tal might share a misunderstanding of how the GPL works," ultimately adding "software licensing can be tricky and many people make honest mistakes."
Wix had also argued they're giving back to the open source community by listing 224 public projects on their GitHub page. "Thank you for the offer to use them," Mullenweg responded. "If we do, we'll make sure to follow the license you've put on the code very carefully."
Abrahami argued that "Everything we improved there or modified, we submitted back as open source," adding "we will release the app you saw as well... " Mullenweg responded "It appears you and [lead engineer] Tal might share a misunderstanding of how the GPL works," ultimately adding "software licensing can be tricky and many people make honest mistakes."
Wix had also argued they're giving back to the open source community by listing 224 public projects on their GitHub page. "Thank you for the offer to use them," Mullenweg responded. "If we do, we'll make sure to follow the license you've put on the code very carefully."
GPL (Score:1)
How exactly the GPL works is still unclear as not many cases have gone through the courts. I know that because of this most companies absolutely prohibit any open source code within a mile of their commercial applications, even in cases where a light reading of the GPL would suggest it is ok to do so.
Remember the GPL is designed to be viral. You don't want to run the risk of violating the GPL by inadvertently infecting your proprietary closed source code.
Re:GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
MOST embedded operating systems and compilers and libraries used by MOST companies are in fact GPL. Linux runs in almost ALL embedded systems like TV sets, BluRay players from Sony,LG,Samsung,Sharp,Panasonic,NEC,etc..., Every single Android Cellphone and Tablet ever made. Most automation systems use GPL tools in their compilers Like AMX,Crestron,TI,Intel, and all the little players like Samung Smartthings, Wink, etc.... In fact it's hard to find a company NOT using a GPL codebase somewhere, even Microsoft does.
So I really think you need to update your knowledge of what businesses are using, because it seems the entirety of all you know about it is from 1995.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the key: permissive. GPLv2 was relatively permissive, though LGPL is a lot more popular in the industry. Apache is very permissive. GPLv3 is not permissive, and so it's seeing most companies steer waaaay clear of it.
Re: (Score:2)
GPLv3, which is part of why it's being seriously overtaken by llvm, which is using a custom permissive license.
Licensing has nothing to do with why GCC is being overtaken by clang. The reason is that clang is better, easier to modify, and has a community that's easier to work with. There's nothing about the GPLv3 license vs v2 that has any relevance to compilers.
Re: (Score:2)
VxWorks and QNX run on far more embedded systems than Linux.
I'm not sure this is true. It used to be true, but I'm not sure it is anymore.
If you have a citation, that would be cool.
Re: (Score:2)
Count 2-3 copies of a VxWorks (or other) RTOS for every vehicle you see on the road.
Large vehicles like a Caterpillar Bulldozer may have up to 5 ECMs all not running Linux.
Re: (Score:3)
that was true a long time ago, but I doubt it being true anymore, because all stats point otherwise and it's pretty hard to find even a home applicance or electronic product that uses either of them - or even a car.
with linux running ome appliances now, tv's, phones and routers.
it's more probable that any given house had 1-4 devices running linux whilst they might have 0 running vxworks. I doubt many microwave ovens run vxworks too. probably just a microcontroller.
thing is, you can do pretty complex stuff
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is absolutely false. Please stop posting this kind of FUD. Using a piece of GPL'd software does not magically infect your copyrighted code with the GPL. Using code under the terms of the GPL is absolutely no different from using code under *any other* source code license. If you use GPL'd code inappropriately you will find yourself in a copyright violation situation. Again I repeat this is no different than if you violated Microsoft's copyright or any other proprietary code license. When you are in
Re:GPL (Score:4, Insightful)
If you include GPL v3 code in your closed source project, under the terms of the licence agreement, you must comply with the licence which demands either you licence the software or you release ALL of the source of your closed-source project under the GPL v3.
If you are producing a large, closed-source, product, option 1 is not an option at all.
If you can't negotiate a licence with the copyright holders, or the copyright holders are unwilling to licence it to you on terms that are acceptable to both parties then option 2 is not an option at all.
So, this leaves only option 3 - remove all GPL'd code from your project and write your own.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow slashdot sucks these days.
