The GPL is infectious; any code that uses a GPL library automatically becomes GPL as well. This is why the LGPL (Lesser GNU Public License, which was developed for libraries) exists; the LGPL is just like the GPL except it doesn't infect linked code.
In short, using a GPL'd PHP library in your application mandates that significant swaths of your application be released under the GPL as well. That's not a problem if you wanted to release under the GPL to start with, but it's a problem for anyone else on either side of the spectrum; if you wanted to be All Rights Reserved, you couldn't, and if you wanted to be freer and license under LGPL, MIT or even public domain, you couldn't do that either.
For this reason, developers have to be quite careful about how they use GPL'd software to make sure that it doesn't impose unwanted licensing restrictions.
This is somewhat lessened (at least to my reading of the GPL v3) by the "ASP hole," namely if you're running this on a server (as opposed to releasing a product) than you don't have to distribute. The parent comment mentions a web application which suggests that's the case for him.
Yes, I realize this. But that still only limits you from distributing a non-GPL application. You can still use it on your own applications or distribute it GPL(if you planned to) without cause. So in reality it only affects one of the 3 possible outcomes. I would also hazard to say that the vast majority of php release cases fit into the two segments still allowed though.
I respect peoples right to different on licensing choices(I'm not a huge fan of the GPL for my own stuff) but the wording of the original comment seemed a bit inflammatory in regards to the licensing which is why I questioned it.
While you say infectious as a bad thing, I see it as a great thing. If I choose to release something under the a permissive license, why shouldn't I ask you to share your contributions as well? I don't get what all the fuss is about lately with the GPL haters--most of whom rely on it everyday.
While you say infectious as a bad thing, I see it as a great thing. If I choose to release something under the a permissive license, why shouldn't I ask you to share your contributions as well?
For this simple situation:
What if I want to be freer than the GPL? What if I want to release my next project with a BSD license so that even commercial users or people who want to keep part of their source private can use it?
The GPL is not very suitable for commercial applications. How many fewer people do you think would be using GCC if not for the special exception that allows you to produce GPL-free binaries?
You can use GPL licensed software and sell it. There is nothing preventing you from commercially exploiting GPL licensed software. In fact there are plenty of companies doing so. You just have to include the source.
You might find this less attractive for your (commercial) goals and needs, but I find it quite attractive and important to have access to the source and the possibility to alter or enhance the software I use, while preventing freeloading (not quite true with GPL, see services as a loophole, AGPL is actually even better at preventing freeloading) to a certain degree.
Selling GPL software is practically impossible because someone just needs to download the source, recompile, and then distribute it to make your business obsolete.
> What if I want to be freer than the GPL? What if I want to release my next project with a BSD license so that even commercial users or people who want to keep part of their source private can use it?
I don't care if someone wants to use my code for commercial software. However, I don't want to give them a competitive advantage just because I wanted them to be more free. I still want to benefit from the changes they've made (if they make sense for me) in the same way they've benefited from my initial work! Now, if I have to pay for a copy of the software to get the changes (since the GPL allows for that sort of thing), so be it. I invited that by releasing my software under such a license.
Since it was an extraction from WordPress, which is GPL-licensed, maybe it was super hard to make this library LGPL since everyone who had contributed code had GPL-licensed it.
i wonder what kind of crossover there is between this library set and code actively being used in wordpress if there is any. specifically, with respect to the seemingly frequent security issues and updates.
HN discussion seems to have taken a pretty negative attitude recently. WP are letting anyone use the code that powers their own apps. For free. In return we complain about the license (how many people write PHP code to be distributed without the source anyway? Wordpress itself is under GPL and seems to do quite nicely) or doubt the security.
I'm not sure that this is a WordPress/Automattic release. I couldn't find any indication of who actually is behind this, and the annoying hover ads are a weird touch.
After developing many WordPress based websites, I can say that the code and documentation aren't that great. I'm not sure why someone would want to extract something so unglamorous.
Hopefully the project will be able to improve both by giving it a different focus.
20 comments
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 47.7 ms ] threadIn short, using a GPL'd PHP library in your application mandates that significant swaths of your application be released under the GPL as well. That's not a problem if you wanted to release under the GPL to start with, but it's a problem for anyone else on either side of the spectrum; if you wanted to be All Rights Reserved, you couldn't, and if you wanted to be freer and license under LGPL, MIT or even public domain, you couldn't do that either.
For this reason, developers have to be quite careful about how they use GPL'd software to make sure that it doesn't impose unwanted licensing restrictions.
I respect peoples right to different on licensing choices(I'm not a huge fan of the GPL for my own stuff) but the wording of the original comment seemed a bit inflammatory in regards to the licensing which is why I questioned it.
For this simple situation:
What if I want to be freer than the GPL? What if I want to release my next project with a BSD license so that even commercial users or people who want to keep part of their source private can use it?
The GPL is not very suitable for commercial applications. How many fewer people do you think would be using GCC if not for the special exception that allows you to produce GPL-free binaries?
You can use GPL licensed software and sell it. There is nothing preventing you from commercially exploiting GPL licensed software. In fact there are plenty of companies doing so. You just have to include the source.
You might find this less attractive for your (commercial) goals and needs, but I find it quite attractive and important to have access to the source and the possibility to alter or enhance the software I use, while preventing freeloading (not quite true with GPL, see services as a loophole, AGPL is actually even better at preventing freeloading) to a certain degree.
I don't care if someone wants to use my code for commercial software. However, I don't want to give them a competitive advantage just because I wanted them to be more free. I still want to benefit from the changes they've made (if they make sense for me) in the same way they've benefited from my initial work! Now, if I have to pay for a copy of the software to get the changes (since the GPL allows for that sort of thing), so be it. I invited that by releasing my software under such a license.
The ads are still strange though.
Hopefully the project will be able to improve both by giving it a different focus.