It absolutely is not splitting hairs. This means that if you have a large codebase and accidentally link GPLed code into it, you have many different options that do not involve GPLing your code. Many people incorrectly believe that is not the case which is proved by many of the responses in this very thread.
One of the original examples here in this thread (by bryanlarsen above) was even about checking GPLed code into a repo. Any company can do that and can experiment and decide they really like the code and then they can e.g. contact the copyright holders and offer to license under different terms or another large number of options. This sort of misconception is widespread only one example of why most people's understanding of the "GPL is viral" is simply wrong. Calling this splitting hairs is ridiculous. It's fundamental.
Who thinks that “accidental” linking is the problem? And how does that really even happen? You accidentally check in some GPL code, build and link to it, and then also accidentally distribute the resulting binaries?
Bryanlarsen above specifically called out that checking into a repo is not linking.
The only real misconception is that use of GPL software by a company will somehow result in all software owned by that company becoming GPL licensed. This is of course not true. It is true that linking proprietary software to GPL code and then distributing executables must result in either the proprietary software being licensed under the GPL or a copyright violation.
Your comments about getting different license terms is proving my point. Your proposed solutions to the GPL redistribution clause all boil down to not using GPL software.
> The only real misconception is that use of GPL software by a company will somehow result in all software owned by that company becoming GPL licensed. This is of course not true. It is true that linking proprietary software to GPL code and then distributing executables must result in either the proprietary software being licensed under the GPL or a copyright violation.
Other than the fact that you can of course negotiate another license to that GPLed software, I agree. Said more succinctly, distributing copyrighted materials without a license is a copyright violation and that has nothing to do with the GPL. My point is that the remedy for the copyright violation need not result in your original codebase being GPLed. This is even true if the original authors absolutely refuse to issue you a separate non-GPL license or refuse to negotiate. In that case they can probably get an injunction and statutory damages (of course assuming they pursue legal action).
Regardless, I don't think we disagree here. However, you seem to be ignorant of the FUD that is often spread about the GPL. Many people believe claims like if Microsoft linked GPLed code into Office that they would have no choice but to GPL all of Office. That is false. As long as we agree about this I don't see any point in discussing this further.
> Your comments about getting different license terms is proving my point. Your proposed solutions to the GPL redistribution clause all boil down to not using GPL software.
Well if you'd like a clear statement about my beliefs it's this: Don't use software if you aren't prepared to meet the terms of its license. But that doesn't really have anything to do with the GPL specifically.
I concur that we generally agree on the facts. We seem to have different interpretations of what those facts imply, though. This comment I disagree with:
“Regardless it's definitely not the case that the GPL just magically infects any code it touches. That is a ridiculous simplification that is mostly spread by ignorance or those spreading FUD.”
The GPL does infect the code it touches. If you link your proprietary software to GPL software, now and forever the binaries you produced with that linking are “tainted”. You distribute the source under the GPL or you do not distribute those binaries (or you violate the law). You can certainly back out the offending change and future binaries will clean and clear, but the GPL does, by design, force the choice between copyright violation and opening up proprietary software. It does not, however, perpetually “taint” source that touched it in the past and anyone who thinks it does is misinformed.
The characterization as viral/infectious remains reasonable, though, given the intent and the legal implications.
> If you link your proprietary software to GPL software, now and forever the binaries you produced with that linking are “tainted”. You distribute the source under the GPL or you do not distribute those binaries (or you violate the law). You can certainly back out the offending change and future binaries will clean and clear, but the GPL does, by design, force the choice between copyright violation and opening up proprietary software.
We are in agreement that you can of course also negotiate another license right? (Assuming the copyright holder(s) go along.) I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but I just want to make sure we're clear about that one thing. Your sentence here seems to present a binary choice when of course it isn't binary.
edit: I only bring this up because another misconception many (not necessarily you) have is that software cannot be simultaneously GPL as well as another license. This should be basically obvious to most when they think about it (basically all business to business software is negotiated under different licenses for example), but most somehow still don't realize it when it comes to the GPL for some reason.
> We are in agreement that you can of course also negotiate another license right? (Assuming the copyright holder(s) go along.) I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but I just want to make sure we're clear about that one thing. Your sentence here seems to present a binary choice when of course it isn't binary.
Of course. If you negotiate a different license, then of course you are no longer bound by the terms of the GPL. That doesn't say anything about the intent or effects of the GPL itself, though.
> edit: I only bring this up because another misconception many (not necessarily you) have is that software cannot be simultaneously GPL as well as another license. This should be basically obvious to most when they think about it (basically all business to business software is negotiated under different licenses for example), but most somehow still don't realize it when it comes to the GPL for some reason.
That is an option in theory, and lots of software is dual- or multiple-licensed. It depends on how the software was written, though. If a single entity (or small number of entities) owns the copyright to the software, this is definitely viable. Lots of authors who retain their own copyright on their contributions gets a lot harder. You technically need all contributors to agree to the relicensing if they haven't signed over their copyrights to someone else (as the FSF requires for software they maintain).
I'm actually not sure about the legality of some of the open-source relicensing that happens. I've seen projects announce that they are relicensing without getting signoff from all contributors. This is shady and unlikely to be legal. Using software that's been relicensed this way is probably a terrible idea (from a dev standpoint; doesn't matter much for end users).
One of the original examples here in this thread (by bryanlarsen above) was even about checking GPLed code into a repo. Any company can do that and can experiment and decide they really like the code and then they can e.g. contact the copyright holders and offer to license under different terms or another large number of options. This sort of misconception is widespread only one example of why most people's understanding of the "GPL is viral" is simply wrong. Calling this splitting hairs is ridiculous. It's fundamental.