> If it is a derived work of your comment, then you are the copyright holder for this comment
Is that correct? I am also not a lawyer, but this seems wrong to me.
If I make something that is a derived work of some other copyrighted work, my understanding is that I still own the copyright on the parts of the final work that I made (assuming what I made meets the thresholds for being copyrightable). But I am not permitted to distribute that work unless I receive a license to do so from the owner of the work I've derived from.
My understanding seems to dovetail with how the GPL works. If I write a program that links to a GPL library, and that does indeed cause my program to become a derived work of the GPL library, I still own the copyright to my program. In order to distribute my program, I have to abide by the terms of the GPL. But even if I were to violate the terms of the GPL (thus terminating my rights under the GPL), I still would not lose my copyright interest in the program I wrote, only my right to distribute it.
> The GPL is a license that applies only to software code and not to the end-user software.
I don't know what you are trying to say with this. Binary code distributed to end users is a derived work of the source code, so there is no difference between distributing source code or binary code, from any point of view. And if I illegally create a copy of X's work and sell that copy to Y, X has a right to ask for Y's copy to be destroyed.
And again, I was explicitly talking about the fact that work A can be a derived work of work B even if A includes no amount of B directly. If I re-tell Harry Potter in my own words, replacing every single phrase, name etc., but otherwise keeping the story identical in every way, then my work is almost certainly a derived work of Harry Potter and J.K. Rowling is the only one who has a legal right to distribute the work I created - which also means she has a right to ask for the destruction of all copies of said work that I illegally distributed (not that this would be too easy to enforce).
Similarly, the question arises: if I create a program that has a GCC-shaped hole in it, and distribute to end-users under a proprietary license, to be used with a copy of GCC that they obtain separately, is my work a derived work of GCC or not? This is a real legal question that the GPL has no bearing on.
> But then, does this mean anyone can ask for the source of closed-source software that use GPL code, like the ones below? (I just dug two random examples).
If their software is a derivative work of someone else's code then they can't distribute their software without a license from the copyright holder of that code. In the case of the GPL, that licenses them only to distribute their code under the GPL. If they are distributing their software other than under the GPL, then that is copyright infringement (in the same way as if they had made a derived work of some non-GPL code and distributed that), they lose their license, and any holder of a copyright on the code that their software was a derivative work of could sue them for copyright infringement. (In theory they sue for damages; in practice the copyright holder of GPLed code they made a derivative of will usually settle for compliance and an agreement to have their future releases audited).
What constitutes a derivative work is a question for the courts. It's generally accepted that any program that uses a library is a derivative work of that library, and a program that invokes another program at arms length or via a standard interface is probably not a derivative work of that program. The exact boundary is unclear; there's a case to be made that a program that is tightly coupled to another program and invokes it via piped commands might still be a derivative work even though it's not shared objects.
The LGPL is an entirely different license from the GPL.
>> if you write 9,990 lines of proprietary code and include 10 lines of GPL code, the whole 10,000 becomes GPL, right?
> No. The 9990 lines remain under whatever license you desire. The 10 lines remain GPL. You can't distribute the whole work.
It would be more accurate to say that if you distribute a combined / derivative work that incorporates those 10 lines of GPL code, you have to do so under the terms of the GPL. To do otherwise is copyright infringement of the GPL code.
> I thought when your program/library has a more permissive license you can use a GPL library without changing your license.
No, if it meets the definition of a single work (which is the only time the GPL has an effect on licensing the other material at all), the whole thing must licensed under the GPL. Within certain bounds, to allow compatibility, additional restrictions from the upstream licenses may be imposed, and for things you own you may give additional pernissions (but you cannot add permissions to upstream software included, and downstream licensors under the GPL can remove your additional permissions.)
> The definition of what is a derivative work is IMHO overreaching in GPL based licenses.
GPL doesn’t use the word “derive” and specifies modified work in a way that is consistent with the customary legal definition.
People twist things around because they want to use GPLed code without “paying” for it, but really at the end of the day it’s just an ordinary license agreement but instead of paying cash to use it you agree to give users the freedom to modify and/or redistribute the code.
Just like any other licensed code you can agree to the terms and use the code or disagree with the terms and use something else.
>Please try understand copyright law when making statements about it.
I understand it quite well. You are simply confused. The GPL gives you permission to do things that you couldn't do otherwise due to copyright law. But it gives you that permission under several restrictions. MIT/BSD/ISC license also give you permission to do things that you couldn't do otherwise, but does so under fewer restrictions. This is not complex or difficult to understand.
> Remind me again how the GPL preserves my freedom.
Very well.
The governments and states of the world has agreed that any written or creative works shall have owners, called “copyright holders”, who can decide who, if any, other persons shall have the right to make further copies and/or make modifications of those works. This legal arrangement is made with a few specific business models in mind, but those business models originate from the age of printing presses, and this legal arrangement is not conducive to free collaboration and improvements of the works in question, as is the expected norm in, for example, science. Some people who are, for this reason, opposed to this arrangement, noted that this arrangement is, incidentally but necessarily, giving the authors quite a lot of power, and so they constructed the GPL. The GPL is a specific use to which authors can, if they wish, put these powers they have been granted. The GPL is meant to enable the above-mentioned collaborations and improvements without having any other deleterious effects, like making the authors feel like they are being (or could be) exploited. It is quite ingenious, since if you deny the right of authors to apply the GPL, you deny the rights given them by the legal arrangement of copyright.
