Due to the ongoing debate on Slashdot about the superiority - or inferiority of the GPL, I decided to write your opinion on this issue. It is true that the debate has died down, however, decided to put the text of my work on my blog. Maybe someone need?
For now, no links, because podlinkowywanie would take too much time, if someone says they need not go ahead.
And one more thing Copyrights - you can feel free to use these passages in their works only, please note that bazowaliście on it:) ps
. There are some errors in the text.
text was prepared with the help and opinions blinkkina trasza.
GPL is now probably the most used free software license. Used in many projects, even in Linux, GCC, the GNU qemu or userlandzie. However, it is subject to increasingly frequent and aggressive criticism. So for that reason we are interested in the arguments of opponents of this license.
Wirusowość, "incompatibility" with the other license and derivative works.
GPL was created to protect the freedom of code, so it has a mechanism wirusowości lies on the fact that the inclusion of GPL'd code to another license, or even dynamically link against - makes the whole code becomes GPL'em and must be distributed under this license . (according to the developers license - FSF)
against the idea of \u200b\u200bgreat projects and even closed - Hyper-V, but this solution also wirusuje not copyleftowe free licenses, which leads even to the peculiar situations such as rewriting the LVM driver for * BSD file system NILFS zawirusować kernel not to GPL code (as well as linking any wirusuje), resulting in GPLowskie drivers, file systems, libraries of Linux-based systems this license can not be used in systems with other licenses because the license will change the whole kernel which will cause enormous organizational problems, the effect is not one of the project may not GPLowskiego incorporated into GPL code, but the code under the GPL, you can turn most of the code in the liberal licenses. Interestingly GPL
you to link to only one license - but only from the AGPL version of the third. Currently
deritive works is the most complicated problem of the General Public License in which virtually no one knows what is and what is not derivative work. Wirusowości parallel concept is not introduced directly into this license even more difficult the full interpretation (for example, Linus Torvalds sentence is different from the FSF). And only a clear appeal court would be able to resolve both disputes.
As curiosity I might add that the sale of skins as a result of premium wordperssie wirusowości GPL forces to make it public, however, recommends using the GNU AGPL for web applications and wordpress for this use - by virtue of the GPLv2 is not compatible to the AGPL is a mere violation of a license.
Linking Exceptions.
As you know has a list of GPL-compatible license that can be included in the code under the GPL, you can also closed or zawirusować code based on the liberal license, but what happens if the code goes to the weak copyleft GPL or the zlinkuje? It turns out that's because these binaries can not be legally distributed.
However, it found a way - Linking Exceptions are modified based licenses and gplu it compatible. They allow a merger with the various incompatible licenses and even with closed source. This practice is often used in many systems and in the case RT compilers.
this point I gave as a curiosity because it is not subjected to criticism from communities liberal and even considered a partial solution to the problems of GPLem, despite an even greater entanglement of this license. Loading
closed helm.
In Linux, there are closed reins from nvidia for example, modules on the license incompatible with the GPL or ZFS is available from the nucleus does not fuse. It turns out that a way of introducing them is quite trivial, the kernel loads the boot loader is a special closed modules under LGPL, this program will, in turn, loads the modules closed after booting the kernel. Even prawniczne environment and development is divided as to the legality of this practice, some distributions using the purified linux-libre still others are based on closed-stacked.
PatentLeft.
gplu second edition did not regulate patents, which the license was incompatible with the Apache license which was annexed to the patent / g of the licensee would get a patent right which has received a draft if the draft license is suing him to undo.
in turn regulates the GPLv3 patent in a manner similar to the strong copyleft copyright - if the company receives a patent associated with the project it is immediately added to the pool open patents, and if another company was based on the patented the idea in the code, may be forced to publish their code under the GPLv3. Hence, some companies prohibit look at the GPLv3 and the environment * BSD system is a standard two-year base GCC version 4.2.1 (the latest version of the GPLv2), also prepared to change the default komplatorów (Clang, PCC).
size and language License
Exactly if you read all the GPLv2? maybe v3 któranawet after removal of the preamble and the limited liability clause is still more than 5,000 words and is much longer than its predecessor? On codexonie is to compare a FreeBSD license GPLv2 differences can be seen with the naked eye. Of course, proponents of the GPL indicate that only the license can fully protect the interests of free software, but not as the end of the GPLv3 because it only solves problems such as, issues of software patents, DRM protection, compatibility with the Apache license, codes and legal systems tiwoizacji dealings. But in effect the license has become huge in terms of size, should be compared with a similar newly created license that is MPLv2.
The second thing is that how it is written, in order to correctly interpret it The Software Freedom Law Center has issued special guide. As if that were not enough for lawyers in Germany issued a book on the interpretation of the GPL in their legal systems. And this is supposed to be licensed to developers clearly understood, since lawyers tend to have with her interprtacja problems? And the exceptions in the GPL only exacerbate this problem.
Dual Licensing. Officially
can not close the code which is under the GPL, so what if you can avoid it simply by adopting a program on the two licenses? Unfortunately, it's getting more frequent dealings.
probably known to many people playing Nexuiz, in which the developer won the right to play by lojalki and purchase a license from id software as a result became the owner of the code and it could be closed relicencjonować the code allowing its sale, the current Nexuiz is a continuation of the project from what was already published on GPLu.
Even more advanced case is min. with PyQT, some RT systems, mysql and now VirtualBox. To develop the program and add a sign commits LOJALKI as a result of which gives the owner the right to the code which can then go ahead and sell it relicencjonować well as closed-source developers, unfortunately, rarely get something from it. (FSF also uses lojalek.)
But this is not the most curious in all this went ADACORE company engaged in the development of the language of the ADA (known in the rt and embeed), it was decided that the compiler, runtime and libraries in the free version of Gnat GPL are released on a clean GPLu without exception (as opposed to such as GCC). As a result, the binaries for each program that you choose to distribute to spend on GPLu. Of course, AdaCore Gnat PRO found a solution which is used in the license exception (GMGPL) which does not infect GPLem binarii, but for the luxury you need to pay or to use alternative less developed a compiler for that language. Oddly
Richard Stallman has supported this practice, the post also appeared on one of MySQL developers, who raised the criticism, describing how the licensing podójne looks in reality.
rights to the code.
And as in all of this is the situation when the project develops, several organizations (let's say 3) and suddenly start arguing about which code for one of them wants to relicencjonować. Then too there is a problem and the only solution in such cases is excision of the disputed code and rewriting passages removed again. Often leads to peculiar situations when a project under the GPL is not no owner (like Linux), then any change in the rules relicencjonowanie developingu or may not take place. Hence, corporations on some projects may dopychać much code as needed to be able to decide this way about the direction of the project, is not advantageous for himself or the community of artists.
But for something that might be useful for a license?
On one side is the liberal software licenses that the GPL in the majority loses unable to use the GPL code in their projects, unless the creators decided that they do not want to have ties to the license (Examples are even Emulator Hersules, OpenSolaris, Aros and Open SSL), or the holder of the code under the GPL will spend it on other more lenient license.
On the other hand, after my heartless criticism: D I found a great place where the license can find a new niche - the industry. Currently
arise programmed FPGA (as Minimig) or projects under the GPL processors which are designed to facilitate the creation of projects for young engineers and help them find the manufacturer of the finished produce. What will come of this? Time will show.
0 comments:
Post a Comment