Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

That goes beyond what most people consider the GPL to cover. There are other licenses with stronger copylefts specifically to cover that last case -- notably, the AGPL.

I suspect trying to make the case that GPL's viral copyleft isn't limited to strictly linking but potentially any interaction with it would probably have a chilling effect on the use of GPL code, and this reinterpretation would only reinforce some people's prejudice against the GPL, a la Ballmer's "Linux is cancer" line.

Maybe it's the pragmatism in me, but I think it would have a net negative effect long term, unless it managed to flip all of the tables and convince everyone to use all GPL code, instead of making people reject copyleft wholesale.



> potentially any interaction with it

But that's not what I said. I said programs that do not work without some other program, is, in my opinion, a derivative work. I just don't see how the calling mechanism even plays into that judgement.

I do agree that there are other licenses such as the AGPL that try to cover these cases.

And arguably the online thing is a whole different ball of wax, because you can talk about software using a service, etc. It really is tricky in that case.

But I don't see the reason to distinguish between calling a function via the C stdcall mechanism, vs. "popen" and capturing stdout. It's exactly the same, logically, the only difference are details that imho should not matter for the legal case.

Right now, if I release a GPL library, what stops someone from coming along and writing a CLI program that just wraps every function with some textual interface, and including that with their closed-source program? The GPL becomes pretty toothless if it's bypassed so easily.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2026 batch! Applications are open till July 27.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: