Talk:GNU General Public License

Renaming Linux to GNU/Linux

All places where Linux has been used to mean the entire OS has been correctly renamed to GNU/Linux. Linux is the kernel while GNU along with kernel Linux is actually what we incorrectly term Linux. See gnu.org for more details. If anyone has any query, please leave them here before editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maitraya (talk • contribs) 08:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Can I get a GPLv2 project, modify it, and release it under GPLv3?

That's it! I want to get a project under GPLv2 which the copyright owners don't want to change it to GPLv3. Can I modify this project and release it under GPLv3 (with a new name of course)?

Also, there are many projects who says "GPLv2 or, at your own choice, any later version" while others says "exclusively GPLv2". Can i do the same with these projects too? I think so, after all, if I get an "exclusive GPLv2 project", modify it, give it a new name and release it under GPLv2, this project's owner is automatically me, and if it's "my" project, I can choose to move it from GPLv2 to GPLv3, can't I? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.101.77.22 (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright law reserves all rights (including the right to distribute derivative works) to the initial author. When that author releases it under GPLv2, he/she conditionally grants you the right to distribute derivative works. The condition is that you have to make your work available under the same license. Releasing your derivative work under GPLv3 does not satisfy that condition because it is not the same license as GPLv2. Thus, you have no legal right to distribute a derivative work, unless you obtain that right through some other mechanism (such as the author explicitly saying "or any later version"). You are the author of the parts you wrote, so you can release those parts under any terms you wish. To become the legal owner of the parts you didn't write, you need a contractual transfer of copyright ownership. The GPL is not a contractual transfer of copyright ownership. Generally, open source developers are anxious to have derivative works. Odds are good they will be flexible if you contact them. Maybe they'll add the "or any later version" clause just for you.--128.187.80.2 (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Write more clearly

can some explain what GPL actualy does ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.199.118.12 (talk) 06:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Under the same heading, I would suggest that language about the GPL being "restrictive" (weasel words!) should be changed to describing licenses such as the 2-clause BSD license as "more permissive". After all the starting position is that the recipient of software has no rights to do anything at all with it. From that perspective, the GPL is conditionally permissive rather than "restrictive". (The 2-clause BSD license is also conditionally permissive; its conditions merely have a different aim.) 194.187.213.95 (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyright on derivatives

1. Who owns the copyright to a derivative work?
2. If Work B is derived from Work A, and Work C is derived from Work B, and Work C violates the GPL, does the copyright owner of Work A, as well as the copyright owner of Work B, have the right to sue the creator of Work C?

VanishingUser 03:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

For any code you write under GPL you own the copyright to that. (Similarly anything you write on Wikipedia you also own the copyright to, see WP:C.) GPL'd code can have many copyright holders. If you work for a company, you normally sign a waver to assign copyright to the company: this allows them to enforce their copyright more effectively.

On the second point, they can both sue. Realistically though they will ask C to fix the problems so that C releases their code under GPL. They can use the FSF's "GPL Compliance Lab" to do this for them. Legal action is possible, but won't normally happen unless discussion fails. --h2g2bob 04:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Flawed Criticism Section

I think that the major problem why many BSD camp is against GPL is actually the fact that merely linking (not even modifying the library) would force the entire application license to be GPL. This is particularly the case in the Java world. Thus one cannot distribute GPL libraries along with the commercial or open/free programs that uses a non-GPL license. There is simply no way around the problem. People have no problem with LGPL in this case, in contrast.

This distinction between LGPL and GPL has been quite important. MySQL for instance, changed the license of MySQL JDBC driver license from LGPL to GPL for v3 driver, intentionally. This change basically bars open source applications not using GPL license from using the driver. For open source applications that have to stick to a particular open source license, there is simply no way around the problem. There is no loss to MySQL anyways since they don't get paid in this case. Of course, this approach also forces commercial applications to purchase the commercial license of the driver. In fact, this strategy has been quite popular. It is ironic, that GPL has been used as a way to force people to pay up, or not to use the software as the result, as opposed to be free. 71.105.96.173 18:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The difference of opinion about licenses between the pro-BSD and pro-GPL camps is largely philosophical, just as are the differences between the Open Source and Free Software communities, and between the Free Software Foundation and commercial software vendors. In the BSD v. GPL case, it goes to the core of one's personal definition of "freedom". BSD advocates often describe the GPL's "freedoms" as "restrictions", because in the BSD community code is allowed to be used in just about any way one can think of. GPL advocates often describe the BSD license as "unfree" because it doesn't ensure that the rights granted are passed intact or extended to cover code changes. The two groups generally have different primary goals, and that's expressed in their choice of licenses.

To make a long story short, I guess I disagree with your suggestion that the Criticism section is flawed in some undefined manner. It seems to sum up the actual divide pretty well. RossPatterson 22:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that you missed the point. The criticism said "GPL terms require that all modified versions of the software must in turn be licensed under the GPL." That is not the main criticism of GPL. I am saying that for LGPL, the modification only needs to be reveal for the part that is relevant to the library, which people has little objection. Second, merely linking GPL (say a GPL MySQL java JDBC driver) would force the entire software (say a generic front end to various databases) to be GPL, but for LGPL one can still use other license.

