Please, feel free to participate. You are not hijacking anything, you are voicing your opinion and participating in the community. This is good. We don't all have to have the same opinion or values. People expressing their opinion is a valuable part of any community. We may agree or disagree, but it helps in understanding each other.

Here is how I view this.

GPL restricts my rights as a "user" to preserve the rights of the author. I (author) do not want you (user) to use my software in any way that I (author) do not approve of.

GPL is viral. It is not viral because of what it wants to preserve. It is viral because in many cases it compels (forces) users to change the license of the software in their system to the GPL. This is why Pharo can not use GPL. Because it would force all of Pharo to become GPL. This is expressly what the authors of the GPL wanted. It is expressly what the authors of Pharo do not want.

It is viral because of what it does, how it behaves, what it forces. Not because of what it preserves. The viral nature isn't preserving the original GPL software, but rather infecting somebody else's software. Which is why I asked my question. If I ported GPL software would that license affect anything more than what I wrote. The most common answer was YES. It would affect everything or infect everything.

I don't care about a small piece being GPL. I care about how it impacts the bigger piece.

You say it defends rights. It just removed my right to license my software how I wish. The only way to preserve that option is to not use GPL software.

Now, should I choose to not use GPL software. How has that benefited anybody in the GPL ecosystem? Not at all.

We like to talk about the bad big corporation stealing our hard work and our software and making millions of dollars. Yes big corp. prefers MIT/BSD. They also prefer to release their own hard work and dollars as MIT/BSD licensed software. It isn't as if it is all take on big corporation's side. They prefer the permissive license both as author and user.

MIT/BSD simply says you the user may do anything you want. Just don't blame me (author) for anything. And give author(s) credit for what they have created.

I would rather have people, businesses believe in open source software and use and release open source software because they are believers and not because some license forced them to do so. That is how MIT/BSD software is. And in reality it is how all authors of open source software are regardless of license. They do it because the believe in it. It is wrong to think that MIT authors don't believe in the freedoms of open source software. We do. We want the user to reciprocate because they believe, not because we forced them. You can't force anybody. They always have the choice of choosing something different, or writing it themselves.

Enough rambling. Even though we very much disagree. Do not be silent. Participate. We all learn.

Jimmie

Hi,

I was afraid this would hijack the thread, and didn't want to.

I don't like these metaphors, and my attempt to answer your question may be better, or less obvious, but I think "viral" and "infection" only describe the GPL when your mindset does not care about the freedoms the GPL tries to preserve.

I'd say "effective against people trying to restrict the rights the GPL defends" instead of "viral".

The "infection" interpretation comes from the idea that the GPL restricts freedom, which is a trap. We may be used not to care about certain rights, or think they are secondary or even worthless. Then, when the GPL forces us not to restrict those rights, and we still don't care about what the GPL is trying to protect, we can conclude the GPL is a dangerous infection that restricts our freedom of choice.

GPL is a mechanism to defend users. Software vendors used to limit users' rights obviously get their "rights" limited. The GPL does not respect the right to restrict others' rights.

Anyway, I'm not here to judge. MIT may be the most convenient license for Pharo nowadays. I'm not discussing that. I just couldn't remain silent thinking there's an obvious consensus that GPL is "viral" or an "infection" and that should be avoided at all costs.

2017-09-20 21:30 GMT+02:00 Jimmie Houchin <jlhouchin@gmail.com>:

Hello,

As the person who initially used the word viral in this thread, let me ask you a question.

Personally I greatly dislike the GPL and variants. I and many believe viral is what describes that nature of the GPL. However, I recognize that there are reasonable people who like the GPL and greatly like that aspect of its license. It is viral and does infect. It is seen by many people something to avoid, just as one would avoid a virus or infection. Yes these are negative terms.

You protest our use of these terms but do not offer alternatives that you prefer. In the absence of acceptable alternatives that GPL proponents prefer, then we left to terms that we naturally gravitate toward using. So let me suggest that when you make your opinion heard, please include what you would prefer. Otherwise it doesn't really help you with your expressed desires of us not using said terminology.

So my question to you. What words would you use instead of viral and infection that equally describe that characteristic of the GPL and variants?

Thanks.

Jimmie

On 09/20/2017 02:10 PM, Jose San Leandro wrote:

Nothing to add to the particular question, but I'm writing to express how much I disagree when you use adjectives such as "viral" or nouns such as "infection" to describe GPL.

I'm a FSF supporter for a long time, and while I'm used to people choosing not to use free software licenses for the sake of reaching as many business opportunities as possible, I care about the ethics behind the free software movement.

I respect people not caring about that fundamental part of the Free Software movement, but I cannot remain silent when everybody seems to share the same unfortunate interpretation of what the GPL is about.