The specific way in which the GPL preserves your freedom depends on the work in question and your role in the situation. As a recipient of a work to which the author(s) have given you a license to use the freedoms granted by the GPL, you are permitted to do many things which would otherwise have been forbidden by copyright law. An an author, the GPL does not make you any more free (since copyright law already gives you absolute power), but the GPL is a tool which you can use to ensure that all users of your works are permitted to collaborate on and improve the work further, which might give you the incentive to produce and release more works.
> Plus it seems extra presumptuous to claim some kind of inherent right to profit off derivative works of my software. You can only distribute derivative works of it at all because I've granted you a license.
Sure, but one's choice of the GPL has signalled that one wishes that others be permitted the freedom to build upon the work and do as they wish [0] with their additions -as well as the original work- just so long as they -upon request- distribute the original and their additions to folks who have received the binaries.
[0] This includes charging for access to compiled versions of the software, access to support and documentation, etc. etc. etc. [1]
> What happens if I look at GPL source code and then author similar code under a non-GPL license?
In that case it could be argued that your similar code is a "derived work", and hence you are violating the copyright of the original.
Whether that original is GPL'd or not doesn't actually matter from a legal point of view; it could be under a different FOSS licence, or proprietary, the result is the same: if you breach the terms, you're in violation. That's the point of copyleft: it's power comes from exactly the same source as that of proprietary licenses.
In the particular case that your "non-GPL" license just so happens to be similar to the GPL, e.g. it's FOSS, possibly copyleft, etc. then the original author might be feeling generous and be willing to come to some arrangement, e.g. by retroactively granting you permission for your derived work, or by negotiating a licence change with you (changing the license of either your code, theirs or both). Note that this would be orthogonal to the legalities; it's a matter of whether the owner is willing to cooperate. This might be difficult if there are many owners though (e.g. imagine trying to negotiate a license change for the Linux kernel!)
My understanding is that it isn't under the theory of what counts as a derivative work requiring a license (and, thus, what is subject to GPLv2 in the first place) espoused by the FSF, however, I believe that view has been hotly disputed as to its accuracy under US copyright law (at least) for about as long as the GPL has existed and never been tested in court.
The FSF, in general -- as is unsurprising for entity that relies on maximally leveraging copyright protections to achieve its ends -- holds to a fairly maximalist view of the legal rights of copyright owners.
>> But if the repo was GPL then their contributions would automatically be GPL also
Because the GPL requires all (conveyed) derivative works to be GPL licensed. If they intended it to be anything else they would be in violation of the GPL.
> They oblige the author of a derived work to publish the changes to all users under the same terms. The original authors tend to be users. So, a license which would grant this directly to the original authors would end up providing the same end result since the original authors would be both allowed to and reasonably expected to distribute the derived work to their users as well.
I might be in the wrong, but this is not how I understand GPL [0]. Care to correct me if I'm wrong.
What I get from the license is that you have to share the code with the users of your program, not anyone else.
AFAIK you could do an Emacs fork and ask money for it. Not only that but the source code only needs to be available to the recipients of the software, not anyone else.
A company could have an upgraded version of a GPL tool and not share it with anyone outside the company. Theoretically employees might share the code outside, but I doubt they'd dared.
>Said differently, the GPL doesn't try to apply itself to "derived works" because of some contralegal dictum they don't have a different creative origin. It merely says "you have two choices - license the things you link with OUR stuff under OUR terms, or you don't have the right to use our stuff".
The GPL doesn't restrict use, and says so. When people say that the GPL only lets you use the work under the author's terms, "use" means things that you'd need copyright licenses for. If you aren't creating something that is a derivative work according to the legal definition, you may not be using (in this sense) the author's work at all.
This also fails for interpretations like "you can link to GPL_ONLY symbols". This isn't directly written in the license, and any kernel contributor can deny it whenever they want.
> GPL only emulates abolition of copyright. If a country properly abolishes copyright, GPL has nothing more to do.
I don’t understand your thinking. Currently you can use GPLed code in your derivative works, if you release your changes under the same license. If copyright were abolished you would be able to use any code, but have no requirement to release yours.
Maybe you mean to say that the MIT license emulates abolition of copyright? That’s still not really true, but it’s definitely closer to true.
> I thought that the license for B says you can't distribute it along side A.
Nope. The GPL explicitly says
> In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.
Is that correct? I am also not a lawyer, but this seems wrong to me.
If I make something that is a derived work of some other copyrighted work, my understanding is that I still own the copyright on the parts of the final work that I made (assuming what I made meets the thresholds for being copyrightable). But I am not permitted to distribute that work unless I receive a license to do so from the owner of the work I've derived from.
My understanding seems to dovetail with how the GPL works. If I write a program that links to a GPL library, and that does indeed cause my program to become a derived work of the GPL library, I still own the copyright to my program. In order to distribute my program, I have to abide by the terms of the GPL. But even if I were to violate the terms of the GPL (thus terminating my rights under the GPL), I still would not lose my copyright interest in the program I wrote, only my right to distribute it.
reply