The result of GPL's restriction is that it forces softwares (even free ones that not using GPL) to come up solutions that ultimately makes it difficult for the end user. In the above example, the generic front end to various databases would not be able to distribute with the GPL driver. The users would have to follow an instruction to download and install by themselves. This creates a burden for the end user. 71.105.110.181 12:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, everyone's entitled to their opinion, you as well as I. But neither of us are entitled to voice our opinions in Wikipedia articles. If you can find published examples that support your opinion that the "main criticism of [the] GPL" is as you say (to be honest, I can't figure out what you say the main criticism is), go ahead and add it to the article. I lack the time at the moment to find citations that support my claim above, so I won't be adding it, at least not right now. RossPatterson 01:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• "In the above example, the generic front end to various databases would not be able to distribute with the GPL driver". "not able to distribute"!? Sorry, it would be impossible to distribute without making it GPL, which is not the same. The distributor is free to either make all her software GPL, or not include GPL code at all. Where's the problem? If all free software were licensed under the LGPL, FS could never beat commercial software, except by price (because any company could "steal" FS and include it in a proprietary bundle). Licensing under the GPL means that in the long run proprietary software will fall behind the FS technically, because they will not be able to "steal" the efforts of the FS community (and it's more obvious day by day that they can not keep up reproducing the work of the FS community). Guess which license ensures a more free future for software? To know more about it, read GPL vs LGPL at gnu.org. — isilanes (talk|contribs) 17:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This page and the BSD license page seems to be written by GPL people. I feels that it is appropriate, particularly given the fact the criticism section is totally lacking in substance, to add FreeBSD's criticism on GPL. I felt funny since quoting the CEO from the company many OSS programmers despise only seem to give GPL more sympathy. That's a stealthy way of getting around true criticisms. Coconut99 99 23:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That FreeBSD page should probably be mentioned alright, but it's pretty nonsensicle and those statements are neither backed up by reason or evidence. Gronky 10:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The criticism section isn't a criticism section at all. It is actually an essay in defense of GPLv3. Not only is this a straw man, its also against Wikipedia's standards (no opinion essays). The people who wrote this are trying to silence criticism of the GPL. User:cksgk8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.156.121.226 (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Logo Author

I skipped through this the article and some other GNU related but I could not find a word on the artist that has designed the GNU Logo. Did I got blind or there are no info on it? On the Image page I found as Author "Aurelio A. Heckert" but I guest he is the author of the file and not the designer of the logo. Should we not have some info on him? --192.33.238.6 15:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right, Wikipedia should have this info, but it should be on the GNU or GNU project page(s), not this one. Gronky 13:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Stuff I removed from the criticisms section

The criticisms section contained a load of nonsense, which was, of course, not supported by any references. I removed three or so paragraphs, here's the last version before I did so: [2]. Gronky 10:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I've deadheaded the external links section

The external links section had turned into a sprawl, so I've deleted most of them. Many of the links that I deleted were interesting though, and would make good references for parts of this article, so do take a look at the last version of the page that had all those links: [3]. Gronky 10:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

some rewriting

Reading this article earlier today, I saw two problems: (1) The lead was pov-ish, and dominated by boring "rah-rah" statistics about how popular the GPL is. (2) The History section (as noted in the template at the top) was a timeline of versions of the GPL, rather than a discussion of the history of the license in the sense of its importance to a social movement. The result of all this was that you could read several screenfuls of the article without ever finding out anything that would be of interest to the typical person. To try to fix this, I've rewritten the lead to be more npov, and to say more about the social significance of the license. I've also renamed the History section to Versions, and inserted a new History section above it, with a discussion about the social history, as opposed to the version history.--76.81.164.27 18:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The last sentence on version 3, "in the aftermath of the Novell-Microsoft agreement, Linux kernel developer Linus Torvalds expressed interest in reconsidering GPLv3" is not or is no longer accurate. It would be more accurate to say that Linus has expressed that he is satisfied with the GPL 2 because it is a superior license to the GPL 3. See here, here, here here, and here. I don't want to get into a pissing match with the many free-bies here, but with a FSF board member trolling the LKML, I think Linus has dropped the diplomacy. Wasn't his strong suit, anyway. But the point is, Linus has made it very clear that he is not open to GPL 3. 216.175.85.40 07:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

owner?

If the resulting software is kept only for use by the modifier, 
no disclosure of source code is required.
The GPL is automatically revoked upon any violation of its terms,
but copyright owners of works licensed with the GPL are free to 
negotiate alternate terms with authors of derived works

But who's the owner?. Because some GNU projects are the works of a community, or then "first to create the projects" can negotiate the works of others?.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.73.30.108 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 5 July 2007

The "owner" is a matter of law, not of license (or logic, for that matter). Under copyright law, nothing is "the work[] of a community", but rather the individual works of the members of the communities. This question is exactly the reason that official projects of the Free Software Foundation (e.g., GCC, Emacs) require that contributors sign an agreement assigning their copyright interests to the FSF. That way there is no question under law of who the owner is, or of who has the right to compel licensees to comply with the GPL terms. The undisputed owner in such projects is the FSF. As a counter example, Linus Torvalds has never required copyright assignment for code contributed to the Linux kernel, and the "ownership" of code within the kernel is an oft-discussed question. Indeed, when GPL3 was first proposed, several prominent Linux community members noted that it was probably impossible to change the kernel license simply because it would be so difficult to identify the various contributors who own the copyrights. RossPatterson 23:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

GPL in closed source projects.

I would like to use #ziplib licensed under GPL for my closed source project. It says some legal terms which led me to think I'm not allowed to use it, and then the bottom line said otherwise:

Bottom line - In plain English this means you can use this library in commercial closed-source applications.

I went here to verify if this was the case, and I'm still not sure. Can I use GPL software in non-GPL, closed source projects or can't I?

