Hi, I just had sort of a legal question, something I noticed on a website that kind of confused me. The impression I got was that when something was licensed under the GPL it had to stay licensed under the GPL. On the site it said that Linux should be released under a more friendly license than the GPL, but is this even possible?

If some software released under the GPL is modified and redistributed (in binary or source code form), then that software must also be licensed under the GPL.

That leads to some profitability problems from the perspective of traditional business models. Competitors can see how you're doing things. If your products are superior to your competitors because of software (like more efficient drivers, better algorithms), then you're losing your advantage; your competitors can read the source code, change their software, and now there's no differentiation between products. So your competitor gains the benefit of the time and money your company spent on research and development without spending any money of its own. This is the type of thing that Microsoft coined as "viral" about GPL'd software.

From a consumer/user standpoint, there's really no problem. In fact, it's a good thing, because everybody can look at and improve the product.

So, having a "more friendly" license really depends on your perspective. From a business standpoint, the most "friendly" license would allow them to take the code, include it (and any tweaks they make) into their product, sell it, and retain code secrecy. This is similar (to my understanding) to the BSD-style license: anybody can do anything they well please with the code.

Moved: This thread is more suitable in General and has been moved accordingly to help your thread/question get the exposure it deserves.

Yea, that's what I figured, so it kind of confused me when the reporter or w/e said that. Lol, what, Microsoft doesn't like the fact that they can't use the code without contributing anything back??? What a bunch of pathetic losers they are. Anyways, yea, thanks for clarifying that for me.

The original developer of the software can choose to re-release the software under another closed-source license, but once the GPL version is out, that particular stream cannot be closed.

Some people complain that GPL opens up closed-source projects against the wishes of the author(s), but the truth is that this is just propaganda and misinterpretation...nothing can be forced into open source unless the author allows it. However, the author must realize that including other GPL software into his own project may force it open. This is a problem with the author not reading the documentation....it's not a problem with GPL.

I've seen some commercial binary-only apps for Linux which link against glibc. What's the deal with that? Is that supposed to be legit under the GPL?

There is a separate license referred to as the LGPL (the GNU Lesser General Public License) that the GNU project licenses "most" of it's libraries under. You can read about it from the "horse's mouth" so to speak at the GNU Licenses webpage

I took a quick look at it, and the language is somewhat confusing. Section 5 seems to contradict itself (from the link above):
The first paragraph seems to state that a program that links against the library is not covered by the license. The second paragraph seems to state that a program that links against the library is covered by the license. The only way I can wrap my brain around this logically, is to assume the first paragraph applies to dynamic linking with the library, and the second paragraph applies to static linking. Static linking a library will actually place "portions of the Library" within the executable itself.

Anyway, I believe the intent of the license is to allow people to use code within the library as they wish as long as the library itself remains intact/unmodified.

I believe the intent of the license is to allow people to create non-GPL products which use GPL libraries as long as the application itself does not include portions of the libraries...in addition to leaving the libs intact.

A much better way of stating things

I agree completely.