Quoting Andy Sy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> MPL IS "viral", but GPL is "_extremely_ viral" because
> it infects all the code combined with GPL-licensed
> code with the additional requirement that they be
> offered under the GNU license as well.
I'm always amused that people claim this -- and particularly that they
claim it with such certitude -- since it reflects such a bizarre
misapprehension about how business law works.
A while back, I worked for a company that, among other things, published
a specialised Linux distribution. That distribution included a modified
version of a backup utility. Now, it happened that the firm's
business associates included a backup-software company and a hardware
company. From them, the firm had received some proprietary software
under contract, some of which got added to the utility. Then, a modified
binary was made available to the public.
Now, the utility is distributed under GNU GPL licence terms, with
copyright held by someone other than the firm. One fine day, the firm
received from a member of the public a polite request for the matching
source code, persuant to GPL v. 2 clause 3b. Unfortunately for the
firm, it did not own copyright to all of that source code, and was under
nondisclosure obligation to its owners.
As the unofficial licensing expert, I pondered the situation, and came
up independently with the same conclusion the corporate counsel did:
The firm faced conflicting obligations, and had to act in whatever way
would minimise harm to itself. Contributing the source changes under
the GNU GPL was really not an option, as the firm simply didn't own them
in the first place. So, instead, it needed to immediately end its
violation of the utility's licence. Which it did, and I won't go into
further details.
My point is that the "infection" scenario you describe is hopelessly
naive about realities of copyright law: Even if the firm had owned
those software patches or been able to easily buy them, there is no
provision whatsoever in copyright law that compels disbursement of
copyrighted material just to satisfy a licence requirement. At worst,
in extreme cases, a firm could have had to bear the consequences of
facing a civil lawsuit for the tort of copyright infringement. The
judge might mandate cessation of the firm's violation, or use of the
software at all (an injunction). He might have ordered some payment of
damages (a common tort remedy). But nobody is going to get ordered to
open-source proprietary source code just because of a business tort.
That's ludicrous. The law doesn't work that way.
But there's an even bigger point: You're pointing to the licence
obligations of GPLed software and polemically calling those obligations
"viral", but what about the much more stingent obligations attached to
proprietary software? Let's say you receive a copy of someone's
proprietary source code under contract, e.g., Microsoft Corporation's
so-far-mythical "Shared Source" arrangement. Don't you think mixing
that source code into your own codebases is going to subject the latter
to some extremely nasty licence obligations? Isn't that code, then, by
your criteria, dramatically _more_ "viral"?
In fact, the reason we don't call proprietary software "viral" is people
are much more familiar with how its terms of usage work, and therefore
are more resistant to bullshit rhetoric on the subject.
That is, if you were dumb enough to mix someone else's proprietary
source code into your work, give out copies, and get sued for copyright
violation, you wouldn't get any sympathy by whining about being
victimised by the source code's "viral" nature. Instead, people would
say "Hey, fool. Didn't you read the licence? Did you think it applied
to everyone but you? What you did was really stupid."
In exactly the same way, if anyone ever misappropriated someone's GPLed
codebase, used it contrary to its licence, and then got sued for
business torts, whining about being victimised by "viral code" won't
deserve any sympathy there, either.
And even if you _are_ that stupid, with or without the whiney
excuse-making, nobody's going to forcibly relicense your software.
You'll be telling the judge and the plaintiff how very, very sorry you
are and how you'll never do it again, and _maybe_ paying some damages --
which is unlikely unless the free-software-author plaintiff can show
economic harm, which is _very_ unlikely. But don't whine to the judge
about the treachery of "viral code", or he just might fine you just for
being annoying.
--
Cheers, The genius of you Americans is that you never make
Rick Moen clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves
[EMAIL PROTECTED] that make us wonder at the possibility that there may be
something to them that we are missing. --Gamel Abdel Nasser
_
Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph
To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