That is as informative as a listing of alphabetical letters in the correct order. Basic, basic stuff. Plus the crazy inclusion of GPL v3 to confuse matters even more. Nothing in your post shed any light at all on why companies like apple are avoiding GPL v3. Its the patent and anti tivo provisions. I guess some genius will upvote this post as informative as well. Oh my god what has become of thee oh slashdot. News for idiotic peoples who think they are nerds.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, of course, but as the OP said the same holds for all other licenses too. If you don't want to adhere to the licensing terms you cannot use the library. Duh, how surprising!
But there is also LGPL...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there is Apache licensed code, BSD licensed code etc... The problem with the GPL is that it was previously able to be used as a part of a larger non-open source offering and with the change in the licence to v3, this is no longer possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, this could be a sticky situation if my proprietary software is "Wonder DB 9000". Though my guess is if it's something more like "Collection Manager 2016" then you'd be more in the clear.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you are slightly wrong. The three options you suggest apply before you are in a situation of copyright violation: when you are considering distributing your project, you have to do one of these things.
But after the copyright violation, it is too late. If you steal something, get caught and give it back, you still go to prison. The same applies to any kind of wrongdoing: undoing it after getting caught does not avoid the punishment.
The GPL has an explicit provision for violations: (emphasis mine)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes that's true that a copyright holder may choose to cut off options 1 and 2 after a violation occurred. And if you get caught there are monetary damages that can be awarded to the copyright holder, and the violator has to cease violating. In other words they have to stop selling the software and remove the GPL'd code from it. Despite the wording of the GPL, the copyright holder could, if they choose, still negotiate options 1 or 2. The copyright holder has the right to enforce or negate parts of the GP
Re: (Score:2)
Actually its very well understood and has been tested again and again repeatedly in courts across the world.
If you combine someone elses GPL code with yours and you distribute it, you must distribute your code as well. If you dont like that, dont distriibute (Its entirely fine to do whatever you want with it internally, the GPL only covers distribution).
Variants:
LGPL, assuming the code is only dynamically linked, you o
Re: (Score:2)
Actually its very well understood.
Read the GPL Wikipedia page, where people can't even agree if it extends to static/dynamic linking.
There have been about half a dozen cases involving the GPL. Companies usually like to have a few hundred behind them before they declare something "legally well understood".
Re: (Score:2)
It depends whether they are linked. Basically the same place where 'derivative work' lies in law. If your project has 10 executables, all of which work together, none of which are linked to each other -and only one is linked to a GPL'd library then only that one has to be GPLd.
Insert anti GPL FUD (Score:3)
A Practical Guide to GPL Compliance [softwarefreedom.org] --
"How exactly the GPL works is still unclear as not many cases have gone through the courts. I know that because of this most companies absolutely prohibit any open source code within a mile of their commercial applications, even in cases where a light reading of the GPL would suggest it is ok to do so. Remember the GPL is designed to be viral. You don't want to run the ris
Re: (Score:2)
>I know that because of this most companies absolutely prohibit any open source code within a mile of their commercial applications, even in cases where a light reading of the GPL would suggest it is ok to do so.
Exactly where would "a light reading" suggest that you could include GPLed code in a proprietary application? Steering completely clear of integrating GPLed code in that case is exactly what the license is designed to promote. There are exceptions, and if you're careful you can walk up against
Re: (Score:2)
No. There is absolutely nothing unclear about how the GPL works. The small number of court cases is not a reason to think it is unclear- it's proof of how clear it is. Almost no cases go to court because as soon as violators are caught they almost always immediately make changes to comply - they don't go to court because the license is so explicitly clear that none of them think they have a chance of winning a defence.
The few cases that were taken to trial all went for the plaintiffs. The only GPL case yet
Re: (Score:2)
I find that viral meme odd to say the least. As if proprietary licenses don't have a viral property to them. You can't even glance at a proprietary app without getting EULA on you.
Re: (Score:2)
If I use somebody else's code I have to properly license it, but my new code does not become theirs.
If you use GPL code on the other hand, your code is now infected and the only way to legally use it is to make it join the GPL borg and make the new code public.
