GPL Question

Printable View

January 27th, 2009, 02:49 AM
iron59

GPL Question

Good day,

I would like to consult my problem with GPL Licensing issues. I used vorbis-tools (a library used for encoding and decoding ogg files) as part of a large program that I'm now writing. The said library is under GPL version 2. The ogg encoding and decoding is just part of a program's module. My question is do I need to show the whole source code when this program is released or I can show the specific module from which I used the said library. Also, giving references (website links) relating to this matter would help. Thank you very much. :)
January 27th, 2009, 05:27 AM
GremlinSA

Re: GPL Question

Wiki has about the best description

The basic rule is. If you got GPL code in, all of the source becomes GPL.. Some have tried a work around where the GPL code is put in it's own Dll and hence a stand alone, and the project does calls to the Dll. However:

Quote:

Wiki
Since there is no record of anyone circumventing the GPL by dynamic linking and contesting when threatened with lawsuits by the copyright holder, the restriction appears de facto enforceable even if not yet proven de jure.

this basically means that if you use GPL licensed code.... Your COMPLETE PROJECT becomes GPL..

Gremmy..
January 27th, 2009, 06:03 AM
TheCPUWizard

Re: GPL Question

Quote:

Originally Posted by GremlinSA

The basic rule is. If you got GPL code in, all of the source becomes GPL.. Some have tried a work around where the GPL code is put in it's own Dll and hence a stand alone, and the project does calls to the Dll. However: this basically means that if you use GPL licensed code.... Your COMPLETE PROJECT becomes GPL..

100% correct. Even a few lines of GPL code can trigger a million line project becoming completely GPL.

What can make matters even more complicated, is that if a programmer looks at GPL code they may pick up things that they then use in their own implementation, resulting in something that looks like the GPL source. While this is a "grey area", there have been cases where significant enough portions "felt like" they were taken from GPL that the product was either completely re-worked, screapped or released under the GPL (I personally know of all three of those cases).
January 27th, 2009, 06:21 AM
GremlinSA

Re: GPL Question

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheCPUWizard

if a programmer looks at GPL code they may pick up things that they then use in their own implementation, resulting in something that looks like the GPL source. While this is a "grey area"

There is another grey area that i can think off.. If you think of how much code is floating here on CG, what if a user has unbeknown posted GPL code to assist someone else on a Copywrite application. The end user puts the code into the application and sells it, not knowing that a small part of it is GPL..

IF you think how many people acctually post code found from other sources here, and the previous source did not directly lable it as GPL code.. i'd say about 10 - 15 % of the code here is probably from outside sources, alot of it not directly linked to the original source,hence difficult to check if it's GPL..

This will make for a interesting discution ..
January 27th, 2009, 08:44 AM
TheCPUWizard

Re: GPL Question

Gremmy,

That IS a valid concern. While I have no knowledge of it happening here on CodeGuru, I DO know that it has happened on some other sites that I used to be an active member of.....

In those cases, the legal avenue of persuit was directly against the person who distributed GPL code without the proper notices.
January 27th, 2009, 10:38 AM
laserlight

Re: GPL Question

Quote:

Originally Posted by GremlinSA

The basic rule is. If you got GPL code in, all of the source becomes GPL.
...
this basically means that if you use GPL licensed code.... Your COMPLETE PROJECT becomes GPL..

I think that it would be more accurate to say that if you use GPL licensed code, you should license your entire project under the GPL, or be potentially guilty of copyright infringement.

Also, if your code uses libraries licensed under other (presumably GPL compatible) licenses, those libraries would remain under their respective licenses even though they would be available via your project under the GPL.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheCPUWizard

In those cases, the legal avenue of persuit was directly against the person who distributed GPL code without the proper notices.

Such a problem seems to be wider than just the GPL though: it applies to pretty much any code under copyright and made available by a license that requires such notices.
January 27th, 2009, 01:25 PM
TheCPUWizard

Re: GPL Question

Quote:

Originally Posted by laserlight

Such a problem seems to be wider than just the GPL though: it applies to pretty much any code under copyright and made available by a license that requires such notices.