2017-09-17 18:59 GMT+02:00 Ben Coman <btc@openinworld.com>:

On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 7:00 PM, stephan <stephan@stack.nl> wrote:
>
> On 17-09-17 06:59, Jimmie Houchin wrote:
>>
>> And the GPL not be viral in my app provided I only use the GPL library and am not modifying it in my app.
>>
>> Do I understand this wrong?
>
>
> Yes. With GPL everything is now GPL. With LGPL, as long as you only link to it,
> the viral aspect is limited to the library. In Pharo, that means you can use UFFI
> to connect to LGPL libraries, and you can probably create plugins. Loading
> smalltalk libraries that are LGPL is not exactly the same as linking, there is
> no clear boundary between compile-time and run-time, as everything is in the image.
> That makes the LGPL difficult to interpret in the smalltalk case, and potentially viral.

+1.


On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Hilaire <hilaire@drgeo.eu> wrote:
> Regarding porting GPL software, I guess you mean rewriting with Smalltalk,
> you should be free to license it as you want, for example as MIT.
> AFAIK there is no evil restriction as "seen the code" under the GPL.

It is not as clean as that.�� Many consider "seen the code" to
implicate "derived code".�� Whether a court of law agrees with this or
not is not what you should consider.�� ��The best advice I received from
a lawyer is that winning in court (sometimes after years of effort) is
still a loss, so you should position yourself so that no one even
thinks they can take you court.


> For library, alternative is LGPL and I read this interesting note:
> One should note that subclassing a Java (or other OO) class licensed under the LGPL is regarded as a use of an interface of a library comparable to a function call of a library. It is not regarded as a modification of the original class. Therefore the subclass does not fall under the requirements of the LGPL.

The definitive reference of Java + LGPL is
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.en.html
which says: "The typical arrangement for Java is that each library an
application uses is distributed as a separate JAR (Java Archive) file.
Applications use Java's ���import��� functionality to access classes from
these libraries ... The LGPL permits this distribution ...
Applications need only follow the requirements in section 6 of the
LGPL"

but a Smalltalk Image runs foul of section 6 requiring... "A suitable
[shared library] mechanism ... that (1) uses at run time a copy of the
library already present on the user's computer system, rather than
copying library functions into the executable"�� where an Image is
considered to be the "executable".

So incorporating LGPL Smalltalk code into an Image causes all code in
the Image to be infected with the LGPL.


> So using a LGPL library, even extending it, does not force the user to be in the GPL family license.

Using LGPL C libraries is fine and doesn't infect your Smalltalk code.
Using LGPL Smalltalk libraries does infect all Smalltalk code in your
Image. The concern is contributing a bug fixed in Pharo code from an
infected image technically infects the�� whole of Pharo - although you
are free to update a clean image with the same bug fix and contribute
from there - but thats an awkward process.


> The only restriction is the receiver should be capable to update
> the LGPL package independently of the application using the package.
> Anyway, I don't think you should worried about porting GPL/LGPL libraries as long
> as your are rewriting it. You can license it under MIT. Then LGPL is also possible.

The term "port" clearly implies "derived" so you cannot arbitrarily
re-license just by changing implementation languages. Otherwise for
example a GPL library could be relicensed by one team porting from C
to Python, then a second independent team ports from Python back to C
subverting the original copyright.


===============
Hmmm... actually refreshing myself with the newer license texts just now
I notice GPL 3 has added some interesting definitions the GPL 2 lacks...

>�� The ���Corresponding Source��� for a work ... does not include the work's System Libraries
>
> The ���System Libraries��� of an executable work include anything, other than the work as a whole, that
>�� (a) is included in the normal form of packaging a Major Component,
>�� �� ��but which is not part of that Major Component, and
>�� (b) serves only to enable use of the work with that Major Component, or to implement a
>�� �� ��Standard Interface for which an implementation is available to the public in source code form.
>
>�� ��A ���Major Component���, in this context, means a major essential component
>�� ��(kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system (if any)
>�� ��on which the executable work runs, or a compiler used to produce the work,
>�� ��or an object code interpreter used to run it.
>
> A ���Standard Interface��� means an interface that
> ... is widely used among developers working in that language.

which seems to open the door to a strong argument** that Pharo is such
a Major Component protected from even a full GPL3 coded application
being loaded and run - i.e. you could fix and contribute Pharo code
directly from such an Image - but other non-GPL Smalltalk libraries
you mix in may not be similarly protected.�� But it still seems a grey
area with compliance easier to manage using nonCopyLeft licenses.

cheers -ben

** You'd probably want the FSF to directly issue a statement on this.