Re: (Score:2)
But the code you wrote DOES remain yours, there are simply requirements on it's distribution.. If you use licensed proprietary code in your app, you are also restricted in your licensing and distribution choices. For example, you may have to pay for additional licenses, you probably cannot distribute the SDK. Odds are good you'll have to pay for it.
It's not like some kind of infection either way. Don't want to pay the price, don't use the code. Buit as far as unintentional infringement, who would you rather
Re: (Score:2)
Again GPL changes the license on your code, no other commercial license does that. This is why GPL is viral.
Re: (Score:2)
So if I want to ship free software, no proprietary library vendor will object to providing their headers and object files so it can be re-linked? They'll be happy with the free re-distribution of those object files and libraries by anyone who downloads my code?
Or perhaps they might require me to change the licence to a proprietary one, never to be opened.
I have on more than one occasion had to reject nice hardware because the maker was forbidden to release driver source to me due to proprietary vendor code
Re: (Score:2)
This old chestnut?
It's 2016, and we are STILL having this one?
2001 wants it's bullshit arguments back.
Re: (Score:2)
What is unclear is how enforceable the GPL is in court in many jurisdictions.
It's pretty clear: if the code is distributed only under the terms of the GPL, and you do not comply with those terms, then you lose the right to distribute works derived from it. The default right is that you have no rights to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"The default" that you describe leads to prohibitive import duties if not an outright trade embargo. All recent free trade agreements incorporate the Berne Convention by reference.
Re: (Score:2)
If you use GPL code, you take on that license. It's really that simple.
The only area where the GPL is clear is statically linked C code, everything else is very open to interpretation. Take for example a GPLed game. Now somebody comes along, takes all the graphics and releases a proprietary game with them. Is that a violation or not? What if he doesn't actually include the graphics, but loads them from the web or straight out of your git repository or their fork of your git repository? What if it's not graphics, but interpreted code code? At what point do the assets require th
Re: (Score:2)
You're conflating two issues - copyright over the API, which has been widely presumed not to exist until recently, and copyright over the library the API provides access to.
I can't think of any instances offhand where an open source project has objected to anyone re-implementing a library by cloning the API. They have however very often objected to closed-source projects actually linking/including their library. Basically - clone the API if you like, but if you use any of the actual code, either by inking
Re: (Score:2)
You're conflating two issues - copyright over the API, which has been widely presumed not to exist until recently, and copyright over the library the API provides access to.
You're forgetting that in the case of dynamically linked libraries and the GPL, the two issues become the same thing. An executable using dynamic linking contains no code from a linked library to make it a derived work other than the API (and in the case of discoverable interfaces not even that - MS OLE for instance), and it may link with _any_ library that provides the same API. The only point at which a derived work is arguably created is at runtime, under the control of the user, at which point the GPL
Re: (Score:2)
There is however the capacity to include usage restriction in a copyright license - see "This DVD is licensed for private viewing only, all public performances are strictly prohibited". As such there may be a good opening to be argued where you distribute a program that links to GPL libraries, so long as you do not actually dstribute those libraries yourself nor use them in the development of your software, since you only have a right to use those libraries at all under the terms of the GPL, which prohibit
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the GPL (v2 at least) was explicitly not a usage license, but a distribution one.
And GPLv3 also, although arguably less clearly:
> You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions
I'd think if you used the GPL code and linked to it, but never distributed the GPL library it wouldn't be able to kick in.
I believe that installers that download from third parties are designed to explicitly get around this even.
Correct, BUT the FSF regards the "designed to explicitly get around this" (or "user does the link") bit as contributory infringement / subterfuge. AFAIK that remains a theory that has never been tested in court, nevertheless, if I were going to do that I would want to be as non-explicit about it as possible. Of course, building separate install packages (+ dependency
Re: (Score:3)
>The only area where the GPL is clear is statically linked C code, everything else is very open to interpretation
No. It is not.
>Now somebody comes along, takes all the graphics and releases a proprietary game with them.