Ripper234 12:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

No, you can't use GPL software in closed source applications. But SharpZipLib is a special case — its authors offer you an exception to that rule, similar in concept and in text to the exception for the GNU Classpath implementation of the standard Java library. If you don't trust their "Bottom line" statement, then you really need to had the entire license off to your lawyer for a reliable opinion on the use of SharpZipLib. But regardless of how that turns out, the exception doesn't apply to software that is licensed solely under the GPL. RossPatterson 15:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

GPLv3 clarification needed

The article claims that the GPLv3 offers better compatibility to other licenses but GPLv3 text looks rather more restrictive than the GPLv2. If no lawyer explains why there should be better compatibility, this claim should be removed from wikipedia

I don't know if it is a relevant source, since it's not third-party (i.e., it's published by the authors of GPLv3), but the rationale documents from the GPLv3 legislative history talk at great length about how the additional compatibility works, and those rationale documents were written primarily by SFLC attorney, Richard Fontana. Frankly, I don't think there are any attorneys who are particularly qualified to make the assessment anyway, even if SFLC is a biased party since they are FSF's attorneys. -- bkuhn 21:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

On dynamic linking

Without really discussing the legal implications, as someone well-versed in the possible technicalities but not the legalities, I would like to just note here that it is possible for software to dynamically link to libraries that weren't even written at the moment the software was released, even if the original developers didn't intend for this to happen. What libraries a program dynamically links to is beyond the control of the developer. Shinobu (talk) 04:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. Also, an application can be written to use a Java interface without being aware of any particular implementation of that interface. It's possible that the user who causes that application to run with a GPL'd implementation of that interface is creating a "derived work" (a term which GPLv3 doesn't actually use, by the way), but since what they have created is transient and unlikely to be distributed, it hardly matters.

The GPL FAQ makes a distinction between dynamic linking and fork/exec - they say that one creates a derivative work and the other doesn't. Can anyone tell me what words in the actual license could possibly lead one to this conclusion? Mhkay (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW: from a legal standpoint, I suspect that this distinction is largely, if not wholly, mythical. GPL seems to be trying to create a distinction absolutely unknown in actual copyright law here-- and failing. The definition of a derivative work is simply not a matter that the GPL can define for itself, as it wishes. KenThomas (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

"In court" section needs a reorg

At the moment it's a not-terribly-useful timeline covering people both using and attacking the GPL in a variety of jurisdictions. Is there some sensible and useful way to sort this out? I've also added a note on BusyBox, the refs for which are in that article - David Gerard (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

WP is not a list-of-lists, but this section is odd and would be improved by simply following the cases from a relatively neutral source (Slashdot's coverage is not neutral, but the list it would provide, more-or-less is). Selection here is odd; coverage is odd; statements are odd, or questionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KenThomas (talk • contribs) 19:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Does the license encourage supplying a visible notice to the original authors?

For example, if you install a CMS that uses this license, does the license encourage you to put a footer link to the makers of the CMS? -79.182.0.62 (talk) 11:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No. See SugarCRM for an example of an outcry caused by a license which did do this. Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This article indeed mentions there was an outcry but doesn't attribute it to having to put a link in sites' footers. -79.182.0.62 (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The license in CMS

How does the license limit clients if they install a CMS that use it? We've already established above that they won't have to put a link in the footer for the original authors. So modifications would have to be GPL too, but is there anything else they can't they do, that they could if the CMS was completely public domain? -79.182.0.62 (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't limit them at all, beyond a prominent copyright / license notice, so long as they don't actually allow clients to download the server-side code they're using. They can modify at as they wish. Chris Cunningham (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

But we've established above they don't have to put a copyright in the site itself. -79.182.0.62 (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No, we haven't. There's no requirement to stick the URLs of the original authors in some "footer" of a web app; there is a requirement to post a prominent copyright notice, but this need not be some banner ad.

I'd seriously encourage you to just Google any further questions regarding the licence's terms. Talk pages are not general discussion forums for the subject. Chris Cunningham (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, just last question - what is "prominent" if not a link? -79.182.0.62 (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no given definition. I don't believe anyone has yet been legally challenged on the issue. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And they won't ever be, because they are not distributing the software. The license requires a copyright notice whenever someone distributes the software, not when they use it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.196.44 (talk) 06:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If I understood you correctly, you are claiming that using a GPL'ed CMS to run a public website does NOT mean that you are "releasing" the CMS software in terms of the GPL (even so the "results" - the website(s) - of the CMS are public). Do you have any source for that? If yes, I think that should be added to the article. 138.246.51.239 (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The question is confused. If one is "using a GPL'ed (sic) CMS to run a public website" then the CMS software is already available under the terms of the GPL. One does not need to do anything in order to follow the license as one is not distributing the software itself but simply running it. The output is never subject to the GPL as it's simply data being run through the program; if such data were subject to the GPL then practically everything ever put on the Web would be subject to the GPL as multiple pieces of GPL software are usually involved in that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 21:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, to clarify it: 1. I meant if you modify the CMS and then you use it to run a public website. 2. I didn't ask if the content of the website becomes GPL'ed (*), but if you have to make the source code of your modified CMS available. (*) this expression is also used in the article - if you think that it is wrong you should correct it there first... 134.155.248.57 (talk) 10:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

There you have it: you are "using" the software and not "distributing" it. Sending the output of a program to someone (which is what happens when one runs a Web service) does not distribute the source or object code to that program, and so the user is not subject to any of the GPL's provisions regarding distribution of modified source. The GPL3 has a provision to modify the license such that running such software does count as distribution, and this is already covered in the article in the paragraph starting "Other notable changes include allowing authors to add certain conditions or requirements to their contributions". If you'd like to dive in and help improve the article, you could try a Web search for "GPL3 Web services" and see if you can find good references to add to that paragraph. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 14:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Software as a service and GPL

Should this be mentioned or explained? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_as_a_Service)

