I heard a lot about about how if you want to use code under GPK license, it prevents you from keeping parts of the project closed-source or under different license. How the fuck does it even work?
Let's say, I want to make a proprietary GUI for youtube-dl so people so don't want to deal with console could use it. GUI just acts as a nice interface that interacts with youtube-dl, I don't rewrite a single line of code and package it as is with my GUI. How does it violate GPL and doesn't violate BSD license?
GPL vs BSD
Michael Evans
Other urls found in this thread:
wiki.fsfe.org
twitter.com
Owen Jones
It doens't violate GPL because you don't ship youtube-dl, you interface it. And even then, copyright is a joke, bsd and fsf can't do anything to you. Can't extradite or anything, idiots.
Isaiah Lewis
GPL requires all derivative works to be under the same license
Non-copyleft licenses do not have this condition
If your GUI isn't a derivative work then you aren't violating the GPL
Landon Reyes
Justin Rodriguez
Mason Watson
My country does not have extradition laws and does not follow any copyright attempts by third parties. Yes, I'm Russian. No, don't show me companies, I want to see physical entities.
Jaxson Rogers
no one cares
kill yourself commie
Thomas Gray
Hahahaha keep sucking that copyright cock.
Asher Stewart
Derivative work.
Many GPL projects provide an additional exception for use API or generated content to not be affected by GPL license. But this is per-project.
In case of youtube-dl:
>youtube-dl is released into the public domain by the copyright holders.
so that's a bad example.
But for example the GUI toolkit is GPL licensed yet the generated program is not required to be.
Cameron Murphy
Tyler Bennett
Actually I'm penetrating a lovely freedom-respecting copyleft cooch, mr. stalin cuck.
Daniel Green
>but refused to cover disbursment for Mr. Welte for the trial and his investigations (legal fees, test purchase and reverse engineering).
Holy shit Mr. Welte is a sad, entitled cuck.
Gabriel Martin
> Look at the funny picture I found! What more arguments do you require?
Brody Richardson
>The court ordered the reimbursement for legal expenses plus the costs of purchasing and reverse engineering. The court also clarified that D-Link was bound by the terms of the GPL v2 licence.
cope, bsdcuck.
Jordan Jenkins
Confirmed sad entitled cuck, and a shit stain on the FSF. Literally begging for money at this point, literally. Bunch of smelly hairy manchildren.
Adrian Stewart
It's an infiltration attack. BSD fanatics are larping as GPL advocates and trying to look as stupid and be as annoying as possible, resulting in undermining any appeal to the GPL license in result.
John Kelly
this is great
Kayden Reyes
It doesnt violate GPL because the GPL only covers derivative work. So if you use somebodies work that is licensed under the GPL you must allow others access to the source code. If you now add some code that you wrote, which interfaces to the code of others, you can sell that code as a module or addon, library or whatever, and do not have to release it under the gpl and do not, therefore, have to release the source code. If you use others code and alter it, you still have to provide the original source code and your source code
Andrew Powell
I'm just trying to imagine a situation when GPL license would be harmful, and BSD license is preferable.
Also, as far as I can understand, GPL covers not only derivative work, but any work that code released under GPL is part of. Seems to me that the main reason LGPL exists is to allow usage without alteration as part of something else under a different license, which implies that GPL doesn't allow that.
Evan Wilson
in the view of the FSF, any linking against a GPLed program constitutes a derivative work, the LGPL provides an exception for dynamic linking
Jason Rogers
The BSD license basically says "You're free to do whatever you want with the source material, including making your own derivatives, closing the source & claiming you're the sole creator of it, without giving any recognition or remuneration to its original creator."
GPL basically says "Don't be a bastard; give the original creator full credit. If you sell any derivative of this shit, you better give the creator due credit and royalties. Don't go around claiming that this shit is yours when it isn't."