@AtomikMorphy said in #10:
> @dboing I'm for the free software and sharing ideas, etc. As you can see from the wings, I also think lichess should go on.
>
> What I wanted to bring to attention that some software licenses come with legal obligations. Actions you must take. And some licenses impact not only the software they cover, but also surrounding software and maybe even hardware, etc. Parts you might not even have legal rights to share due to other conflicting licenses.
>
> Person including licensed software in their own project should be aware of that. I've read a bunch of licenses and will claim I didn't understand them fully. Neither I'm confident that if I gain understanding in one jurisdiction, it won't have holes in another jurisdiction. When you place your app on the internet the user could be anywhere on the planet and I don't know how to deal with that.
>
> So company writing software should get advice from legally competent people. But single developer realistically won't do that or won't even be aware they should do that. Some have basic legal training, but many don't or they forgot it since it might become important once a year or rarer.
>
> Next thing is that what I've done is auditing software that consists of C and C++ libraries. That's a finite goal. When it's a JavaScript project they tend to have hundreds or thousands of dependencies. Which means you can only do that with tools. And you don't know if next update won't change results of your previous understanding in this legal matter. Because new libraries can get pulled in, existing libraries might change licenses, etc. All this zoo should somehow legally work together.
Yeah, I went through this process a little while ago, most packaged adopt the most restrictive licenses for the packages that they depend on i.e. if a new open source library is created on top of a GPL then it cannot be MIT etc since it has dependencies more restrictive. But this does depend on the developers. chessboard magic uses about 70 libraries, however, if you look at my node_modules, there are thousands of libraries pulled in.
@dboing said in #8:
> The closed source things would be derivative no matter the original code inspiration or borrowed license, as in there is no real spontaneous individual creation to be owned in all of this, not about the complete object in the end. Only grabbing secrets and wrapping it around previous many single persons work. The little bit of novelty layer obscuring the whole? I may misunderstand the details.
>
> derivative as in using. etc... the licensing is only varnish question. And yes some would want to do that. It might be why some prefer that things keep in the shareable domain and not be used that way. No more Edison-like history of innovations or creation based on the mind's elbow grease of others.
This is literally the problem. It's why you don't want GPL licensing in your stuff. Being able to hide stuff under the hood, with the only requirement being that you have to share the license of the original work, is the entire point - and it's what GPL doesn't allow.
If I had a business product and ACCIDENTALLY used a GPL-licensed library in it, I would have to open source the ENTIRE product due to the fact that it would be considered "derivative" as you say.
That's why the GPL license is often considered "viral" in that its open-sourcing requirements have a tendency to "infect" everything they touch, and create a very strong, hard line between free, open source software and proprietary software. If you intermix them on accident, you can end up entirely screwed.
@AtomikMorphy Thanks for the thorough explanation. I understand it becomes it own layer of juggling, and it is not of the realm of development itself. It is complicated, and I agree being aware of that seems important. Long haul projects that might have basement or foundations not fully understood might create problems later. And that is not just the coding or algorithmic challenge but that legal aspect.