GPL can be more "business friendly" than BSD

The case of Quake3 (that may improve the article if incorporated in some form or another): Quake3 is now GPL'ed. However, it can also be bought (as source) to be closed for commercial purposes. At the same time, there is no BSD (or similar) version. One has to either use GPL or pay to have a new game. i.e. BSD in that case would be less "business friendly". In general at least in that case one can clearly say Quake3 is more profitable for ID software being released in GPL (+closed dual licenced) rather than in BSD (or even alongside BSD). --Leladax (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Every license allows for some set of business models to monetize it. It just takes an intelligent developer to use the right business and license model to benefit them (personally or their cause) the most. There's a large tradeoff between control and audience... the permissiveness of your selected license allows more and more people to use your work... but gives you less and less control over how they can use your work (or in copyleft... their audience using their work... and their audience's audience...) That may be desired... as you might be making money indirectly from the work. You may also be developing fairly useless work in isolation but really want the resultant... and want whoever makes the resultant derivative work to make it open under various conditions. It always... *always* depends on what you are attempting to achieve. There is nothing wrong with any given license... even completely proprietary... the goods and evils are in how they're implemented. Phopojijo (talk) 08:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I would note Quake III isn't open source. Only the engine is. There may be advantages to id Software to using the GPL (in ensuring other proprietary software developers can't use their code) but most likely the primary reason why people will buy Quake III is because they have to. You can't get a GPL version of Quake III since it doesn't exist. Now the Quake III engine was extensively licenced at a time (primarily when it was still fairly new ) but in terms of the more general point, I don't think you need to use the Quake III example. There are many examples where companies have released their code under GPL primarily for similar reasons a lot of independent developers have released their code under GPL, i.e. not wanting people to be able to use their work unless they use the GPL (generally unless they release the sources for any binary versions) Nil Einne (talk) 12:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

aggregation vs combination

It's not really made clear enough in the article, but the GPL allows for linkage with closed-source applications under certain circumstances. To put it briefly, GPL allows aggregation but not combination. As an example, Say I have a closed-source application that as part of its duties needs to read in data of different file-types. To accomodate this, I have provided a generic plugin interface to allow any file-type that has a plugin available to be used. As a separate component, I supply a plugin that makes use of GNU readline for some reason or another. readline is GPL'd, which means that the plugin needs to be released with a GPL-compatible license. The program itself can remain closed source, however. This is because the plugin architecture makes no assumptions about what the plugin has to do internally. In fact, since plugins can be supplied by anyone, as the author of the original program I am unable to make any guarantees that no one will do this. This execution model is essentially the same as if I call an external executable from a shell script; Utilizing gpl'd programs inside of a shell-script doesn't mean you have to gpl your shell-script. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.196.44 (talk) 06:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"to permit the Microsoft-Novell agreement"?

In the "Version 3" section it is said: "The fourth discussion draft[...] made an exception to permit the Microsoft-Novell agreement, saying in section 11 paragraph 6 that[...]" The intended meaning is the opposite, isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.95.103.132 (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Compatibility and multi-licensing

As I wrote in Image talk:Quick-guide-gplv3-compatibility.svg, should not that image have an arrow from LGPLv3 down to GPLv3? --193.11.177.69 (talk) 04:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(No header)

I don't believe a laywer looked over this wikipedia entry at all. This statement: "That is, their code can be combined with a program under the GPL without conflict (the new combination would have the GPL applied to the whole)." is patently false. You cannot simply "steal" BSD licensed code, copy and paste it into a GPL licensed program, and cover the whole thing with the GPL. BSD licensed code remains BSD licensed code, as do any modifications to it, unless you work out a deal with the author to release it under another license. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.86.139 (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That is not the accepted wisdom. BSD does not as much differ from GPL as much as it is a subset of it. That is, BSD requires some things, and GPL requires more things, but the BSD requirements does not conflict with the GPL ones. Therefore, a copied BSD code section is technically still licensed under BSD, but since BSD is compatible with GPL, recipients of the combined work can treat the whole as if it were under the GPL with no worries. --193.11.177.69 (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

And, furthermore, if you extract the BSD section from the GPL work-as-a-whole, it remains BSD-licensed (so there's nothing "technically" about it; this distinction can indeed matter in practice). The licence of the BSD-licensed code is not affected by treating it as part of a larger work as a whole; there's nothing wrong with this as long as the terms of the BSD licence continue to be respected. Colin Watson (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

English spelling styles

Wikipedia, as you should all know, says that it doesn't matter which English spelling system is used in an article as long as it is consistent. However, making spellings consistent does not apply to proper names and Web page titles: please use the actual values of those, as they should not be altered to a spelling that does not exactly match the name or title. Todd Vierling (talk) 13:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

authorship

I don't think Stallman wrote the GPL by himself. There's a lawyer in Newton MA named Jerry Cohen who is an old friend of my dad's, and has done a lot of software industry work (he was Mitch Kapor's lawyer for a while). He's mentioned working with RMS creating the GPL. I'll try to remember to ask Stallman next time I see him. -- user akb4, not logged in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.144.138 (talk) 06:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Examples of output that is derivative?

Note that the copyleft applies only to the software and not to its output (unless that output is itself a derivative work of the program); for example, a public web portal running a modified derivative of a GPL'ed content management system is not required to distribute its changes to the underlying software.

Could examples be given for GPL software whose output is a derivative? Would a bitmap rendering from a GPL'ed SVG text file be a derivative work? What about a program that draws a circle, and an image of the circle drawn? Program source code that paints a free texture map onto a flat surface and the output of such code when interpreted? 84user (talk) 03:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Parsers generated by GNU bison are examples of outputs that are derivative works. The output of a bison run is a set of tables based on the input syntax grammar (which is of course not derived from bison), and a program that uses the tables (which is a part of bison). As the bison documentation says:

"The output of the Bison utility—the Bison parser file—contains a verbatim copy of a sizable piece of Bison, which is the code for the parser's implementation. (The actions from your grammar are inserted into this implementation at one point, but most of the rest of the implementation is not changed.) When we applied the GPL terms to the skeleton code for the parser's implementation, the effect was to restrict the use of Bison output to free software."

