Talk:GNU General Public License

message: Germany is not a common law country, so legal precedent doesn't apply there as far as I'm aware. CodeCat (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: According to what I found about German law, you're correct that Germany does not have legal precedents (aside from EU court precedents, which don't apply in this situation).  However, I'm not a lawyer in any form or fashion and know nothing about the topic other than what I just found by searching online, so take that with appropriate weight, if you find a reliable source to the contrary.  - SudoGhost 17:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect the issue here is the wording. As I understand it Germany do not use legal precedent, but do use case law (mostly around IP laws). as a quick fix, would using the wording that FSF used ("that the case confirmed the validity of the GPL under German law") fix the issue? Belorn (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Update. Found and added this review about a earlier 2004 case, which also claim to confirm the validity of the GPL under German law. Given that this was 2 years earlier, I am not sure the validity to of the claim that the 2006 case caused legal precedence/case law for gpl. To me it seems that the only half notable attribute about the 2006 case is that the defendant claimed that GPL was not legally binding, a claim that the court specifically turned down. I think a rewrite is in order to combine the two court cases in a cohesive statement, maybe under a "In Germany" subtitle. Suggestions/Opinion?Belorn (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious statement about legal precedent 

message: I've tagged said section for a POV check, as at present it reads as Wikipedia endorsing the spider plant metaphor; it needs to be clarified (using the sources) that this is the metaphor preferred by Stallman and/or the other cited references, not the one Wikipedia stands behind. It should either be a quote or at least generally attributed to someone rather than being set out as a rebuttal to the "virus" talk. - Vague | Rant 09:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Rewrote the whole section. Hope this version is clearer on who say's what. As it stand, the section is a comment by Mundie, and then stallmans response to Mundie's statement.  Belorn (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. - SudoGhost 16:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV in the section on GPL as virus/spider plant 

message: Assume a program is developed based on GPL-code. Can you embed that program in a public website without releasing it under GPL-terms? 194.39.218.10 (talk) 11:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeking legal advice on Wikipedia might not be the best place to do so, and I would suggest putting the question to  as they are more likely to give a better advice. But to try to answer the question, Yes, you can develop a public website using GPL without releasing the server code, but there are a few exceptions. 1) you can not sell copies of the server code to others without releasing it under GPL-terms and thus give out source, 2) the website can not include GPL'ed Javascript (or other client side code) or images. Belorn (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to second the fact that Wikipedia does not give legal advice.  Even the most educated opinion here is still an opinion.  If you are going to ask this question online, I would recommend asking here, since they would be the ones to know.  When the answer to a question affects the legality of an answer, I would strongly recommend against following the advice of anyone on the internet if you aren't absolutely sure that they are a licensed professional in a relevant field (e.g. a lawyer). - SudoGhost 17:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

text: , "2) the website can not include GPL'ed Javascript (or other client side code) or images" – this seems just plain wrong or at least in question (shouldn't be for e.g. images). The GPL doesn't work across process boundaries, or other well defined boundaries, such as, seemingly, client vs. server side (I'm am not a lawyer, this is just my reading of the GPL, the server and client might be regarded close-knit). Nothing disallows GPL on the client side. The question was: Does the GPL allow "software as a service"? I certainly does. Counterargument might be you are not releasing the full "corresponding source"? If you have GPLed client code it must say that way, just as with the server-side, but you need not publish that part if it is deemed "mere aggregation" (making the client code in isolation, almost useless?), while the Affero General Public License (APGL) was made for disallowing reusing server-side code and not releasing it. comp.arch (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does the GPL allow "software as a service"? 

message: Issue we've seen cropping up recently is that of projects claiming to be GPL but publishing code in a compressed or encrypted format which makes it barely human readable, if readable at all. Typically such code has line breaks stripped, and variables replaced with a, b, etc. The GPL itself is none to clear on the legitimacy of this. Though, I think we can safely assume that the authors did not use the published version of the code to develop the project, therefore by definition the project has not published its sourcecode. --Anteaus (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If the code that was published is not the same code that was used to make the program, then that is a violation of the GPL. On the other hand, in a language like JavaScript where the source code is the program, there is no such restriction. In that case, receiving badly-written code is not really different from receiving a program with good code but a terrible user interface. There is nothing in the GPL as far as I know, that says the source code has to be useful to whoever receives it, only that it is the same as the program. CodeCat (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, Wikipedia is not the place to get legal advice. My suggest is to ask this question on sites like stackoverflow and look through the existing Q&A about code obscuration and GPL. But, to answer the question, the GPL license family do explicitly require source code in an human-readable form if such form exist. To be exact, GPLv3 define the source code requirement as: The “source code” for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. GPLv2 has a similar requirement, and so does LGPL but under a limited and specific context (linking). So to answer the question about compression and variable name obscuration, that would indeed be be violation of the GPL. It doesn't matter that its a javascript library or that they commonly are distributed in an obscured and compress form. If a preferred form exist, then when you distribute copies of the compressed version, the license require the the preferred version is also made available. Belorn (talk) 08:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can non human-readable sourcecode be GPL?  

