Austin Ziegler wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 01:26:54 +0900, Carl Youngblood
><carl.youngblood / gmail.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>Okay, I know this has probably been rehashed hundreds of times, but I
>>was under the impression that merely using a piece of GPL source in my
>>code didn't affect the rest of my code.  Is this wrong?  Even if I
>>don't modify the code at all?  If I modify it, isn't it true that all
>>I have to do is publish the source for my modifications in the event I
>>release the software to the public?
>>    
>>
>
>This is wrong. GNU GPL supporters don't like hearing this, but the GNU
>GPL is viral. This is a *feature* of the licence, but it can also be a
>"gotcha" if you don't know what you're doing. The trick is in defining
>what a derivative work is, and it's actually messier with a dynamic
>language like Ruby than it is with a semi-dynamic language like Java,
>where it's a big mess period.
>
>The inclusion of GPLed code in your own -- that can be as simple as
>linking (in the case of Ruby, "require") -- requires that your code be
>available in a GPL-compatible licence. You cannot grant extra rights
>on GPLed code that you do not own, which means that if your code is
>dual-licensed and you include GPLed code, then the combination of your
>dual-licensed code and GPLed code can *only* be distributed under the
>GPL (this is why Diff::LCS was originally created; Ruwiki is under
>Ruby's dual licensing scheme; however, Algorithm::Diff was GPL-only;
>thus, a Ruwiki+Algorithm::Diff package could only be under the GPL).
>
>The LGPL is friendlier, but not much -- it requires that you make your
>application available as relinkable object files so that if someone
>changes the GPLed library, they can relink your application using it.
>
>I personally don't like the GPL. There are a lot of reasons for that.
>1) Most people don't get the GPL. 2) A lot of advocates use misleading
>double-talk (and sometimes outright lies) regarding the GPL.
>

But so do a lot of the GPL's opponents

> 3) There
>is a lot of political bunkus in the preamble of the GNU GPL that I
>don't particularly want to provide with my software.
>
>The GPL *is* a viral license, and it's a feature -- it is, I would
>argue, the central feature of the GPL. There is a place for such
>licences, but don't attempt to tell me that adding the restrictions
>inherent in the GPL actually "frees" my code. Software is not, as of
>yet, an entity that can be freed as slaves could (I have actually had
>advocates use that line of reasoning with me).
>

I thought the point of the GPL was to free users, not code.

> The restrictions in the
>GPL are good, so long as they are not misrepresented and they are
>fully understood. Those restrictions result in general source code
>availability for everyone as well as a strong lack of restrictions on
>what can be done with such source code.
>
>  
>
The rest I agree with. If a program you release contains parts written 
by other people and released under the GPL then the whole thing must be 
GPLed as well.

--
Mark Sparshatt