RossPatterson (talk) 04:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I have added GNU Bison as a good counter example. I am still interested in any sources that better define the boundary between derivative and non-derivative . Is it only if the output contains code, and what kind of code? Maybe I will ask at the Reference Desk. 84user (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If the output includes (sizeable) parts of the work, then the output is a derivative. E.g. drawing programs may offer artwork, which can be used only to the extent explicitely permitted. Free software is in no special position, so a general legal discussion would do as source. --LPfi (talk) 10:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Text related to GPL

I'd like to see a clear statement about what people can do with text such as that on a wiki about a program. Example Wikia:Freeciv, which is a wiki devoted to the GPL game Freeciv and which says on its edit page that all contributions are under the GPL. Under what conditions, if any, could some of that wiki be legally copied to a CC-BY-SA wiki? Robin Patterson (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

GPL (and GDFL also) is incompatible with CC-BY-SA so neither text under GPL can be relicenced to CC-BY-SA, nor the other way.1exec1 (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Or, more correctly: they can be relicensed only by the right owners (usually the authors). Quoting minor parts of the discussion is usually permitted as fair use, and referencing it is unproblematic. If you want to copy larger parts of the discussion, you should create a separate GPL licensed section in (or outside) the wiki. --LPfi (talk) 10:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I still cannot appreciate the Open Source Concept

I have gone through enough information about the Open Source Initiative and the GPL licenses. It is more confusing than clarifying, the original authors intent. Since nobody would be able to make software products that could sell in the market using the Open Source as a base, to what end is this reaching out? Is this initiative not defeating the basic business sense? Can somebody kindly throw some light? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.193.158 (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, there are other reasons to use open source besides those involving business. For some, using open source is partially based on a principle of public participation and contribution. Needless to say, there are many reasons developers choose to participate in or create open source projects. As far as business is concerned, some companies profit based on a model of selling services and support for their software. If a company develops open source software, there are sometimes clients who are willing to pay for technical support, expertise and customisation from the original developer. It's not too surprising you didn't get a sense of the debate surrounding open source software and business in this particular article, since the article isn't focused around those specific issues. Business models for open source software would probably be a better article to look at for more information about corporations and open source software. --Xaliqen (talk) 12:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

misspeled word license as licence

in the criticism section license is spelled as licence many times Jnw222 (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

well correct it! KenThomas (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Section numbering style

When referring to sections in the GPL, it is important to note that the sections start at 0 in the hacker manner. However, perhaps "section 0" should be the "first section", while "section 5" is the "sixth session". I don't care what we choose, but it'd be better if we were consistent. How about we avoid "zero section" and go with the serial format -- "first", "second".

Another option is to avoid mentioning numbers all together, since this seems to be a nomenclature that the FSF and other GPL specialists only use. We could just use the section titles. --Ashawley (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

market price

Since we mention market price in the criticism section, it would be better if we had a section on the commercialization aspect for gpl in the article. Software has several different commercialization aspects and only mentioning the one where "company X produce product Y and tries to sell it to the general public" is very limited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belorn (talk • contribs) 10:22, 27 September 2009

That whole discussion smacks of unacceptable Original Research into economics. There are plenty of companies selling software that is GPLed (e.g. Oracle/Sun/MySQL), plus it's how the FSF funded itself for years. {{Citation needed}}. RossPatterson (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

A survey that shows massive GPL usage

I've stumbled upon this survey:

• http://web.archive.org/web/20070224011608/widi.berlios.de/paper/study.html

It's from 2001. Section 5.1.2 has a graph showing licences used and puts GPL at what looks like about 90%. That's quite high. Is there something that skews their sample group or is that the way things were back in 2001? Gronky (talk) 02:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

Initiating NPOV discussion. This page seems to me deeply embedded with a POV aligned with the Open Source/Free Software community and the non-neutral assertions of the GPL itself; it is based almost entirely on admitting as fact, or neutral, statements and opinions that would be seen as true by members of this movement, but are not clear from the POV of non-members of this community. There is a tendency to hero-worship of the GPL and Stallman. Othertimes the article either grossly oversimplifies complex matters to the point of error, or is very close to being unreferenced bunk or the repetition of common but unsubstantiated myths.

For instance: under 'Licensing and contractual issues': the article states: "Those who do not agree to the GPL's terms and conditions do not have permission, under copyright law, to copy or distribute GPL licensed software or derivative works." This is unreferenced; it is also grossly ignorant of the details of "copyright law." In a jurisdiction where some sort of copyright law applies to a work allegedly under the GPL, for instance, "copyright law" may authorize use under fair use provisions or other 'exceptions;' it may not apply to the GPLed work at all, because it is not copyrightable (does not constitute a work subject to local copyright); and the reference to "derivative works"(*) is likely deceptive insomuch as no clear definition of 'derivative' is proferred, and the general article seems to thing that this is a far wider category than supposed. (*) Where linked elsewhere, the definition of "derivative work" on WikiPedia is rightly marked as dealing primary with North American Civil Law jurisdictions-- if that.

The section "Compatibility and Multi-licensing" is unsourced, and largely a repetition of the (non-neutral) assertions of the GPL. A phrase such as "Also see the list of FSF approved software licenses for examples of compatible and incompatible licenses" is using a single, non-neutral source, ie, essentially repeating a non-neutral source, and its assertion that there are objective "compatible and incompatible licences, as if it's assertion were truth (in the sense of "gospel"). "Criticism" appears to take a neutral form, but chooses its example to make the opposition look stupid, really says "MicroSoft asserted this bunk, but fortunately, the good side came back ... and MS...".