message: I moved the points of view back to where they had been taken from. It said "The following points of view exist:" and then instead of listing anything, moved on to a different paragraph, so it was quite obvious. I'm not sure why they were moved to the bottom of the article, but they're extremely long and break the flow, so perhaps they could be moved to a separate page? I'm sure enough has been written about them to make them notable. --4368 (talk) 13:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Points of view" list 

message: The sections involving Microsoft reek of bias. The idea that GPL is viral being treated as a negative connotation is not as black-and-white as this article (and the FSF's reaction to the comment) makes it seem. 
1. The GPL CAN be seen as an infectious/viral thing to laymen. Yes the analogy does break down after further scrutiny, but no one ever said it was a perfect analogy; and, as an imperfect analogy it DOES help laymen understand it.
2. The idea that viral is a negative context is an emotional reaction more than one of based on facts. How are "viral videos" and "viral marketing" somehow the new "it" thing, which are positive connotations, and GPL being viral a negative one? In the context of the aforementioned topics, viral would imply that GPL catches on like wildfire and that everyone who sees it loves it and shares it.
3. Perhaps Steve Ballmer's opinion was, in fact, very anti-Linux/OSS/FSF/whatever. But perhaps it wasn't? In today's "post-2001's Microsoft VS Linux calling each other the devil" flamewars, I don't automatically know if I can interpret Steve Ballmer (and other Microsoft initiatives) as automatically evil. Just because Microsoft may have been against Linux doesn't necessarily mean everything they say concerning it should be contributed to malice. Especially since today, by the article's own admission, Microsoft is occasionally releasing GPL projects. 
4. Lastly, before someone attempts to attack my character or intentions, I use both operating systems for both work and home.
Novous (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: To start with, do you have a verifiable source that support the claim that calling GPL a viral license is positive rather than pejorative? The basis for any changes need to always start from what can be found in sources. As for the question regarding general bias, are there any "significant views that have been published by reliable sources" (WP:NPOV) that is missing from the article regarding Microsoft and the GPL? Belorn (talk) 07:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Microsoft 

message: I am wondering if the following quote from the main page is in fact valid or not? "If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program."  Does that mean for example it's actually impossible to have a GPL'd plugin for a Commodore 64 application or in any other SASOS? 116.240.194.132 (talk) 07:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Address Space Linking Restriction? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on GNU General Public License. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216005913/http://www.fsf.org:80/licensing/licenses/index_html to http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161109200145/https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTI4Mjc to https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTI4Mjc
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161109103213/http://libregraphicsworld.org/blog/entry/libredwg-drama-the-end-or-the-new-beginning to http://libregraphicsworld.org/blog/entry/libredwg-drama-the-end-or-the-new-beginning
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080228211105/http://flossmanuals.net/bin/view/Blog/LicenseChange to http://en.flossmanuals.net/bin/view/Blog/LicenseChange
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.businessreviewonline.com/os/archives/2007/01/mysql_changes_l.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161109103037/http://libregraphicsworld.org/blog/entry/whats-up-with-dwg-adoption-in-free-software to http://libregraphicsworld.org/blog/entry/whats-up-with-dwg-adoption-in-free-software
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111031160805/http://freecode.com/about to http://freecode.com/about
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718132324/http://devlinux.org/lw-gnu-published.html to http://devlinux.org/lw-gnu-published.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070529202454/http://cypherpunks.venona.com:80/date/1998/10/msg00429.html to http://cypherpunks.venona.com/date/1998/10/msg00429.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: and anyone else interested: I'm not an expert in the GA review process by any means, but  I suspect this should be immediately failed because of the banner in Section 9. Without commenting on the quality of the section, does someone here who is more familiar with the article and the history of that section want to take a pass on taking the necessary steps to improve that section and remove that banner? Thanks. —Luis (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: the content of the reception section is a controversial issue as the gpl is in general received controversial. Some vision remarks, recommendation on this section? I could even believe that the impact and reception is taken out and expanded to an own article. Cheers Shaddim (talk) 10:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually having read the section I think it has been improved enough over the years since that banner was tagged that it can just be removed.  - Ahunt (talk) 12:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There's still a [citation needed] tag dating from 2011. Maybe a quick fail for having only one such tag would be excessive, but it needs to be fixed before this can be GA. The existence of multiple completely-unsourced paragraphs is also a problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA quick fail based on banner? 

