Re: The sad decline of copyleft software licenses? :(

[Pen-Yuan Hsing]

On 9/25/20 10:35 PM, Jean Louis wrote:
> * Pen-Yuan Hsing <penyuanhsing@gmail.com> [2020-09-25 04:35]:
> > This reminds me of two worrying examples I recently saw where even
> > GPL-licensed software are still used to create proprietary software!
> >
> > 1. As someone with an academic background, I've seen and used many
> > statistics/analytical software. There is a proprietary statistics GUI
> > program called Brodgar that uses the GPL'ed R kernel as its "backend".
> > Technically, Brodgar doesn't violate the GPL because it simply sends
> > commands to R and receives its output, but in my opinion it really exploits
> > the GPL-licensed R in a sadly anti-social way. What's particularly striking
> > is that Brodgar prominently emphasizes why it *doesn't* violate the GPL on
> > its homepage:
> >
> > https://www.brodgar.com/
> >
> > This really left a sour taste in my mouth. I gotta admit it really looked to
> > me that the developer wanted to be in my face to say: "Ha! Look at how I can
> > take advantage of this GPL'ed software even though my program is
> > proprietary!"
>
> If program is using other program by invoking it, it is, in my
> personal opinion, not a violation of a GPL license, and not some
> kind of a security loophole in the GPL license.
>
> And I also think, regardless if company has proprietary software or
> not, it is good to make proper legal research and legal consultation
> with R authors, or free software attorneys, to verify if some company
> is in violation of the license or not.
>
> I cannot see there possible violation of the GPL.
>
> You can use R and make R programs which are proprietary. You can have
> bash shell and have shell scripts which are proprietary. You can have
> proprietary program producing automatically shell scripts executed by
> shell, whereby such shell scripts would be proprietary. I do not vouch
> for proprietary software, as free software has a lot to do in the
> world. But that is how it is, the GPL license have been designed in
> such a way to allow such usages of software.

I agree with the points you made. However, I must apologise if I mislead 
you, because I *did not* claim that the proprietary software Brodgar 
violates the GNU GPL of R. Like I said in the example, the Brodgar 
homepage specifically has a highly visible section telling you why it 
does not violate the GPL. The point I am trying to make with this 
example is not of a GPL violation. The bigger context of my argument is 
that copyleft licenses are better than permissive licenses, because 
permissively-licensed free software has a higher risk of being used in 
proprietary software. The Brodgar example is to illustrate that even 
with a copyleft license such as the GPL, there is still a way for 
GPL-licensed free software to be used with proprietary programs without 
violating the GPL. If that can be done, then it is *even easier* for 
permissively-licensed free software to be exploited by proprietary 
software. The whole example was meant as an argument that copyleft 
licenses are at least better than permissive ones, even if copyleft is 
not perfect and might have loopholes.

> > 2. To my surprise, the highly proprietary messaging app WhatsApp uses the
> > GPL-licensed implementation of the Signal protocol developed by Open Whisper
> > Systems for its self-proclaimed end-to-end encryption:
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WhatsApp#End-to-end_encryption
> >
> > I suppose the Facebook army of lawyers were able to perform the necessary
> > legal gymnastics to make a GPL program fit in their proprietary app, perhaps
> > by technically keeping the GPL'ed binary separate from the rest of the app?
> > (can someone more knowledgeable speak to this?)
>
> Distributing binary version of Whatsapp that uses GPL software, would
> make the Whatsapp also GPL. But I am not sure of details. They need
> not distribute the source with the binary immediately, but they need
> to make it available.
>
> So how about you or somebody, makes the request for the source of
> Whatsapp due to fact that GPL software is used in Whatsapp, rendering
> Whatsapp also GPL?
>
> But let us find that as a fact, than we can look into Whatsapp sources.

Denver Gingerich's response suggested that it is entirely possible 
Whatsapp negotiated a custom license from Open Whisper Systems to use 
the Signal implementation to bypass the GPL altogether.

I have no access to Whatsapp, otherwise it might be worth looking at the 
"About" page (or equivalent) in the Whatsapp app to see if it cites 
usage of the Open Whisper Systems' GPL implementation of the Signal 
protocol. If it is cited, then perhaps your suggestion of asking 
Whatsapp for the code might work. If it is *not* cited, then maybe it's 
the case of Whatsapp getting a custom license to the code as Denver 
suggested. Either way, it is, in my opinion, a sad example of free 
software being exploited by harmful proprietary software even *without* 
violating any GPL license.

> > My point with the above two examples is that even with GPL software,
> > there are still ways people/companies who want to make proprietary
> > software can exploit it.
>
> Your two examples are not adequate:
>
> - for first example with R, it is not example, as there is no fact
>    that there is any GPL license violation. I have given you few other
>    examples, which are million times multiplied by similar
>    software. Proprietary software can invoke other free software, that
>    is not forbidden and does not represent any abuse to free software.
>
> - WhatsApp using GPLv3 library is not clear to me, it has to be
>    proven, but if it is so, then all Whatsapp would become free
>    software, so make request for sources from Whatsapp company, as
>    maybe they give you source, based on that. Maybe not, but only if
>    they don't we can start speaking of violaitons.

Like I said, I suspect you have misunderstood the point I was trying to 
make. With the two examples, I *was not* arguing that they violated the 
GPL. I was trying to state the *opposite*. Neither Brodgar nor Whatsapp 
seems to have violated the GPL but they were able to take advantage of 
free software in a way that I find unfortunate. In my opinion, if the 
GPL-licensed software I used in the examples were using a permissive 
license such as MIT, that exploitation would be even easier.

Again, I emphasise that my point was not about GPL violations *at all*.

> You speak of free software licenses, so you speak of authors that are
> producing free software, please think of people when speaking of
> licenses, and those people who are producing free software deserve
> acknowledgments in the free software world.
>
> I do not share opinion that they are even more dangerous from
> perspective of user freedom.

Are you referring people or licenses not being more dangerous?

> I also do not share opinion that they strengthen the argument for
> copyleft licenses, what strengthens the argument for copyleft is when
> somebody publishes new software under GPL license. As simple as
> that.

I don't understand what you're trying to communicate here. I think it's 
pretty clear that the creation and spread of proprietary software would 
be easier if free software uses permissive licenses instead of copyleft 
licenses.

> Please see here detailed list of licenses:
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

Thank you. I've read and used this list many times.

> Non-copyleft free software licenses have been made by friends, not
> competitors. It is choice of author to permit others to do what they
> want, including create proprietary software, that does not make them
> less friends in the free software movement.

I have never claimed that those who apply permissive free software 
licenses to their code are competitors nor was I implying that.

However, I am arguing that once a person creates a piece of software, 
and if that person cares about perpetuating user freedom, choosing a 
copyleft license would be a better way to achieve that goal. That's why 
I find the decline in usage of copyleft licenses a sad thing.

If someone chooses a permissive license, *of course* that doesn't 
automatically make them an enemy. I think it's important to realise that 
we are all working towards digital freedom, even if we might 
individually choose different methods.