That is definately true, however because of the volume of GPL code and the number of people "looking for issues" it is the one that tends to occur most often. Nothing "intrinsically" different...just much more volume!
January 27th, 2009, 07:37 PM
iron59

Re: GPL Question

Thank you very much for your inputs. I have another question. If my program will have an option to trigger another program made of GPL code, will my program still be covered by the GPL's conditions? Thank you very much. Oh, please share other citations if you have one. Thank you very much.
January 28th, 2009, 04:11 AM
laserlight

Re: GPL Question

Quote:

Originally Posted by iron59

If my program will have an option to trigger another program made of GPL code, will my program still be covered by the GPL's conditions?

It probably depends on what you mean by "trigger". You can read the FSF's FAQ on What is the difference between an “aggregate” and other kinds of “modified versions”? Another related FAQ would be: Can I release a non-free program that's designed to load a GPL-covered plug-in?

That said, note that this only FSF's opinion, which probably would not be considered in a court of law if the FSF is not involved, despite the GPL being involved.
January 29th, 2009, 04:32 AM
GremlinSA

Re: GPL Question

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheCPUWizard

That IS a valid concern. While I have no knowledge of it happening here on CodeGuru, I DO know that it has happened on some other sites that I used to be an active member of....

Mental Note.. Be careful of posting code that is not your own..

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheCPUWizard

Quote:

Originally Posted by laserlight

Such a problem seems to be wider than just the GPL though: it applies to pretty much any code under copyright and made available by a license that requires such notices.

That is definately true, however because of the volume of GPL code and the number of people "looking for issues" it is the one that tends to occur most often. Nothing "intrinsically" different...just much more volume!

GPL licensed code, because of the requirment of source been made available with the binary's, is a lot more available than copywrite software.. Any one person that has access to copywriten source code, will know that it is effectively shooting themselves in the foot to post it anywhere on the net..

But to be honest, I've posted code that falls under copywrite, however, the code originates from me, and i do not post the code as cut from my projects, but rather a more trimmed down code to give the essence of what it needs to do..

Something i've just realised, i have several open source projects here on Codeguru, however they are simply listed as "open source", and there is no license type specified on them. I also have the same projects listed on Sourceforge, with the GPL license specified.. how will that affect anyone who uses the code from them ???

Gremmy...
January 29th, 2009, 04:48 AM
laserlight

Re: GPL Question

Quote:

Originally Posted by GremlinSA

GPL licensed code, because of the requirment of source been made available with the binary's, is a lot more available than copywrite software.. Any one person that has access to copywriten source code, will know that it is effectively shooting themselves in the foot to post it anywhere on the net..

I think that by "copywrite" you mean "copyright", but all versions of the GPL require the code to be under copyright, otherwise there are no permissions to be granted in the first place, and you would have no right to impose any conditions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GremlinSA

But to be honest, I've posted code that falls under copywrite, however, the code originates from me, and i do not post the code as cut from my projects, but rather a more trimmed down code to give the essence of what it needs to do..

That sounds like you are the copyright holder, so you would be entitled to license as you see fit. According to the AUP, you grant "Jupitermedia Corp., its successors and assignees, a royalty-free, perpetual, non-exclusive, unrestricted, worldwide license to use, adapt, transmit, publicly perform or display any such content on the site to which it was contributed".

On the other hand, users who incorporate your code into their work have no such license, but maybe a court of law will see it as you implicitly gave them permission to do so, or that it is fair use... besides, it's not like you're going to sue the people you help for copyright infringement, especially when you deliberately trimmed down the code, right? :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by GremlinSA

Something i've just realised, i have several open source projects here on Codeguru, however they are simply listed as "open source", and there is no license type specified on them. I also have the same projects listed on Sourceforge, with the GPL license specified.. how will that affect anyone who uses the code from them ???

They would have to find out what is the license first, otherwise they would not know what permissions you are granting and under what conditions, and thus would not know if they are infringing your copyright.

Once again, I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice.
January 29th, 2009, 06:29 AM
GremlinSA

Re: GPL Question

Okay .. I shot my self in the foot ... "Copyright" and not copywrite .. But i do have an excuse... i'm Dyslexic, and pratically failed English at school .. My spelling is terrible.. However my Logic skills are way above average.. Thank god for "F7" ... well it does not work with forum posts..

okay back to topic.. Generally the GPL is considered a CopyLeft and not copyright.