Paragraph 4 of this section, beginning "While the GPL does allow..." (and continuing) is unsourced/unreferenced/unsubstantiated, and employs non-neutral language which essentially repeats the non-independent assertions of the GPL. Better phrasing might be, "The GPL asserts that licencees (or: adherents) may not...". Regardless, "the GPL does not allow" is neither neutral or accurate language. The GPL is not a live actor which can prevent "what it does not allow;" it is a written document with questionable legal, contractual or other validity in the situations described, particularly when these situations occur in jurisdictions outside the United States.

"Linking and derived works" is largely unsourced and trades mainly in the obscure local myths of the FS/OS community, for instance, >>A key dispute related to the GPL is whether or not non-GPL software can be dynamically linked to GPL libraries. The GPL is clear in requiring that all derivative works of code under the GPL must themselves be under the GPL. While it is understood that static linking produces derivative works, it is not clear whether an executable that dynamically links to a GPL code should be considered a derivative work (see Weak Copyleft). << This section is essentially a result of original (like "participant observer") research into the OS/FS community, and, at best, forwards statements that are highly suspect from an independent, factual point-of-view.

In "The GPL in court," first paragraph engages in an attempted cherry-picking of facts to show a "win" for validity of the GPL: >>At the hearing, Judge Saris "saw no reason" that the GPL would not be enforceable.[34]<< This attempts to give the impression that the GPL was in someway positively affirmed by this comment on the part of Judge Saris; what in fact (seems to have occurred), was that on a preliminary hearing in the matter, the Judge expressed that she saw no immediate and obvious barriers to enforcement of the GPL in this particular case; in a legal context, this non-negative allowance for the matter to proceed is in no way equivalent to a positive judgment that the matter might proceed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KenThomas (talk • contribs) 16:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

And so on-- most paragraphs in the article can be picked apart, and are a compilation of non-neutral, mythical, unsourced material, or sourced material being used in a non-neutral manner in order to support ideological statements and/or irrational beliefs. KenThomas (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ken. Thanks for this review. I don't agree with all your points, but for the points I don't agree with, I accept that if you came to these conclusions, then the article needs to be clearer.

I came here to add something about GPL exceptions and I don't see a good place to add that info, so a bit of a restructure is needed anyway. I'll read from your comments when reviewing it. Gronky (talk) 23:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

...I don't have the time to do the review necessary afterall :-( Gronky (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Ken, you're absolutely right. There are peacock terms all over this article. In the second paragraph, it says "...the GPL is a powerful public license...." If that's not a violation of WP:NPOV, I don't know what is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.128.108 (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

v3's Additional Terms

The article only mentions briefly this new concept (section 7 of v3). I think it's a very important addition. Attribution (7b), for example, is a revolutionary step for GPL. Is there any source out there that gives real or simulated examples for v3 licenses that have additional terms?

Also, what do those terms even worth if

When you convey a copy of a covered work, you may at your option remove any additional permissions from that copy

-79.176.200.211 (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

GPL and the public domain?

The article doesn't mention how GPL and the public domain fit together. For example, can public domain code exist within a GPL project? Is it legal to create a GPL fork of public domain code? pgr94 (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

According to http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

Public Domain: Being in the public domain is not a license; rather, it means the material is not copyrighted and no license is needed. Practically speaking, though, if a work is in the public domain, it might as well have an all-permissive non-copyleft free software license. Public domain material is compatible with the GNU GPL.

Is that worth adding to the article?

Also, is it possible to create a GPL fork of public domain material? A GPL fork would require subsequent contributions to be shared, while the public domain version would not place restrictions on the contributions. pgr94 (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Misleading initial explanation

The very start of this article says "...which means that it requires derived works to be available under the same license terms". I propose this should be changed to "...which means that it only grants distribution rights if derivative works are made available under the same license terms". As a license, the GPL has no power to make demands. It can only grant rights that are otherwise limited by Copyright law. Granting these rights conditioned upon making derivative works available is not the same as "requiring derived works to be available...".--128.187.80.2 (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed rename to "GPL"

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

GNU General Public License → GPL — WP:COMMONNAME says it all. Almost exclusively, people refer to these licenses as simply "GPL", to the point that many people don't actually know what the acronym means. -- intgr [talk] 12:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I have no clear opinion but would like to share some thoughts. While GPL may be the common name for this topic - that acronym is still used by others. Granted this is by far the most popular use of that acronym - however, actually titling the article with the full-name may be preferable as it communicates unambiguously what the article is about. Naming it GPL on the other hand could invite greater confusion on the part of people searching for articles found on GPL (disambiguation). Overall I understand the points made in favor of the common name but feel that the current title's accuracy and specificity in relating the contents of this article have value too. Solid State Survivor (talk) 04:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
• I object. The full name is commonly used in many places, including the standard GPL boilerplate, legal websites, and FOSS project descriptions. Heck, even PNG and PDF are at their common names, and the average reader has much less incentive to know what they stand for than it is the case for the GPL. - Sikon (talk) 04:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

  How about "GNU GPL"? -- intgr [talk] 07:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. What positive effects do you see in the first place? Take into account the fact that GPL already redirects to this article.1exec1 (talk) 09:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

