请输入您要查询的百科知识：

　

词条 Viral license
释义

  1. Scope

  2. History

  3. Criticism of the term

  4. Interoperability

  5. See also

  6. References

  7. External links

{{POV|date=July 2016}}Viral license is an alternative name for copyleft licenses, especially the GPL, that allows derivative works only when permissions are preserved in modified versions of the work.[1][2][3][4][5][6] Copyleft licenses include several common open-source and free content licenses, such as the GNU General Public License (GPL) and the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike license (E CC-BY-SA).

Scope

The term is most often used to describe the GPL,[7][5][6] which requires that any derivative work also be licensed under compatible licenses with the GPL. The viral component is described as such because the licenses spreads a continuing use of the licenses in its derivatives. The "virality" can force a license change of free software, e.g. when software is derived from two or more sources having incompatible viral licenses in which the derivative work could not be re-licensed at all.[7]

Although the concept is generally associated with licenses that promote free content, some have attempted to compare it to the proprietary original equipment manufacturer source code software distribution agreements which grant licensees the right to redistribute copies of the software, but restrict what terms can be in the end user license agreement.[12] Such licenses could be considered viral if they led derivative or connected software to gain the same license.

As an example of viral licensing outside software, after it was revealed that French author Michel Houellebecq plagiarized sections of Wikipedia articles in his novel La Carte et Le Territoire, some commentators said that this automatically made his entire book licensed under the CC-BY-SA Attribution and ShareAlike license.[8]

History

The term 'General Public Virus' or 'GNU Public Virus' (GPV) as a pejorative name dates back to a year after the GPLv1 was released.[9][10][11][12][13][14] In 2001 Microsoft vice-president Craig Mundie remarked "This viral aspect of the GPL poses a threat to the intellectual property of any organization making use of it."[15] In another context, Steve Ballmer declared that code released under GPL is useless to the commercial sector (since it can only be used if the resulting surrounding code becomes GPL), describing it thus as "a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches".[16] In response to Microsoft's attacks on the GPL, several prominent Free Software developers and advocates released a joint statement supporting the license.[17]

Criticism of the term

According to Free Software Foundation compliance engineer David Turner, the term viral license creates a misunderstanding and a fear of using copylefted free software.[18] David McGowan has written that there is no reason to believe the GPL could force proprietary software to become free software, but could "try to enjoin the firm from distributing commercially a program that combined with the GPL'd code to form a derivative work, and to recover damages for infringement." If the firm "actually copied code from a GPL'd program, such a suit would be a perfectly ordinary assertion of copyright, which most private firms would defend if the shoe were on the other foot."[19]

Richard Stallman has described this view with an analogy, saying, "The GPL's domain does not spread by proximity or contact, only by deliberate inclusion of GPL-covered code in your program. It spreads like a spider plant, not like a virus."[20]

Interoperability

Popular copyleft licenses, such as the GPL, have a clause allowing components to interact with non-copyleft components as long as the communication is abstract, such as executing a command-line tool with a set of switches or interacting with a Web server.[21] As a consequence, even if one module of an otherwise non-copyleft product is placed under the GPL, it may still be legal for other components to communicate with it normally. This allowed communication may or may not include reusing libraries or routines via dynamic linking — some commentators say it does,[22] the FSF asserts it does not and explicitly adds an exception allowing it in the license for the GNU Classpath re-implementation of the Java library.

The interoperability clauses are often pragmatically inoperative due to the vigorous enforcement and strict interpretation of the GPL as it related to integration, aggregation, and linking. It is argued that most forms of incorporation, aggregation, or connectivity with GPL-licensed code is a derivative work that must be licensed under the GPL. In recent years, a number of communities using GPL-incompatible licenses have dropped efforts and support for interoperability with GPL-licensed products in response to this trend. Some developers and communities have switched to the GPL or a GPL-compatible license in response, which critics and supporters alike agree is intentional end result. {{Citation needed|date=November 2010}}

See also

  • Viral phenomenon
  • Copyleft
  • GNU General Public License
  • Permissive license
  • Patentleft