The thing is i'm not going to Hunt down and take action against anyone using all or part of my projects outside of the GPL license.. I put those projects up as examples on how to perform certain tasks, to assist others.. All i acctually require is that they note the code to originate from me " GremlinSA " (BTW - This nick has been used by me for the last 15 + years) ..

Gremmy..
January 29th, 2009, 07:51 AM
TheCPUWizard

Re: GPL Question

The issue of "trimmed down" code is a very complicated one, if one delves into the legal details (I am speaking from the perspective of United States of America law and the state of New York in particular).

Consider my recent articles (I new installment is coming :) ). They cover an architecture I have developed over the past 13 years, and to which I provide a number of different copyrighted and licensed versions. However the code that is posted with the articles is freely distributed.

Getting the right mix of "uniqueness" between what I am publically publishing, and the commercial versions took about 40% of the total time spent on the article.
January 29th, 2009, 12:26 PM
laserlight

Re: GPL Question

Quote:

Originally Posted by GremlinSA

Generally the GPL is considered a CopyLeft and not copyright.

The GPL is obviously not a copyright because it is a license :) As a license, it can be classified as "copyleft", or reciprocal. In order to be effective, the works that it is applied to must be under copyright.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GremlinSA

All i acctually require is that they note the code to originate from me " GremlinSA " (BTW - This nick has been used by me for the last 15 + years) ..

Why not just use your real name? It would probably be best to do that in the copyright notice anyway, so you might as well require that attribution be made using your real name instead of a pseudonym.
January 29th, 2009, 12:56 PM
TheCPUWizard

Re: GPL Question

Quote:

Originally Posted by laserlight

Why not just use your real name? It would probably be best to do that in the copyright notice anyway, so you might as well require that attribution be made using your real name instead of a pseudonym.

Lasterlight is correct (speakng from a USA perspective, other locations may vary). Things need to be copyright under a legal name (which noes NOT have to be ones real/birth name).
January 29th, 2009, 09:58 PM
Belzeski

Re: GPL Question

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheCPUWizard

....(which noes NOT have to be ones real/birth name).

What is the purpose for using multiple names except the real one ? [Runaway from business taxation, police, enemies or cheats on people]. I don't see the positive side of legal copyright with a fake name.
January 30th, 2009, 01:04 AM
laserlight

Re: GPL Question

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belzeski

What is the purpose for using multiple names except the real one ?

A company name, perhaps?
January 30th, 2009, 03:45 AM
GremlinSA

Re: GPL Question
Quote:

Originally Posted by laserlight

Why not just use your real name? It would probably be best to do that in the copyright notice anyway, so you might as well require that attribution be made using your real name instead of a pseudonym.

Hmm ... A Google search turned up 426 000 results on my real name.. and less than 10 refer to me ... I might not have a common surname, however my forename is a family name.. I'm doing the geneology for my family and have ~100 000 members, dating right back too 1500's .. and there are about 5 000 with my name ..
However a Google search on "GremlinSA" returns 3 380 000 results ... And most of them refer to me ..

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheCPUWizard

Lasterlight is correct (speakng from a USA perspective, other locations may vary). Things need to be copyright under a legal name (which noes NOT have to be ones real/birth name).

I'm not looking for fame and fortune ... Only recognition.. anyways, who is going to see the comment 'Code by GremlinSA' in the code except for the programmer(s) who work on it .. I dont ask for a visible credit in the splash or about pages..Also the end users dont care who's code it is, as long as it works..

But theres the point here... Software that i write for clients is under copyright to my company.. A registered company where i'm the primary shareholder. Software that i wrote privately, and posted on a public forum, is not longer under copyright laws... The AUP takes care of that in several places..
Quote:
AUP
By posting messages, uploading files, inputting data, or engaging in any other form of communication through this service (collectively "the content"), you are granting Jupitermedia Corp., its successors and assignees, a royalty-free, perpetual, non-exclusive, unrestricted, worldwide license to use, adapt, transmit, publicly perform or display any such content on the site to which it was contributed (or successor site). In plain English, you allow us to continue to display your contributions to the site. We won't do anything else with them, however.
You will not post any copyrighted material, nor link to any copyrighted material (with the exception of publicly available sites and pages that the legal owners of the copyrights have created to make that material freely available to the general public), unless that copyright is owned by you or by these Forums.
However now this does not supersede (looked it up ;)) the GPL License ..

