>mfw anyone can just steal GPL code and legally use it in proprietary software
freetards on suicide watch
>As a conclusion, it looks that in most cases, linking two programs or linking an existing software with your own work does not – at least in Europe – produce a derivative or extends the coverage of the linked software licence to your own work.
>Such interfacing or linking escapes to the copyleft provision of any licence, open source (like the GPL) or proprietary.
>In European law the fact of linking two programs and the technology used for it does not by itself produce a derivative work: viral licensing is just a ghost. It does not exist.
Cool another reason to hate the bureaucratic shitshow that is the European Union.
Colton Gray
This is a good thing and it should have always been the case (in civilised parts of the world, too.) Of course, linking to a library doesn't make your program a derivative work of that library. You only make a derivative work if you change the library itself. It shouldn't matter if the library is statically or dynamically linked either, or if the GPL work is an external program that you exec(). Non-viral FOSS licences are fine. Viral FOSS licences are not.
Kevin Phillips
So, if there's a leak like PrestoOpera, can i link it in another program i made?
Julian Green
Excellent. This means well for GPLv2 adoption. No more fear of viral licensing in corporate climates.
Brayden Watson
No, because you're still redistributing something without permission.
Nolan Moore
Isn't this the main criticism BSDfags have of GPL, that it's too much like a virus?
Cooper Bailey
BSD is as good as GPL
Alexander Scott
>tfw law endorses you to stay as much cucked as possible
Evan Cox
>"i'm for freedum so give me your code or i'll use the courts to punish you and steal it."
GPL is not freedom. BSD and MIT are freedom. GPL is hippie "the world better work the way I want or I'll throw a temper tantrum" bullshit.
It should be 100% legal to statically or dynamically link GPL code without affecting the IP rights of any other code in the program. I'm fine with a license that says "if you modify Freedum Library you must make the modified source to Freedum Library available." But saying you then also have to make all the source code that works with Freedum Library publicly available is absolute bullshit. Why should freetards expect anyone to respect their property when they so blatantly hope to infect and violate the property rights of others?
EU is right on this one. Hopefully the US will follow them on this.
And if you really give a shit about freedom, release code under BSD or MIT licenses.
Caleb Edwards
>GPL is not freedom. BSD and MIT are freedom. I hope this was posted ironically
Jaxon Bennett
> I'm fine with a license that says "if you modify Freedum Library you must make the modified source to Freedum Library available." But saying you then also have to make all the source code that works with Freedum Library publicly available is absolute bullshit. It is LGPL
Tyler Roberts
one more reason to vote for a euroskeptic party(in my case none unfortunately)
William Hernandez
This is the same Europe that is eating itself and feeding its shit to the african pygmies, right?