References

1. ^{{cite web|url=http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-268889.html |title=Microsoft license spurns open source - CNET News |publisher=News.cnet.com |date= |accessdate=2015-05-30}}
2. ^{{cite web|last=Geere |first=Duncan |url=https://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-12/16/alternatives-to-copyright |title=Some rights reserved: the alternatives to copyright (Wired UK) |publisher=Wired.co.uk |date=2011-12-16 |accessdate=2015-05-30}}
3. ^{{cite web |url=http://a2knetwork.org/glossary |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090426091132/http://a2knetwork.org/glossary |dead-url=yes |archive-date=2009-04-26 |title=Glossary |publisher=A2Knetwork.org |date= |accessdate=2015-05-30 }}
4. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.friedfrank.com/siteFiles/Publications/ACC-GNY_Newsletter_OpenSourceInMATransactions.pdf |format=PDF |title=Inoculating Your Purchase – Contractual Protection from Viral Licenses in M&A Transactions |publisher=Friedfrank.com |accessdate=2015-05-30}}
5. ^1 {{cite web|url=http://www.buddlefindlay.com/article/2013/07/01/legal-update-on-information-and-communication-technology-%E2%80%93-july-2013|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130921110256/http://www.buddlefindlay.com/article/2013/07/01/legal-update-on-information-and-communication-technology-%E2%80%93-july-2013 |date=16 March 2015|archivedate=2013-09-21|quote="The principal fear relating to using OSS arises from a concept known as 'copyleft' (as in the opposite of copyright), which arises in some – though not all – OSS licences. More pejoratively known as 'viral' licences, copyleft licences (the most well-known of which are the GPLv2 and its successor GPLv3)" |title=Legal update on Information and Communication Technology – July 2013|author=Steve Nightingale|author2=Philip Wood|author3=Andrew Matangi|author4=Amy Ryburn|author5=Aisling Weir|author6=Allan Yeoman|last-author-amp=yes|accessdate=2017-02-04}}
6. ^1 {{cite web|url=http://www.newmediarights.org/open_source/new_media_rights_open_source_licensing_guide |title=Open Source Licensing Guide |author=New Media Rights |publisher=California Western School of Law |date=2008-09-12|accessdate=2015-11-28 |quote=The GPL license is ‘viral,’ meaning any derivative work you create containing even the smallest portion of the previously GPL licensed software must also be licensed under the GPL license.}}
7. ^1 {{cite web|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20011222205401/http://icfcst.kiev.ua/panorama/OSS/bsd_vs_gpl.shtml |title=Comparative merits of GPL, BSD and Artistic licences (Critique of Viral Nature of GPL v.2 - or In Defense of Dual Licensing Idea) |archivedate=2001-12-22 |url=http://icfcst.kiev.ua/panorama/OSS/bsd_vs_gpl.shtml |author=Nikolai Bezroukov |author-link=Nikolai Bezroukov |quote=Viral property stimulates proliferation of licenses and contributes to the "GPL-enforced nightmare" -- a situation when many other licenses are logically incompatible with the GPL and make life unnecessary difficult for developers working in the Linux environment (KDE is a good example here, Python is a less known example). |date=2000}}
8. ^{{cite web|url=http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101128/17552312024/french-author-plagiarizes-wikipedia-does-that-mean-his-entire-book-is-now-cc-licensed.shtml |title=French Author Plagiarizes Wikipedia; Does That Mean His Entire Book Is Now CC Licensed? |publisher=Techdirt.com |date=2010-11-29 |accessdate=2015-05-30}}
9. ^{{cite web |url=http://psg.com/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2006/msg00246.html |title=Re: Section 5.2 (IPR encumberance) in TAK rollover requirement draft |first=Paul |last=Vixie |authorlink=Paul Vixie |publisher=IETF Namedroppers mailing list |date=6 March 2006 |accessdate=29 April 2007 |archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20070927175628/http://psg.com/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2006/msg00246.html |archivedate = 27 September 2007}}
10. ^{{cite web|url=http://catb.org/esr/jargon/oldversions/jarg221.txt|title=General Public Virus|work=Jargon File 2.2.1|date=15 December 1990|accessdate=29 April 2007}}