But what it does say in plain english, If you hold copyright on the code and post it on the forum, you give up your copyright to that code.. (And it only applys to the code posted, and not the project that you took the code from). However if you posting code that is under copyright to a third party, you are violating that copyright, and can stand for prosecution.
January 30th, 2009, 04:08 AM
laserlight

Re: GPL Question

Quote:

Originally Posted by GremlinSA

Software that i wrote privately, and posted on a public forum, is not longer under copyright laws... The AUP takes care of that in several places..

No, you have interpreted the AUP wrongly, in my lay opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GremlinSA

But what it does say in plain english, If you hold copyright on the code and post it on the forum, you give up your copyright to that code.. (And it only applys to the code posted, and not the project that you took the code from).

You are not required to give up your copyright to the code that you post. Rather, you license the code that you post to "Jupitermedia Corp., its successors and assignees".

Quote:

Originally Posted by GremlinSA

However if you posting code that is under copyright to a third party, you are violating that copyright, and can stand for prosecution.

Posting code that is under someone else's copyright is perfectly fine if you are licensed to do so. You only infringe copyright if you do something that is the exclusive right of the copyright holder despite having no permission to do.
January 30th, 2009, 06:03 AM
GremlinSA

Re: GPL Question

Quote:

Originally Posted by GremlinSA

But what it does say in plain english, If you hold copyright on the code and post it on the forum, you give up your copyright to that code.. (And it only applys to the code posted, and not the project that you took the code from). However if you posting code that is under copyright to a third party, you are violating that copyright, and can stand for prosecution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by laserlight

No, you have interpreted the AUP wrongly, in my lay opinion.

I may not have expessed my self correctly.. but i dont think i've interpreted it incorrectly..

Quote:

Originally Posted by laserlight

You are not required to give up your copyright to the code that you post. Rather, you license the code that you post to "Jupitermedia Corp., its successors and assignees".

The Code is now on a public forum, and if someone uses your code, as is, in there licensed and chargable application, You cannot claim royalties from them.. You've lost the right to claim copyright on the code..
If you retained copyright on the code there'd be thousands of people owing me, Jupitermedia and hundreds of others on CG royalties. (I accept Paypal ;))

Quote:

Originally Posted by laserlight

Posting code that is under someone else's copyright is perfectly fine if you are licensed to do so. You only infringe copyright if you do something that is the exclusive right of the copyright holder despite having no permission to do.

This may not have been expressly said, but it was implied in my original post.. Note that you also need to post that it is under copyright to the third party, and who the third party is..

Many of us here on CG do not help others for the fame and fortune, but rather for the little acnowledgements that are made..
A little note " Thanks to So & So from Codeguru for this code" is all we really ask in return.. If it was for the monatary return, then we'd be on RentACoder, and not CG..

I have dozens of little notes like that all over my code.. If i get help from CG, I add a note to the code, so that in future, if anyone wants to know anything about that piece of code.. they can trace it back on CG...
January 30th, 2009, 11:34 AM
laserlight

Re: GPL Question

Quote:

Originally Posted by GremlinSA

The Code is now on a public forum, and if someone uses your code, as is, in there licensed and chargable application, You cannot claim royalties from them.. You've lost the right to claim copyright on the code..
If you retained copyright on the code there'd be thousands of people owing me, Jupitermedia and hundreds of others on CG royalties. (I accept Paypal )

No, your argument is the same as saying: "if you post code on a public forum on the Internet, it automatically enters the public domain". If this were true, then the AUP's clause on licensing would be redundant, since Jupitermedia could simply point out that whatever you posted was in the public domain, so there was no need to license it from you in the first place.

Rather, as I noted in post #11, "maybe a court of law will see it as you implicitly gave them permission to do so, or that it is fair use". If not, I posit that it is true that "there'd be thousands of people owing me, Jupitermedia and hundreds of others on CG royalties", assuming that we wish to pursue such cases of copyright infringement.