GPL does not tie your hands necessarily - Re: Rchard Stallman vs Darl McBride

Michael Torrie torriem at gmail.com
Wed Jul 21 07:38:14 MDT 2010


On 07/20/2010 10:21 PM, Levi Pearson wrote:
>> If your wrote *all* the code yourself, you absolutely can release only
>> part of it under the GPL.
> 
> Yes, but that negates the power of using open source building blocks.
> I assumed some other copyright holders in the mix, either from the
> beginning or from accepting contributions under the GPL without
> copyright reassignment.

Well incompatible licenses should be a concern no matter what license
you are working with.  I don't think a GPL library author owes you as a
developer anything.  So use something that's compatible with your
license.  If no one can use a library because it's GPL, then it will die
and be replaced with something else.  I don't see your concern as a
genuine problem.  If you're working on a proprietary, commercial
project, for example, then you should have already taken this into
consideration.

Also, many GPL'd projects (even ones with multiple copyright holders)
are licensed under several different licenese.

> Yes, but that's GPL-with-exceptions, not vanilla GPL.  Structuring
> things correctly and coming up with the necessary exceptions and all
> that seem needlessly complicated to me.

Well, as I said, writing a special exception to the GPL is not strictly
necessary for the copyright holder(s).  But a GPL-with-exceptions
license can become a vanilla GPL license for the derivative author.  Any
exception to the GPL need not live past the first generation if you as
the developer choose that to be so.


More information about the PLUG mailing list