On the GPL
I often find myself involved in discussions regarding the so-called ‘viral’ nature of GPL code. These discussions are usually initiated because a software developer has found a library or other component released under the GPL license that they’d like to incorporate into a product they don’t intend to license under the GPL.
Many of these people believe that developers that release GPL code are being silly by not giving up all rights to the code they release. If these feelings ring true with you, please remember that it is the authors (copyright holders) of a program that have the full right to decide how to license their product. You see this with Microsoft and Apple, for example - except they don’t use the GPL; rather, they use licenses that seek to criminalize and/or restrict many ethically honest uses of their product.
We choose the GPL (copyleft) because we care about the freedoms of our end users and fellow developers. The license is merely designed to ensure that our work cannot be appropriated into any system that is not free. Since the GPL must apply to derived works, it is often further argued that we’re constraining our work to one idea of freedom. While such a remark is correct, it betrays further confusion about what we’re trying to do.
You see, these discussions are sometimes mixed in with secondary discussions of theoretical ways a developer could try and work around the wording of the GPL to avoid its clear intent. This practice is, of course, dishonest. And it demonstrates just why we have to enforce the GPL specifically on derived works. There are always a small number of folks looking to exploit our work in a manner that is obviously contrary to the simple ‘fairness’ under which we have released it. By weakening the GPL’s requirements on derived works, we would open ourselves and our users up to many other opportunities for harmful exploitation.
It is the right of every developer to license their work how they see fit. (If you’re an agent like Microsoft, and you’re actually selling a product, you’ll be subject to more actual and possible regulation to make sure you uphold your consumer’s legal rights.) Asking any developer to release their hard work into the public domain, simply because you find the terms of the GPL unreasonable, is not in and of itself morally bankrupt; however, as soon as your request becomes an expectation, you’re crossing the line.