  The primary problem is people linking to this article with the text "GNU General Public License"; First, it's not as descriptive/recognizable as just stating "GPL" would be, and second it's unwieldy — especially on infoboxes where it doesn't fit on a single line. Even if these links were pointing to the GPL redirect, there's always the "anti-redirect crew" that would undo that. And I really don't like piping if "GPL" would be a so much more obvious target. Also, WP:COMMONNAME is policy and has good reasons and practice behind it. I realize now that I should have started my nomination with these justifications, sorry about that. -- intgr [talk] 20:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. WP:COMMONNAME takes on less importance when it comes to simple acronyms that haven't fully supplanted the original name. Most reliable sources that discuss the GPL will use the full title on first usage anyway. Powers ^T 20:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose GPL is not so engained in culture to be commonly know by the general pubic. Where possible its almost always preferable not to employ acronyms. --Labattblueboy (talk) 01:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GPL and sourceless programs

Hypothetically, would the creator of a program that has no source code (for example a program written entirely in handcoded machine code, or a program created by an evolutionary algorithm) be able to release their program under the GPL? Horselover Frost (talk · edits) 01:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course. The source for an machine code program is the machine code. --Gwern (contribs) 01:18 12 January 2011 (GMT)

v3 minor fixes' proposals

The section Version 3 mumbles about Version 3:

• it should (maybe in first para) claim that Version 3 is current and published in June 29, 2007,
• it should make a summary of how the version is different from v2,
• the comment (which is in fact a criticism from the Linux kernel developers) in the last para is in fact a to Draft 2, and it seems to me that the published Version 3 builds mainly on Draft 4.

Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 09:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't read carefully. So I'll modify/merge the first-two proposals:

• the entire first para should be about the final published Version 3 of June 29, 2007, and it should summarize how it differs from v2,

Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 10:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

"Unfriendly" comment

...and a extremely unfriendly thing to say. I don't think that this contributes anything useful to the article. I'm not sure what WP:BLP has to do with anything in this situation, as removing that does not take the information out of context. Stallman's opinion that the metaphor of a virus is wrong, this is important to the article. That he thinks it unfriendly is not. His factual argument against the "viral" statement is important, his feelings on the matter are not encyclopedic, and as it's not a quote, I don't see any reason to keep it. - SudoGhost™ 07:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

In another source he called it "harsh". So IMHO it is OK to mention that he thinks it is a wrong use of negative connotations. There is another article on the subject, "Viral Code and Vaccination" by Robert J. Chassell. --AVRS (talk) 10:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The usage of "harsh" or "unfriendly" is for me equivalent in this meaning so I dont have any preference. I picked unfriendly because it was used in the first cited source. On the question if its important for the article, for me what is important is to have a correct representation of the cited person opinion. Editing and removing parts of what a living person say, should be done very carefully, which WP:BLP is very clear on. Thus atm I op to keep the hole opinion as before (or using the word harsh instead of unfriendly). As an alternative, maybe it would be better to simply write a summery of the Viral license article as it relate to GPL, and have a link to the main article. This way we could skip the hole current setup of what Mundie said and then what Stallmans response was, and replace it with an objective text of the subject matter.Belorn (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

This would seem a good idea to me. Currently one would believe it's primarily Microsoft who has used the description yet AFAIK, and as noted by the viral licence article, BSD and similar licence proponents commonly describe the GPL in that way and I believe have been doing it longer then MS. For them it's an obvious annoyance since (2 clause) BSD code can be (and sometimes is) licenced under the GPL thereby preventing them from using it further. Nil Einne (talk) 12:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

v3 impacts?

I think would be nice to highlight some of the effects of the v3 changes. It seems as if Apple will not distribute any GPLv3 software. Being Apple, they won't comment of course, but it seems pretty clear. Major OS components like GCC, Samba, and Bash have not been updated in years. I only recently learned that this was due to these projects having switched to GPLv3. Apple has even gone so far as to write their own GCC-compatible compiler (Clang) and SMB networking layer. Clang is open-source (because it is based on the non-GPL LLVM), but Apple's SMB implementation is proprietary. Apparently Solaris doesn't include GCC or Samba either.

It seems like this should be a bigger issue that it is. With the release of MacOS X Lion, end users are now feeling the impact because their systems now work differently with Windows services or, in some cases, don't work at all. Is this only an issue with Mac users or are there other impacts as well? Thanks.

Jdaniel905 (talk) 02:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a great initiative, but has Apple distribute any GPL software at all in the last 10 years? There is some stories about how Steve Jobs tried to make a proprietary add-on to GCC a 15-20 years ago, got legal resistance from FSF, and has from that point refrained from ever using GPL software in Apple products ever since. While I know apple has made several statement about their dislike of GPLv3, I dont know if they actually done any change to what software they will distribute.Belorn (talk) 03:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure, here is the current list of open-source software that ships with MacOS X 10.7 Lion: http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-1071/. As you can see, there are a fair number of GPL packages, but they are all GPLv2. If a package, such as Bash, for example, has switched to GPLv3 at some point, Apple stays on the last GPLv2 version. That proprietary add-on is actually Objective-C I think - the heart of MacOSX and iOS. After more research, this seems to be a a mess that has been brewing for some time. The GPLv3 and Lion's new SMB runtime seem to be just the culmination of a feud that has been running for 12 years. I honestly never knew about any of that. Perhaps it does merit an edit to the main page. Jdaniel905 (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. Looks like I only had a part of the full story. Definitely merit a addition to the article. Belorn (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

GNU/Linux or linux

I am a strong beliver one should use the language that is used in the context of the article subject, and which are commonly used by the cited sources in the article. Unsupriseingly, WP:Article titles#Treatment of alternative names agree with this in the section Treatment of alternative names by stateing: ... There is also no reason why alternative names cannot be used in article text, in contexts where they are more appropriate than the name used as the title of the article. Linux is the more common name used in general, but in the context of GNU General Public License then GNU/Linux is more common and thus the appropriate title. Belorn (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Ironically, the sources in the article that mention it commonly use Linux, not GNU/Linux. Furthermore, the consensus at Talk:Linux/Name is that GNU/Linux is not appropriate when referring to that subject, as not everything based on the Linux kernel uses GNU, and that GNU/Linux is an WP:NPOV term. Therefore GNU/Linux, while it may or may not be accurate or appropriate in referring to the desktop operating systems, is not an all inclusive term. For example, Android "uses Linux" but to refer to it as GNU/Linux is inaccurate, as it doesn't use anything from GNU.

