Headline FeedsLinuxInsider Talkback
|
|
See Full Story
Most of us are afraid of getting infected with a virus, whether it comes from a common cold or an attachment in our e-mail. Are open-source licenses viral in nature? Can they infect downstream users? The question is the subject of considerable debate. Companies refer to open-source software as "potentially viral software" in the end-user licenses that accompany their proprietary software. The end-user license includes limitations on using the proprietary software with open-source licensed software.
No need to avoid using GPL software ...
Posted by: gdamjan 2004-06-09 06:47:07 In reply to: Phil Albert
> If the license limitations are not acceptable,
> whether it is the GPL or a restrictive end-user
> license, the choice is to avoid using that
> software or to negotiate a different license.
There's no need to avoid using GPL software, even if you disagree with its wording. The GPL gives all the rights to use the software and doesn't make any restrictions on its use.
If you find that the GPL is too restrictive for distributing derivate works, then your choices are: not to make derivate works of GPL licensed software or not to distribute it.
Its perfectly legal to make a derivate work of a GPL software and use it for your own purposes, never releasing the source code of your modifications.
> whether it is the GPL or a restrictive end-user
> license, the choice is to avoid using that
> software or to negotiate a different license.
There's no need to avoid using GPL software, even if you disagree with its wording. The GPL gives all the rights to use the software and doesn't make any restrictions on its use.
If you find that the GPL is too restrictive for distributing derivate works, then your choices are: not to make derivate works of GPL licensed software or not to distribute it.
Its perfectly legal to make a derivate work of a GPL software and use it for your own purposes, never releasing the source code of your modifications.
Re: GPL: Viral Infection or Just Your Imagination?
Posted by: macrorodent 2004-05-31 06:57:39 In reply to: Phil Albert
> Companies refer to open-source software as
> "potentially viral software" in the end-user
> licenses that accompany their proprietary
> software. The end-user license includes
> limitations against using the proprietary
> software with open-source licensed software.
This made me curious. So far I have heard of just one company (Microsoft) making using such wording in one of its licenses (which was for some MS SDK or other). Are there really other cases of such FUD-mongering in EULAs?
But the article was pretty sensible, thanks.
> "potentially viral software" in the end-user
> licenses that accompany their proprietary
> software. The end-user license includes
> limitations against using the proprietary
> software with open-source licensed software.
This made me curious. So far I have heard of just one company (Microsoft) making using such wording in one of its licenses (which was for some MS SDK or other). Are there really other cases of such FUD-mongering in EULAs?
But the article was pretty sensible, thanks.