Absolutely and without any doubt. If the graphics were under the same license as the code, then any other game using them is a derivative work and must also be GPLd. You may be confused because of the REAL scenarios where game code is GPLd but the assets are under a proprietory license
Re: (Score:2)
>. But on the other side they want the right to clone proprietary APIs without adhering to the license
Cloning an API is not 'linking to a library' and until just a few months ago no court had ever considered it a copyrightable thing. Even then API cloning was held to be fair use - so it's still not an issue, and not a conflict at all. And yes, you are perfectly allowed to clone the API of a GPL'd library without GPL-ing your code, as long as you implement the library yourself.
You can create a shell script that requires certain programs to already be installed on your system for it to work (almost exactly like dynamic linking, legally speaking). You don't have to create your own implementation of these programs in order to not fall under the GPL yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's NOTHING like "linking" legally speaking since those programs do not in any way become part of yours, they don't execute in the same process space, they don't share memory. A shell script is very clearly NOT a derivative work of the programs it calls. There are things where copyright law is unclear regarding what is, or is not, a derivative work in programming - but this is not one of those times.
A shell script is merely *running* a program, not incorporating that program into itself. Indeed, your c
Re: (Score:2)
You description of why it's not the same "legally speaking" is entirely in technical speak. One program calling another entirely separate program is exactly what it's like. You're just swapping a library API interface with command line arguments and STDIN/STDOUT.
Whether the memory space is shared is nothing to do with the legal text of the GPL.
Re: (Score:2)
>Whether the memory space is shared is nothing to do with the legal text of the GPL.
Actually it absolutely IS what matters - which is EXACTLY why THAT is where the GPL draws the line - because it's where the LAW and Court Precedent has drawn the line. Because once the code shares a memory-space, it becomes part of the same greater whole - and THAT is legally a derivate work. If, at no point, do the two pieces of code combine into one thing - then it's not a derivative work - just two programs which coexi
Re: (Score:2)
The GPL says no such thing. I just read it again. Citation needed.
Re: (Score:2)
>Whether the memory space is shared is nothing to do with the legal text of the GPL.
Actually it absolutely IS what matters - which is EXACTLY why THAT is where the GPL draws the line - because it's where the LAW and Court Precedent has drawn the line. Because once the code shares a memory-space, it becomes part of the same greater whole - and THAT is legally a derivate work. If, at no point, do the two pieces of code combine into one thing - then it's not a derivative work - just two programs which coexist and copyright does not apply to that.
Shared Objects (*.so) (dynamic linking) on Linux do not necessarily share the *same* memory space when loaded for use by a program - especially with the Automatic Random Address Loading that has been happening of late to increase security . Focusing on memory space is a misnomer that will not get you very far.
Now, Windows provides an interesting case as it has two types of Dynamic Linking - one which operates identical to the Shared Objects on Linux/Unix, and another that makes a dependency on the associ
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely a violation of all GPL versions.
Possibly a violation of GPLv2. Probably a violation of GPLv3. Causing the game to download graphics for the user's benefit is not distribution on your part of those graphics. The original deve
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely a violation of all GPL versions.
Actually you may be surprised. The Assets may not get covered by the GPL at all; they're probably better licensed under the FDL (Free Documentation License) which is meant to cover non-source material. GPL doesn't cover everything that goes with a program.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>. The people behind SCUMM VM seem to be of the opinion that assets and code are separate but I could imagine some authors of included code disagreeing that this is the correct interpretation.
That's entirely up to the licensor. Free engines for proprietary games generally require you to own a legal copy of the original game to get legal access to the assets. Writing a GPL engine that can parse those assets does not negate or alter the copyright and licensing on the assets or the code from the original.
Re: (Score:2)
> The creators of AwesomeGPLProject2 might disagree with the SCUMM team's view that assets may be distributed under a different licence
None of the assets that we're talking about here is even part of the SCUMM project, nor are they created by or owned by that project. They belong to the original companies that made the game - mostly Sierra I believe. There is nothing in the GPL that allows you to usurp somebody else's copyrights by writing a program that can read their stuff.
Now you may have an argument
Re: (Score:2)
For the record - wordpress has in the past successfully sued people for creating non GPL'd wordpress themes - and the SFLC agreed with them that those are clearly a derivative product. And the people shipping those plugins were not even bundling them with wordpress.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the GPL's fault (or anything to do with the GPL actually) that some things are uncertain in copyright law and left up to the courts. If you have an issue with that, take it up with your representatives. Is a particular action fair use ? Sorry -the law doesn't say - it species what types of activities are potentially fair use but whether your particular case qualifies is left up to juries.
