Phatose on 15/4/2010 at 01:37

---

Actually, it very decidedly limits your 'rights'. The GPL outright disallows you from releasing anything that so much as links to GPLed software without also releasing all source code. The practical upshot is that actually selling software that makes use of GPLed code in any fashion commercially nonviable, since you're required to release the source code and thus anybody can simply recompile your source and will never have any need to buy it.

There are also other problematic issues you run into when making use of GPLed code. For one, if you use any GPLed code, then you pretty much cannot also use non-GPLed code in the same software. When you need to make use of other libraries, this is trouble. You may not have the source code to release at all, and you may not have the rights to release the code if you do. There was a thread here a while back on a GPLed game that had to be completely rewritten for an xbox release because they weren't going to be able to release any of Microsoft's proprietary code, which they needed to get the game to run.

This isn't even getting into the various license incompatibilities you get when trying to use Open Source code under different licenses together, and there are a lot of Open Source licenses. They typically run into similar problems - each has different rights granted to end users by way of restrictions on developers, and they're not always compatible.

The practical upshot is that developing GPL code as a business almost ensures you're going to have to use the 'give away the software, sell the support' model the major linux devs use - or some other model where the software you develop is not the product you're actually selling.


The rights of those end users are fundamentally paid for by restrictions on what developers can do with GPLed code, and anything that interacts with it. Now, it's easy enough to just avoid the GPL entirely, and that's what a lot of devs do out of simple necessity.

But Yakoob is fundamentally correct here. GPL requires certain actions to be taken, and that is a limitation. "You must walk down the right side of the street if it's sunday" is equivalent to "You cannot walk down any other side of the street if it's sunday."

Volitions Advocate on 15/4/2010 at 05:22

---

I think that the problems people have with the GPL (in this thread) may have relevance, just not with the issue at hand. Graf did not create GZdoom from nothing. He used other peoples code. His product has code that he does not have the rights to.

This is different than developing software that you intend to release on the GPL or other open source licenses. If he really wanted to keep his code to himself he could've done what Valve did. GoldSource is based on the Quake 1 engine, which is released under the GPL. Obviously they didn't have to release their source code because id offers non GPL licenses for the same code. If he paid his $10K to id than I'd say absolutely he had the right to withhold his code from the community.

but he didn't, and he's being a baby, and the "but it's his code" argument is pretty weak considering where he got the majority of "his code" from.

Volitions Advocate on 15/4/2010 at 08:10

---

Buddy of mine just showed me audiosurf on his Zune, pretty sweet.

[/tangent]

Assidragon on 15/4/2010 at 18:18

---

Granting rights to someone almost always means curbing the rights of someone else (with a few notable exceptions, like claiming unowned goods).

GPL licence basically means you forfeit all your rights concering your application, and transfer it to the open source community of the internet. The community owns it, and you have as much say in what you want to do with it as anyone else in the crowd - roughly, none. Of course, this is the entire point of GPL. Everyone's equal, and every product is everyone's.

june gloom on 15/4/2010 at 18:42

---

Skulltag uses GZDoom code nowadays- was big news when it happened.