Open Source

31751 readers

159 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Copyleft licenses are not “restrictive” (drewdevault.com)

submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

26 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] -5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Man, people do love arguing about words without providing (or looking up) their definitions.

Does the GPL being non "restrictive" mean I can use GPL code in my proprietary software? What word that doesn't offend you should I use to describe this fact?

This is as useless as the git main/master branch debate a while ago.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

What word that doesn’t offend you should I use to describe this fact?

Conditional, as in you are free to incorporate the GPL code into your work on the condition that you preserve the freedoms downstream. By default you have no rights to distribute; the GPL does not take anything away, but it grants conditional rights. A restrictive license, like your proprietary EULA, would take away rights that the user would normally have.

Whether or not proprietary EULA's are enforceable is a matter of dispute; see Software user's rights (D. J. Bernstein). Regardless, as Bernstein notes, this default set of rights does not include distribution, which is governed by copyright law. Free software licenses such as the GPL are copyright licenses and grant limited rights of distribution. Note that even most "permissive" licenses are by definition conditional as they include at least the requirement for attribution.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Note that even most “permissive” licenses are by definition conditional

You do realize the whole discussion is about what terms to use for differentiating between GPL-like "restrictive" licenses and BSD-like "permissive" ones? Saying that both are "conditional" really doesn't help anyone.

(also "by definition" the license's grants may be "conditional", not the license itself - it's not as if it looses validity under some condition)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

You do realize the whole discussion is about what terms to use for differentiating between GPL-like “restrictive” licenses and BSD-like “permissive” ones? Saying that both are “conditional” really doesn’t help anyone.

That's fair, I suppose - but going back to the word restrictive, you could also frame the requirement for attribution as a "restriction."

DeVault suggests the term "reciprocal" at the end of his post. Another term often used is "share-alike." Both of these terms, I think, more accurately hint at the exact conditions of the grant without negatively framing it as a "restriction."