[nkallen]

That’s exactly my take. What exactly constitutes a “derived work” in the gpl (plug-ins do!) is counter intuitive to me.

Even the lgpl definition of “dynamic linking” is something that scares me in the context of npm modules, which is why I’m nervous I made the wrong choice with lgpl

[jcelerier]

> That’s exactly my take. What exactly constitutes a “derived work” in the gpl (plug-ins do!)

Of course they do. The goal of GPL is to reduce the amount of proprietary software in the world. Proprietary plug-ins would go directly against this.

[hoseja]

The result of GPL is reducing the amount of GPL in the world.

[EricE]

Exactly. I love the irony of "forced openness" :p

[ajford]

But why would a GPL app need to force GPL on a plugin? That seems to me like a perfectly reasonable boundary between the two applications. If I wanted to leverage OBS for example and introduce my own plugin that made use of a closed-source library or tool I had the license for, I should be able to create it. My third-party plugin doesn't impede the distribution and usage of OBS in any way, only provides a separate feature that might require a different license.

[jcelerier]

As someone who spends most of his days on a GPL app which loads plug-ins, I do not want my work to serve the interest of proprietary software vendors more than strictly necessary, simple as that. I spent the effort of writing the app, defining its plug-in APIs, etc; if others want to benefit from this effort they should also spend the effort of writing GPL plug-ins. The end result is that no end user will ever be stuck because $PROPRIETARY api shut downs or change (and in my field I've seen that a ton of times).

> I should be able to create it.

Why do you feel entitled to that ? No one prevents you to go and write your own OBS-like or look for a proprietary alternative (and don't complain when they change or shut down their API with no possible recourse at all). But here you look you you want to benefit from the work of OBS contributors, without satisfying the simple obligation in return: the program that you redistribute must be open, just like it was when you found it.

[ajford]

Because I'm not beholden to your ideals. GPL is tantamount to a parasite, infecting everything it touches, regardless of the wishes of those who'd make use of the GPL'd software.

I was a contributor to FOSS until I had to make a choice to step back from excessive keyboard use due to RSI. I love and embrace open source software and the ideals behind it, but I believe everyone should be given their own freedoms.

The plugin boundary should be exactly that, a boundary between the primary app and any created plugins. Why do you feel entitled to force a license decision on a third party's work? Yeah, my work might not function without your code, but your code is your code and my plugin is mine. If I choose to write a utility that enhances your code in ways I want, is that not the benefit and flexibility that FOSS clamors about? Hell, what if someone else adopts a similar API and I choose to take my plugin that direction? That's my choice to make, but forcing GPL on my code may now be hampering my freedoms.

I hear the argument of "if only software X was open source, then I could fix this bug here or add this feature there". I'm right there with you on code that is in the mainline and lives inside the source, but if I'm writing a plugin, that's my work and I own that, not you.

If I choose to make use of a proprietary library because it makes sense to me, like for example CAD solvers where the FOSS alternatives aren't there yet, that's my decision for my plugin. All your GPL license does is infect my work.

That's why I don't use GPL, and why I agree with others that the end result of many GPL licenses is to simply reduce the overall amount of GPL code in the world, as people avoid it out of concern of risk.

[jcelerier]

> I believe everyone should be given their own freedoms.

Absolute freedom does not exist (or even make sense).

> The plugin boundary should be exactly that, a boundary between the primary app and any created plugins. Why do you feel entitled to force a license decision on a third party's work?

That's the expectation I set when I develop the host software. If I was fine with third party proprietary plug-ins I could set my plug-in headers as MIT or something. Just like if I only wanted my software be used by people who have no revenue or live in $COUNTRY I would put that as a license instead of the GPL.

> Yeah, my work might not function without your code, but your code is your code and my plugin is mine.

this is super super entitled. You're fine with leveraging GPL work which is release for free for your own benefit, but do not want to reciprocate. As I posted elsewhere: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule ; this is the most basic expectation one can have.

> but your code is your code and my plugin is mine.

but the GPL code is and will forever be freely available ; anything that goes against increasing the pool of freely available thing is a no-go. The end goal of all that would be to change laws so that ownership of ideas, patents, etc..., is itself ended ; ultimately, licenses and copyright shouldn't even need to exist.

> If I choose to make use of a proprietary library because it makes sense to me, like for example CAD solvers where the FOSS alternatives aren't there yet, that's my decision for my plugin. All your GPL license does is infect my work.

Again you seem to forget that your plug-in depends on an existing host software and seem to want to use the work done there without giving anything in return. If there was some kind of public standard for CAD solvers so that the GPL part of your plug-in could be also used with free solvers, that would be a non-issue - ship your plug-in, and end-users can install a free solver or a proprietary one separately if they are fine with proprietary code.