Same with the exact line between derivative work or not - the reason it's unclear is because it's unclear in the
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's really not. The vast majority of this stuff IS extremely settled by law and precedent. You cite a rare case which MIGHT be problematic (but almost certainly isn't). Plugins is a case where the law really is unclear and the judgement is meant to be on a case-by-case basis. But those are few and far between - and your first example is so far-fetched as to be unlikely to ever happen.
More importantly it undermines the very REASON this claim was made. "The GPL is unclear so no companies take the risk"
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get why you think taking a portion of a GPL-licensed work means that portion wouldn't itself be GPL-licensed. Of course it is, like the whole work is.
The stance of the FSF is that game assets are not software and thus having a GPLed engine bundled with non-free assets is ok. The assets and the engine doesn't form a complete work that as whole has to be GPL licensed. Going by that interpretation taking the assets from a GPL game and including them in a proprietary work would be ok, as it's just the reverse direction of what is already common practice (see Doom, Quake, Dosbox, ScummVM). The GPL would apply to the art, but not to the engine.
The license follows the graphics no matter how you get them.
That's not the i
Re: (Score:2)
Since we're talking about programmers, they can't know the GPL's legal status, so they must take it at face value for now.
That's why you have lawyers. They're supposed to clarify this for the programmers.
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing unclear about how enforceable the GPL is. GPL grants you a license to use a copyrighted work. If you do not comply with the terms of that license (provide source code, etc.) your license is void. At that point, you have no license at all, and you are violating copyright by distributing the work without a valid license to do so.
To my knowledge, there isn't a single jurisdiction where GPL (any version) has been ruled unenforceable. There are very few cases where it has been explicitly rule
Re: (Score:2)
No, the license say it MUST be GPL - not another license.
You completely fail to understand what GPL-compatible means. Something is under a GPL-compatible license if I am allowed to use it in a GPL program, it never works the other way around - nothing based on GPL code can ever be anything BUT GPL.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the license say it MUST be GPL - not another license.
No it doesn't. Read the license. It says that the license of the combined work must protect all of the freedoms guaranteed by the GPL and may not impose any additional requirements, but it makes no requirement that they remain under the GPL.
Re: (Score:2)
I think there's misunderstanding of "based on" versus "linked against" here. If you take a work licensed under GPL, you can't use part of that source code under a different license because you can't change the license on somebody else's code. The only exception is if you yourself wrote that code, retain copyright of it, and choose to offer it under a dual license in addition to the GPL.
Aggregation of multi-licensed works is a different matter. If you have a substantial body of work that stands on its own
Re: (Score:2)
>My guess is that we will see this type of violation more and more because while it is a violation, its not likely to be significant damages
That would only be a factor if anybody, anywhere has sued for damages. GPL cases never sue for damages -they sue for breach of contract and demand that the other party abide by the terms of the license (which is a legal contract) as they have no other right to distribute the software at all. The only restitution demanded is that they abide.
Most people who have been t
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:GPL (Score:4, Insightful)
I feel that the viral licensing clauses in GPL v3 will ultimately hinder the further development of software.
While Apple (as an example) were using GPL v2 licensed code, they were actively contributing patches and changes back to the relevant projects. This was good, it meant that we had professional developers who were paid to work on these projects and the changes they made were contributed back upstream.
Now that no corporation can touch any GPL v3 licensed code, we now have fragmentation and less developers working on open source code bases.
Apple, for example, have had to implement their own SMB stack as smbx, instead of using Samba. For a number of years, SMB compatibility and functionality took a huge step backwards on OS X, all because the Samba project started to use GPL v3. This ended up with developers who would have been working on patches and changes for Samba, instead working on their own closed-source implementation that, quite frankly, was nowhere near as good or as mature as Samba. The end result of this was that Apple's customers suffered with a sub par product and the Samba project suffered with fewer people contributing to it.
Who then benefits from GPL v3?
