Hacker News Reader

Comment by PeterWhittaker | Hacker News Reader

Interesting concept, am curious how this withstands community review and analysis.

Bit puzzled though, by the statement made immediately after stating that it is GPL2: For commercial, legitimate applications, please contact the author for the appropriate licensing arrangements.

Since the GPL2 doesn't permit restricting what others do with GPLd software, I don't think this statement is doing what the author hopes; they might want to consult a lawyer.

(IANAL, etc., but there is nothing in there to prevent me, e.g., from building a business out of this, charging gazillions, and keeping it all for myself, provided I make the source available to my customers.)

View on HN

Provided you make the source for any derivative works available to your customers.

It’s not uncommon that in situations where that’s undesirable (e.g. a closed-source C library that statically links a GPL’d project) that the library owner pays a fee for a separate license allowing that closed-source distribution.

Also, this is sometimes done when it’s not strictly legally necessary, either for risk avoidance or as a way to support the project in corporate environments where “licensing fee” gets waved through but “donation” gets blocked.

I believe the this doesn't apply if you're using existing APIs or using GPL code as a library, otherwise many many corporate codebases would be forced to be open sourced.

GPL absolutely applies when using a library (unless a separate exception has been made). Of course, the LGPL is often used for libraries when this isn't desired by the author.

> or using GPL code as a library

No. The copyleft nature still applies to libraries. That's why the LGPL exists. And the exception in the license for gcc for programs compiled by gcc.

Only if you distribute the binary/source of the GPLd library. You may build a non-GPL program that dynamically links with a GPL library and freely distribute it. As long as your program does not contain copyrightable code, you do not have to comply with the licence requirements, because you do not need a licence at all to do that. Same applies for static linking if you only distribute the source and require your users compile the program themselves.

This is not limited to GPL, but applies to proprietary libraries as well. It's OK to require a proprietary library at runtime and you don't need a licence to do that. As long as you do not distribute some intellectual property, copyright law and its limitations are not applicable at all.

This sounds quite assertive, so compulsory "IANAL, this is just my interpretation".

This all sounds awful close to the whole CLISP/ReadLine debacle. Basically, CLISP (a Lisp implementation) originally linked to ReadLine, a GNU library under the GPL. Richard Stallman argued that the author of CLISP had to remove ReadLine or license CLISP under the GPL.

The author originally created his own non-GPL library with the same interface as ReadLine and distributed that, noting that the user could (at their own option) link CLISP with GNU ReadLine instead if they wanted that functionality. Stallman argued that wasn't sufficient.

In the end, CLISP ended up being relicensed to GPL. Note though that no judge ever looked at it, so things might have turned out differently if it had gone to court.

Note that if your program is very intertwined with the library, it might still be considered a derivative work.

The Linux kernel has opinions about this: symbols marked with EXPORT_SYMBOL are considered symbols that every operating system would have, so using them doesn't mean you are writing a derivative work. Symbols market with EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL are considered implementation details so specific to Linux that if you use them, you can't say that your module isn't derivative of Linux.

I love these progressively more descriptive details about the GPL/LGPL. It's like a manifestation of the Futurama "You are technically correct; the best kind of correct" meme

You can buy your way out of the GPL if the authors are willing to relicense.

Stallman was actually an advocate of doing this.

https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions

Agreed, cf other comments below. My impression is that that is what this person hopes for and that they think that somehow the GPL prevents others from using this code commercially, which it manifestly does not. (Such use would be subject to the GPL, of course.)

I believe the author is saying they're willing to relicense the software for commercial integrations.

I believe you're right, that was my conclusion as well. I'm not sure that that will accomplish what they hoped.

To continue my original example, I could, in theory, take this code, ensure that it works with arbitrary independent pseudo-services, create my own such services, under a proprietary licence, and distribute the whole as an aggregate, which is permitted by the GPL.

The author likely seeks to provide commercial licensing for those interested in integrating their pseudo-services as libraries, which would require either that they be GPLd or that the original code be licensed in some other way.

I hope the author achieves the success they hope for without the licensing and legal hell they may have set themselves up for. It can be a great disappointment to have one's work turned into someone else's success by a someone or someones with more legal and licence cunning than one's self.

(Note: that ain't me, I've just seen that exact scenario playout more than a fair few times....)

Yes, people can do that. It's inconvenient and risky, so serious customer prospects will pay to avoid it. This is one of the more common open source commercialization strategies; one of the earlier examples is Sleepycat.

The original copyright holder can enforce what they like

Not quite: once you GPL something, while you retain copyright and can licence it in other ways, the GPL itself forbids you from restricting what others can do with it if they take it under the GPL; the one thing they cannot do is change its licence, but you cannot prevent them from selling it, e.g. The FSF are very, very clear on this.

You don't care, because whatever a GPL taker does, they're still bound by the viral copyleft, you're not, and you can sell that privilege to others.

Not if the original author stills holds the copyright, which is likely the case: the GPL does NOT remove your copyright, and in fact depends upon it.

I understand us to be talking about the options available to the original copyright holder, yes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com