Hacker News Reader

It's scary to think that the people that have talked about Freedom for so long are getting just as restrictive and bad as the RIAA/MPAA.

Despite your scare language, this isn't new. "Why you shouldn't use the Lesser GPL for your next library" [1] was written in 1999.

One of the defining features of the GPL (or any copyleft license) is its reciprocal or "viral" nature. It was created to define an ecosystem distinct from one where source could be encumbered or hidden. And has been updated many times to maintain that ideology in the face of changing laws and legal precedents.

It's a choice to work in the GPL ecosystem. There's a lot of BSD software offering an option that many argue is "more free."

[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html

"One of the defining features of the GPL (or any copyleft license) is its reciprocal or "viral" nature. It was created to define an ecosystem distinct from one where source could be encumbered or hidden. And has been updated many times to maintain that ideology in the face of changing laws and legal precedents."

There needs to be more warnings out there for businesses to steer clear of anything under the GPL. To call the GPL "freedom" is just laughable. It's a vile license used to feed a political movement. Nothing more.

I'm sorry I bit for your earlier troll.

The text of the GPL is very clear about what it's trying to accomplish on behalf of end users. The industry has been publicly debating the ethics and consequences of copyleft for literally decades. If anyone still hasn't figured out whether it's appropriate for their business (which is far from the hardest decision they'll ever face!) there's just no reaching them.

anything compiled using the GNU compiler would be also under the GNU (since you would be compiling libraries from this compiler straight into your application/binary and calling function names

There is an explicit exception in the GCC licensing to allow compiled programs incorporating GCC runtime code to be distributed under any license the author wishes. You can read more about this topic at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html

The compiled program is in fact a derivative work of the incorporated libraries and it is only this explicit exception which allows for the greater work to be redistributed under another license.

Then taking it all the way down to the hardware, every user of x86 should be required to agree to a license agreement to use an x86 processor since it 'interprets' opcodes on-the-fly thus everything that uses x86 is under an intel license QED. I don't know the full details of the thesis theme but use an API doesn't constitute violation of the GPL v2 - see: tivo and thousands of routers, wireless cards, etc.

The are multiple licenses for the x86 ISA. And companies that produce common chipsets specifically allow open development on top of them. They make more money that way.

This wasn't always the case, though.

It's easy to forget history.

My example may have been flawed (it was meant for exaggeration ) but the point still remains that API use is fine under GPL v2.

I assume you have successfully litigated this position in a US court on multiple occasions?

Tivo has released sources for the GPL covered portions of its software (http://www.tivo.com/linux/index.html ).

At least some router manufacturers have also released source code as required by the GPL. For example, see D-Link http://tsd.dlink.com.tw/GPL.asp and Cisco http://homesupport.cisco.com/en-us/gplcodecenter .

Tivo releases what they see as either not a competitive advantage or a burden to maintain. Just like Nvidia releases the shim but nothing relating the how the hardware works - it's a business they aren't here to plant daisies in the FOSS fields there here to make a bottom line.

Open Source and Free Software have clearly defined rules ... unrestricted redistribution is not one of those rules.

> It really boils down to the definition of a "derivative work".

That definition is in the GPL. It's not exactly the same definition as that of a "derivate" in the copyright law, but that's a gray area anyway and nothing else besides the GPL gives you the right to create something like Thesis.

Other people besides yourself also want to protect their rights. If it's some author's wish to release code under the GPL, he might have good reasons for doing so, and you'd better respect that choice or use something else.

> As a developer, why would I want to create any Wordpress plugins or themes if someone else is going to lay claim to my work

This is what I call being a hypocrite.

Hypocrite has nothing to do with it. He's free, as a developer, to create derived works from GPL code, and nobody else is free to claim ownership of his work but him. He can use the stuff he created all he wants.

What he's not free to do is distribute those works without complying with the GPL or otherwise coming to an agreement with the copyright holders to allow him to do so.

If glibc were GPL instead of LGPL, you would have to release anything you linked to it under the GPL.