11. ^{{cite journal|url=http://devlinux.org/lw-gnu-published.html|title=Reverse-engineering the GNU Public Virus — Is copyleft too much of a good thing?|first=Stig|last=Hackvän|journal=Linux Journal|date=September 1999|accessdate=29 April 2007|deadurl=yes|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110718132324/http://devlinux.org/lw-gnu-published.html|archivedate=18 July 2011|df=dmy-all}}
12. ^{{cite web|url=http://cypherpunks.venona.com/date/1998/10/msg00429.html|title=Re: propose: `cypherpunks license' (Re: Wanted: Twofish source code)|first=Bill|last=Stewart|publisher=Cypherpunks mailing list|date=8 October 1998|accessdate=29 April 2007|deadurl=yes|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20070529202454/http://cypherpunks.venona.com/date/1998/10/msg00429.html|archivedate=29 May 2007|df=dmy-all}}
13. ^{{cite web|url=https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2000-10/msg00198.html|title=Re: Using of parse tree externally|first=Joe|last=Buck|publisher=GCC mailing list|date=10 October 2000|accessdate=29 April 2007}}
14. ^{{cite web|url=http://themes.freshmeat.net/articles/view/172#comment-5548|title=The GNU Public Virus|first=L. Adrian|last=Griffis|date=15 July 2000|accessdate=29 April 2007}}
15. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/craig/05-03sharedsource.mspx |title=Speech Transcript - Craig Mundie |publisher=New York University Stern School of Business |date=3 May 2001 |first=Craig |last=Mundie |authorlink=Craig Mundie |accessdate=23 August 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050621082004/http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/craig/05-03sharedsource.mspx |archive-date=21 June 2005 |dead-url=yes |df=dmy-all }}
16. ^{{cite news| first=Dave| last=Newbart| pages=| title=Microsoft CEO takes launch break with the Sun-Times| date=1 June 2001| publisher=Chicago Sun-Times| url=http://suntimes.com/output/tech/cst-fin-micro01.html| archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20010615205548/http://suntimes.com/output/tech/cst-fin-micro01.html| archivedate=15 June 2001}} (Internet archive link) {{Dead link|date=February 2010}}
17. ^{{cite wikisource |title=Free Software Leaders Stand Together}}
18. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.linuxtoday.com/developer/2006082902126OSHLLL |title=IT Manager's Journal: 10 Common Misunderstandings About the GPL |first=Bruce |last=Byfield |date=29 August 2006 |accessdate=23 August 2008}}
19. ^{{Citation | author = David McGowan | chapter = Legal Aspects of Free and Open Source Software | title = Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software |editor1=Joseph Feller |editor2=Brian Fitzgerald |editor3=Scott A. Hissam |editor4=Karim R. Lakahani | publisher = MIT Press | year = 2005 | isbn = 0-262-06246-1 | page = 382}}
20. ^{{cite web| last=Poynder| first=Richard| title=The Basement Interviews: Freeing the Code| date=21 March 2006| accessdate=5 February 2010| url=https://archive.org/stream/The_Basement_Interviews/Richard_Stallman_Interview_djvu.txt}}
21. ^{{cite web |url=https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation |title=Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses |publisher=Free Software Foundation |date=24 June 2008 |accessdate=23 August 2008}}
22. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.catb.org/~esr/Licensing-HOWTO.html#id2789302 |title=Licensing HOWTO |date=9 November 2002 |first=Eric Steven |last=Raymond |authorlink=Eric S. Raymond |accessdate=21 March 2010}}
23. ^1 {{cite book|last=Meeker|first=Heather J. |title=The Open Source Alternative|publisher=John Wiley and Sons|year=2008|page=11|chapter=2|isbn=978-0-470-19495-9|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=J3rwa7t336sC&pg=PA11}}

[23]}}

External links

  • MS lawyers join open source fray, CNET, Stephen Shankland, 25 June 2001
{{FOSS}}{{Use dmy dates|date=November 2010}}{{DEFAULTSORT:Viral License}}

2 : Public copyright licenses|Copyleft
随便看

　

开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。

　

Copyright © 2023 OENC.NET All Rights Reserved
京ICP备2021023879号 更新时间：2024/11/10 12:45:23