message: FYI, because of possible perceived conflicts (mostly that I was on one of the expert committees for the drafting of GPL v3) I will not do a formal GA review. But I'm starting to draft an informal one here. Other GA reviewers may want to wait until I'm done with that, and/or editors of this article may want to follow along as I draft there. —Luis (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've commented on the first two sections. Short version is that I don't think this is GA quality yet, but I'll continue looking at the other sections. —Luis (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think many of your remarks could be directly resolved by you, as they are uncontroversial, I don't see an conflict of interest here. Shaddim (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  My past experiences editing articles on licenses are not terribly pleasant - life is too short to argue about GNU/Linux and free v. open yet again. And many of the issues aren't just stylistic- I have no energy to do the research necessary to bring sections 2 and 3 up to GA level, so mostly I'd just be adding cn templates left and right there. So I've not really wanted to edit this directly. But I'll consider doing a pass at some point if no one else takes it on. —Luis (talk) 05:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be appreciated, as abyone is kind of scared at working of such high profile and controversial article. thank you for the effort Shaddim (talk) 10:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  not-really-GA-review 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on GNU General Public License. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130426055334/http://www.jbb.de/judgment_dc_frankfurt_gpl.pdf to http://www.jbb.de/judgment_dc_frankfurt_gpl.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110612175303/http://kerneltrap.org/node/8066 to http://kerneltrap.org/node/8066
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://cypherpunks.venona.com/date/1998/10/msg00429.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060109051638/http://www.rattlesnake.com/software-law/GNU-GPL-and-Commentaries.html to http://www.rattlesnake.com/software-law/GNU-GPL-and-Commentaries.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on GNU General Public License. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160109200847/http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/itm/seminars03-04/OSLicense.ver2.doc to http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/itm/seminars03-04/OSLicense.ver2.doc
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on GNU General Public License. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS8853808815.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130925165451/https://one.ubuntu.com/terms to https://one.ubuntu.com/terms
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Could someone please explain the legal background or just even the intention behind the automatic termination clause (Section 8 in the GPLv3)? As far as I know about U.S. and German copyright law/Urheberrecht any usage beyond the limits of the GPL (and law, of course) is a copyright violation in any case, so why this termination clause? Moreover, the termination of the license it has effect to an unlimited future unless revived either by the copyright holder or, in case of v3, the additional sixty/thirty-day revival rules. This means, especially for software licensed under GPLv2, that even an unintended infringement (e.g. forgotten to link to the source) renders the further usage of the software or its redistribution illegal, including all follow-up redistribs by other persons. Why should that be? Wouldn't it be less dangerous (for both the user and the copyright holder's reputation) if the license invalidity would only be for the duration of the violation but no longer than that? In my opionion this is in important legal issue that definitively should be addressed in the article.--SiriusB (talk) 12:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: To address this in the article we would need to cite a ref. Got one? - Ahunt (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I hoped that someone here might have found more about that than I — even after days of web research I could not find any more details about this issue.--SiriusB (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Kind of a stymie. I would think that if no third party refs, like the tech press, have tackled the issue, then it is not notable, or even doesn't exist as an issue. - Ahunt (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree. At least in some brief discussion there has been mentioned the issue as a serious one (e.g. when introducing the 60-day condition in GPLv3 or a similar self-curing 30-day period in Creative Commons). But never has been said why they did introduce this clause, and what could I do (except taking another license, like e.g. the 2-clause BSD license) as a programmer to avoid these issues for other users. I have sent the Creative Commons community a message with this question about a similar clause in their licenses, but dit not get an answer yet.--SiriusB (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way we need a WP:RS to add it to the article. - Ahunt (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Termination clause 

message: Currently the first sentence of the lead defines the GPL as a license, when in fact it's a series or a family of licenses, as referred to in the second lead paragraph. Colloquially "the GPL" is used to refer to any of the main licenses, and in my experience even formal/professional sources don't define the version of the license most of the time unless it's required for the subject at hand. For the sake of accuracy and clarity, I think both the correct definition and colloquial use of the terms should be mentioned in the first sentence or near it, but I'm not sure what the wording should look like for it not to be messy, and whether this should be sourced and if so, where to find a source for this. --Veikk0.ma 21:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, . See what you think. - Ahunt (talk) 02:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series of licenses, not a single license 

message: It should be mentioned that .c and .h files have "or later" part that identifies what is the actual lisence is, see x265, x264. Not the COPYING file with the license. 109.252.90.119 (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: So any updates? In some rare cases COPYING can talk about the license: https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/COPYING 2A00:1370:8184:54CA:5152:313:8E37:9C3C (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  License of GPL2.0 and GPL2.0+ is the same, source code contains "or later" part