Re:GPL (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple, for example, have had to implement their own SMB stack as smbx, instead of using Samba. For a number of years, SMB compatibility and functionality took a huge step backwards on OS X, all because the Samba project started to use GPL v3. This ended up with developers who would have been working on patches and changes for Samba, instead working on their own closed-source implementation that, quite frankly, was nowhere near as good or as mature as Samba.
I asked a lead developer at Samba about this at the time (Tridge), and he said it was fine, Apple wasn't contributing very much anyway.
It was really Apple's loss (and their customers) in that case.
Re: (Score:2)
Could you run an FTP or SSH/SFTP server on your Windows file server, so that the Mac user can connect using a publicly documented protocol?
Re: (Score:2)
if you want a different license, choose a different license.
plenty of sw is now under apach2 or bsd or whatever.
basically if you release it under gplv3 then you were never intending it to be used in closed source products, which is fine.
however, they guys could if they were just distributing android sw claim that the source code is included, just decompile the app. :D. if they would push it through a decompile-recompile loop _before_ release, then for android it would take care of that already, since it wou
Re: (Score:3)
I feel that the viral licensing clauses in GPL v3 will ultimately hinder the further development of software.
I think it's great for educational/learning/teaching purposes and bad for business situations. I think it's restricted itself out of practical usage, in it's determination to be open and not restrictive, it's achieved the opposite. Based on the amount of MIT licenses I see on github and in source, I think many people share this view.
Re: (Score:3)
The GPL3 isn't a single bit more 'viral' than the GPL2 which Apple had used - so clearly virality had nothing to do with their decision.
Apple however is the grand pubahs of walled gardens, hardware lock-downs/lock-ins and patent insanity -things the GPL3 does pursue more strenuously - specifically there are rules in there that states that if your program is meant for a particular device you cannot make it so modified versions cannot run on the same device (AKA the TIVO problem).
That is what Apple doesn't li
Re: (Score:3)
If you don't check the license on a library BEFORE you use it then you're incompetent at best.
Re: (Score:2)
It's trivial to install Samba on OS X.
Step 1. Install Xcode [apple.com]
Step 2. Install MacPorts [macports.org]
Step 3. sudo port install samba3 or sudo port install samba4
Apple can't include Samba out of the box with OS X due to issues linking to GPL v3 libraries and issues due to foregoing patent lawsuits if using GPL v3 code, but there's nothing stopping you from adding it yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
That has nothing to do with the GPL. Copyright is a complicated mess. The GPL is relatively straightforward. (Especially by comparison.)
The GPL says: you can follow these simple rules, or go obey regular copyright law. Google chose to obey copyright law, and wrote their own version of Java not based on Oracle's GPL'd code. That's how they got into trouble. If Dalvik had been GPL'd from the start, Google would have been just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Common sense dictates that copyright should not extend to API
Common sense dictates nothing of the sort. Common sense tells you that it's a difficult legal problem: On the one hand, good APIs are obviously creative works (don't believe me? Try writing code that uses OpenSSL sometime. A bad API is far less valuable than a good API). On the other hand, not allowing clean-room reimplementations of well-defined interfaces makes it very easy for vendor lock-in, which is problematic for a well functioning industry. Striking the balance between these is difficult.
Re: (Score:2)
If APIs can't be copyrighted, and your code is not GPL, but you don't bundle the required library together with the application you should be clear.
But if you make an installer that downloads the required libraries, prompts the user for confirmation and shows the GPL license, technically you're not bundling the DLL and common sense says it should be legal.
On the other hand, common sense says that torrents and youtube download link generators sh
Re: (Score:2)
Torrents and download link generators ARE legal - unless they're being used in a fashion that's aiding and abetting copyright infringement. Which is typically illegal, regardless of the mechanism.
Re: (Score:2)
>Common sense says invoking a linked library doesn't make my application a derivative work, but that's exactly what some people want the GPL to be.
No common sense says the exact opposite. Lazy freeloading says what you're hearing. You seem to have them confused.
