Sign in to follow this  
TheVirtualDragon

Open Source Downgration

Recommended Posts

Cornstalks    7030
[quote name='TheVirtualDragon' timestamp='1349971305' post='4989137']
So if I use QT to develop my application, then the overall application could be, say, MIT, because it is compatible with GPL?
[/quote]
No, it's because it's compatible with the [b][u][i]L[/i][/u][/b]GPL. LGPL != GPL. Your conclusion is correct (you can license your app under the MIT license), but your reasoning is wrong (not because it's compatible with the GPL). You can use Qt under the GPL, in which case you have to license your code as GPL, or you can use Qt under the LGPL, in which case you can license your code however you want (or keep it closed source), so long as you properly use/link to Qt (namely, dynamically link to it).

You can dual-license a library and allow people to use it under two different licences (for example, GPL and LGPL), whichever they prefer. You can triple-license, or N-license (where N is any number) it, and let users choose which license to use (or pay for the option to use a particular license). Edited by Cornstalks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cornstalks    7030
[quote name='derda4' timestamp='1349938438' post='4988987']
[quote name='SimonForsman' timestamp='1349802550' post='4988411']
(GPLv3 isn't anywhere near as popular as v2 was)
[/quote]

What is the difference, if I release something with GPL version 2 or 3?
[/quote]
Do [i]not[/i] quote me on this, because I'm not sure, but I recall reading that the main difference between the (L)GPL v2 and v3 is that v3 allows the library to link to and use other libraries that may be using licenses different from the (L)GPL. It arose from some ambiguous wording in v2, so they modified v2 to clarify their intention. I think they clarified some other ambiguities as well. It's essentially the same, but more explicit in some of the previously ambiguous areas. This is just what I remember reading, and it could entirely wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bregma    9200
[quote name='derda4' timestamp='1349938438' post='4988987']
[quote name='SimonForsman' timestamp='1349802550' post='4988411']
(GPLv3 isn't anywhere near as popular as v2 was)
[/quote]

What is the difference, if I release something with GPL version 2 or 3?
[/quote]
The main difference is that if you distribute something under GPLv2 and own patents on some of the thoughts and ideas represented by that code, if you're in the USA you can sue the fiving luck out of whoever uses the software built from your code for anything. GPLv3 basically adds a clause saying that if you have patents on the software you can not use the GPLv3. The GPLv3 also has an anti-tivoization clause (if your binaries are encrypted, the encryption key must be distributed so they can be replaced). Note that GPLv2 is not compatible with GPLv3.

A lot of people do not use the GPLv3 because Linus Torvalds says it sucks. If through some miracle he could convince all of the copyright holders i the Linux kernel, living and dead, to switch to the GPLv3 then Linux would disappear from the face of the earth because all the billion-dollar companies that back it (like IBM, Google, Red Hat and Microsoft) would run like little girls from the creeper van. Those companies rely on patents for much of their livelihoods.

Where I work we are required to use GPLv3 for most of our code.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mhagain    13430
If I had to choose between the two I'd prefer GPL3 because of the greater clarity in the system library stuff, but on balance my preferred approach if releasing code is to just public domain it. Sure, it means that nasty evil bad people can take it, use it, sell it, not give credit and not contribute it back, but hey - I'll live with that.

That's one area where I take issue with the GPL concept of "freedom" - unless you're free to also do the wrong thing, I don't really see it as being "free".

Regarding the mention of Doom on the previous page, as id Software are the original copyright holders they are perfectly allowed to relicense the (original) code under any other terms they wish to other parties if they wish, or even reuse it themselves if they so wish. There's absolutely nothing different there to what you see with other programs where two or more licensing options may be available.

This is addressed in the GPL FAQ here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ReleaseUnderGPLAndNF (although interestingly a subsequent entry seems to contradict it).

This is another problem with the GPL. A lot of what you may call "GPL zealots" (for want of a better term) seem to have a rather poor understanding of what actually is or isn't allowed by the GPL, and many seem to have never actually read the license. That leads to fiascos such as cries of "GPL violation!" when someone tries to sell a GPL program (which is in fact perfectly legal) and the whole shitstorm around Nexuiz (see http://games.slashdot.org/story/10/03/22/1859212/Nexuiz-Founder-Licenses-It-For-Non-GPL-Use).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Daaark    3553
@mhagain: Or like this? [url="http://linux.slashdot.org/story/12/10/11/1918251/alan-cox-to-nvidia-you-cant-use-dma-buf"]http://linux.slashdo...ant-use-dma-buf[/url] [img]http://public.gamedev.net//public/style_emoticons/default/smile.png[/img] Edited by Daaark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mhagain    13430
[quote name='Daaark' timestamp='1349985398' post='4989223']
@mhagain: Or like this? [url="http://linux.slashdot.org/story/12/10/11/1918251/alan-cox-to-nvidia-you-cant-use-dma-buf"]http://linux.slashdo...ant-use-dma-buf[/url] [img]http://public.gamedev.net//public/style_emoticons/default/smile.png[/img]
[/quote]

That's nuts.

I can understand GPL issues with the [i]code[/i], but the [i]concept[/i] also being prohibited is firmly into crazy-land. It's taking everything that's wrong with the US software patent system and re-inventing it in GPL territory. Somebody ought to be hanging their head in shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike.Popoloski    3258
[quote name='mhagain' timestamp='1349989050' post='4989262']
[quote name='Daaark' timestamp='1349985398' post='4989223']
@mhagain: Or like this? [url="http://linux.slashdot.org/story/12/10/11/1918251/alan-cox-to-nvidia-you-cant-use-dma-buf"]http://linux.slashdo...ant-use-dma-buf[/url] [img]http://public.gamedev.net//public/style_emoticons/default/smile.png[/img]
[/quote]

That's nuts.

I can understand GPL issues with the [i]code[/i], but the [i]concept[/i] also being prohibited is firmly into crazy-land. It's taking everything that's wrong with the US software patent system and re-inventing it in GPL territory. Somebody ought to be hanging their head in shame.
[/quote]

Yeah well, the whole GPL in general is just a sneaky way to charge people for the use of your code. They like to pretend they're making it "free", but in reality, for library level code, they've just changed from charging [i]money[/i] to charging [i]source code[/i], which requires time and therefore money to produce. At least commercial libraries are up-front about it and (usually) make a few guarantees about quality and support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Heath    357
[quote name='mhagain' timestamp='1349985123' post='4989222']Regarding the mention of Doom on the previous page, as id Software are the original copyright holders they are perfectly allowed to relicense the (original) code under any other terms they wish to other parties if they wish, or even reuse it themselves if they so wish. There's absolutely nothing different there to what you see with other programs where two or more licensing options may be available.[/quote]
Got it. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this