For that reason, I don't think it's appropriate to say "It's believed that the copyleft provided by the GPL was crucial to the success of GNU/Linux" as opposed to "...crucial to the success of Linux" when that not only narrows it down to an overly specific definition, thereby unnecessarily excluding a lot of software, but the source itself uses the term Linux. - SudoGhost 18:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

By very longstanding consensus on Wikipedia the term GNU/Linux is considered a POV term. See Talk:Linux and all its archives along with Talk:Linux/Name for a complete explanation of why this is the case. The only time that it is appropriate to use this term is when a distribution calls itself that, such as Parabola GNU/Linux, but even then it is not described as a GNU/Linux distribution, but as a Linux distribution and GNU/Linux is only used in the title. - Ahunt (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The Talk:Linux is about the linux article, in the linux article context and this is the GNU General Public article. The context of this article need/should to be viewed independendly of the linux article, as they are not the same. A dicussion in one article does not mean the result is applicable on a other article, through it is an indication. Anyway, the talk page did give some interesting viewpoints. Sometimes people say "distributors of Linux", when they mean distributors of free and open source software in general. Fixing those to remove missleading statements (which are also unsupported by their sources) should resolve any issue I had with the previous language. Belorn (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It is stated in the article that Linksys WRT54G firmware uses linux, but the source does not directly support this claim. The wikipedia article on WRT54G does not mention what type of firmware WRT54G uses, but the related router WRT54GL is mentioned to have used linux previously, but is also unsourced. My Google searches did not find any supporting statement so if someone can find one, please add it. it sounds plausable that WRT54G is linux, or is linux-based, so I will leave it alone for a while in hope someone adds a source. Belorn (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

We don't have consensuses of this nature for one article and not others as it would make a mess of the encyclopedia. The reason that the discussion is on Talk:Linux is that is the parent article for the whole encyclopedia on this particular issue. Basically if you want to change the consensus then that is the place to go to get a new global consensus on it and not try to just piecemeal gain consensus one article at a time. - Ahunt (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

As justification to use the term "Linux", some use the argument that not everything that uses the Linux kernel also uses the GNU operating system. Android is perhaps the most notable example of this, although there are others. While that is correct, it is also irrelevant because no one is calling for those types of systems to be called GNU/Linux. The reverse of this arugment is also true, however: The GNU Operating System can also be used with kernels other than Linux. No one is calling for those systems to be called GNU/Linux either. There is a situation where calling the system GNU/Linux is appropriate: For distributions that take the GNU Operating System and replace the GNU kernel with the kernel called Linux. That is perhaps the most common situation that people encounter, at least with distributions that target laptop and desktop computers. Even though those distributions might (incorrectly) refer to themselves as a "Linux distribution" they are in fact a distribution of the GNU Operating System, with Linux added.

Another justification that's used to call the GNU Operating System "Linux" is that it's common among people, but repeating something that's basically wrong doesn't make it correct: I might be able to convince people to start referring to their chair as a closet, but that doesn't mean it's the correct term for it. If repeated often enough perhaps it might even catch on, just like saying that the combination of the GNU Operating System with the kernel called Linux is entirely "Linux" caught on. Perhaps Wikipedia would then adopt a policy that all chairs should be referred to as closets because that's what so many chair owners (and chair distributors) do, despite any confusion that it might cause. (See the fifth paragraph of for an example of such confusion.)

Finally, an edit was made to remove "GNU/" from the statement that "it's believed that the copyleft provided by the GPL was crucial to the success of GNU/Linux". It is appropriate to mention GNU in this context for the reasons mentioned at . Jxself (talk) 05:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Linux is the least common denominator for all of these projects, and if the reliable sources in the article didn't exclude projects that had nothing to do with GNU, there is no reason for this article to do so either. This is in addition to WP:COMMONNAME, which I highly suggest you read, as it is a Wikipedia policy that runs opposite to most of what you said above.

However, with that said, GNU/Linux is not the "official, correct" name either. Is it a name promoted by the FSF, a group which is basically, to use your metaphor, trying to call chairs "Closet/Chairs", because those chairs were made with tools from the closet. If you'll excuse me turning your words around on you, "I might be able to convince people to start referring to their chair as a closet/chair, but that doesn't mean it's the correct term for it." It's six one way, half a dozen on the other. There's no "this name is right, this name is wrong", therefore we go by the WP:COMMONNAME, which is Linux. - SudoGhost 06:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That policy you mention has a clear exception to it, mentioned at top of this dicussion. Ignoring the exception does not remove it from the policy. Second, the source cited for the statement "it's believed that the copyleft provided by the GPL was crucial to the success of Linux" talk specificly of the Linux kernel development. I made changes to the article to relfect this, which also makes the discussion about "linux" or "gnu/linux" irrelevant. Hopefully everyone can live with that and simply let the discussion die.Belorn (talk) 07:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The exception you noted does not apply, as was overwhelmingly demonstrated by the sources in the article. However, the edits you made do make this irrelevant, so that solves that. - SudoGhost 07:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Dubious statement about legal precedent

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)

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)

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)

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)

POV in the section on GPL as virus/spider plant

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)

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)

Looks good to me. - SudoGhost 16:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)