Re: (Score:2)
Except linking isn't performed to APIs, it's performed through them. The API itself is useless except as an interface. So long as your program doesn't rely on a FOSS library to function, you're fine. But if you're compiling against a FOSS library's API, that pretty much means you'd need to ship with a complete re-implementation of the library. (or at least the portions you use) Which in most cases defeats the purpose of using the API in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
It is, in theory, a very real concern. I'm fairly certain though that most/all the system-interface libraries on Linux explicitly grant permission for normal usage without invoking the GPL.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, WIX? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Same here.
not that complicated (Score:5, Informative)
People who READ the GPL can figure it out. Those who INTERPRET it to suit their own agenda get it wrong (like SCSI specs, for example).
If you publish a program that incorporates GPL (not LGPL) source, you have to make that source, plus any of your changes, plus instructions/tools to build the program to those to whom you have distributed the program (no distribution -> no requirement), and you can not use a more-restrictive license on the program source. Putting the bundle on a web site is acceptable, but NOT a requirement, as long as you provide the bundle at nominal charge to the recipients of the program. You do NOT have to give it to anyone else.
Re:not that complicated (Score:4, Insightful)
People who READ the GPL can figure it out. Those who INTERPRET it to suit their own agenda get it wrong (...) If you publish a program that incorporates GPL (not LGPL) source
Actually I'd say it is a mess, not because of the GPL but the way software works. Any time you make a function, you make an interface. Any time you have an interface, you can have multiple implementations that don't really derivate from each other. Principally there's no difference between the Linux kernel's user API, module API and internal API. It's just ways for code to call other code. Or an application and plug-ins. Or a command line tool and a GUI. Or a service and its administration tool. What about interpreted languages, web services, JVMs and so on if you call it, you incorporate it?
They try to exclude some bits:
However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
What if you're making a set top box, could you distribute an open source tool on a proprietary OS if they accompany each other?
The FSF is admitting this is a bit wobbly:
Where's the line between two separate programs, and one program with two parts? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are interchanged).
If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication between them is limited to invoking the âmainâ(TM) function of the plug-in with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline case.
And these questions presume the plug-in knows what's on the other side of the interface.
Can I apply the GPL when writing a plug-in for a non-free program?
Can I release a non-free program that's designed to load a GPL-covered plug-in?
What if it's a standard? Say for the sake of argument both Photoshop and GIMP had a common tool plug-in. Could you legally write GPL plug-ins for it? Proprietary plug-ins? Could they live together on a CD?
A modern service bus or something like that really makes a mess of the simple compiled/linked world of the GPL.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What if you're making a set top box, could you distribute an open source tool on a proprietary OS if they accompany each other?
This has been clarified in V3. And yes, you can distribute OS tools on a proprietary operating system, it happens all the time.
Can I release a non-free program that's designed to load a GPL-covered plug-in?
Note that this only applies to someone requiring or shipping a GPL plug-in with their proprietary app. If they just implement a common interface and the user chooses to load a GPL plug-in, that's fine.
It's to cover proprietary apps using GPL dynamic libraries loaded at run time. Otherwise developers could use GPL code in their proprietary apps by just compiling it into a DLL rather
Re: (Score:2)
t's to cover proprietary apps using GPL dynamic libraries loaded at run time. Otherwise developers could use GPL code in their proprietary apps by just compiling it into a DLL rather than statically linking at compile time.
Admittedly even Rosen - one of the authors - admits there is a gray area regarding linking and where the boundary falls. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Linking_and_derived_works)
Really? (Score:3)
How is there even any wiggle room? If you distribute a app that contains GPL code, you must make your source code available, period.
Folks in general tolerate a little lag between app release and code release, but if you actually want to follow the spirit of the GPL, your source should be available at the time of distribution because you don't really have a fully valid license to distribute your GPL containing work until it is.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Informative)
That depends on how your app "contains" the GPL code. This part of the GPL V2 is applicable:
Re: (Score:2)
That's kind of riding the ragged edge of pedantry, though still worth mentioning since that's pretty much the rule with legal topics.
Generally speaking though, "GPLed code" refers to "code that you have license to use under the GPL" - which is not the case if you're the actual copyright holder, in which case you have pretty much absolute unrestricted rights to use and license it as you see fit.
Though of course that changes dramatically if you accept contributions without a copyright assignment. In which cas
caught redhanded (Score:3, Interesting)
Mullenweg: your app uses GPL code so you have to obey the licence, which you're not doing.
Abrahami: OH WE LOVE OPEN SOURCE WE PUT STUFF ON GITHUB ALL THE TIME
what a prick
A bit of hyperbole (Score:2)
Stolen -- incorrect and inflammatory verb use.
Unattributed -- The repo is named "wix/WordPress-Editor-Android" ... I would call that a pretty explicit case of attribution.
Wix seems to be in compliance with the GPL. The source for the entire version of their editor is available on GitHub. Matt Mullenweg seems to be aware of this repo and yet he insists that there is some additional and unidentified code that is not publicly available. When one uses terms like "stolen", it is irresponsible to not be explic
Re: (Score:2)
Stolen -- incorrect and inflammatory verb use.
Unattributed -- The repo is named "wix/WordPress-Editor-Android" ... I would call that a pretty explicit case of attribution.
Wix seems to be in compliance with the GPL. The source for the entire version of their editor is available on GitHub. Matt Mullenweg seems to be aware of this repo and yet he insists that there is some additional and unidentified code that is not publicly available. When one uses terms like "stolen", it is irresponsible to not be explicit about the details.
The question is if the distributed Wix mobile app linked to the GPL code. If it's linked, then you also need to post the source code to the Wix mobile app.
Depends on how it is linked - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] - but you could be riding a dangerous line.
That said, I opened up Wix's GitHub site, did a search for "word" and found 3 repos - 2 were forks, and the third is likely the project in question. Analyzing that third project (licensed under a MIT permissive license) - it's got some Java (Android) and Objective C (iOS) code; and I think you'd be hard pressed to call it linking by any form. Both rely on a third party parser to do the JavaScript in
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Below is a summary of what's in the GPL v3 (as I understand it). The summary is organised so that rights are presented as a numbered list, and corresponding responsibilities are listed under each right. In brackets after each line is a reference to the corresponding section, subsection, paragraph, and sentence in the actual GPL v3 (these are all numbered from 0). Hope this helps.
Re:GPL Bullet-Points (Score:5, Informative)
Trolling, much?
The GPL is about 15 pages (including the preamble). It's much more readable than most contracts and licenses.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. And the preamble does a pretty good job of explaining the basic contract:
If you use our code in your project, you have to share your project's code under the same (or more permissive) terms.
v3 adds a few other caveats to prevent patent poisoning and tivoization, but basically, as long as you're okay with that basic contract, you're good to go. And if you're not... then you probably want to stay away from using GPL code, and you won't be missed by the community.
Re:GPL Bullet-Points (Score:4, Informative)
Errr... Linux is still licensed under the GPLv2.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Even the US government refuses to use or do anything with it out of fear and out-lash of some opensource lawyer"
There are lots of people developing on Linux and if the Gubbermint is in fear of being taking down by RMS, they can just buy their Linux software from Redhat.
Re: (Score:2)
Please provide link. Considering how awful Acrobat Reader DC is, I'd be interested in PDF viewers that don't even come close to it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's great. But to what extent does this go to? I've heard some extreme cases where if you use the libraries and only link the libraries, you have to make your code GPL.
The short version is that if you distribute a derivative work, that derivative work must be licensed under the same licence. The bit that you wrote may be licensed under any licence that you want (including dual-licensing) as long as the derivative work as a whole is licensed under the GPL.
What you're really asking is what exactly a "derivative work" is when it comes to software. The short answer is that nobody really knows where the line is drawn precisely (or if there is a precise line at all), and it pro
Re: (Score:3)
You can't use a more permissive licence without question.
You absolutely can't re-licence other peoples code in ways that give more rights than the authors gave with the licence without their consent.
in some cases other licences are compatible with the GPL.
Re: (Score:3)
With V2, you could link to GPL'd code, or use GPL'd libraries, in your closed source project and that was OK. If you made changes to the GPL'd code, you needed to make the source for the changes available to anyone who you distributed the software to.
No, this is very much not true. What you are describing is the LGPL, not the GPL2.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly this.
The biggest changes with GPLv3 were the introduction of downstream patent amnesty and anti-tivoization clauses. NOT library changes. GPL2 expressly prohibits linking from non-GPLed code.
Re: (Score:2)