What does the concept of an SVG that is GPL'd mean?
Here's what happens:
- The svg is displayed in the web browser
- the web browser is tightly integrated with operating system graphics calls
- the svg is tightly integrated into the browser itself, especially since this
GPL code also has javascript calls that call internal browser code
- the GPL SVG is tightly integrated and relies on all the above parts and cannot
be used without it, unless you read it as dumb xml plain text and nothing else
Therefore, logically, the Web Browser must be GPL'd as soon as it touches the SVG, and the operating system itself (likely client is MS Windows) must be GPL'd, or if not GPL'd then at least GPL compatible.
This is not physically or programatically possible since
- the web browser, could be Internet Explorer, is not compatible with GPL
- the operating system likely MS Windows is not compatible with GPL
Indeed the GPL maroons (more..) will come out and argue "it's just a pipe! it's just a pipe! therefore it has reached the GPL hypocrite exception! It's just a pipe! It doesn't infect all the other code!"
Well that's horky ponky shit, obviously, because the SVG would not be of any use to the end user without a renderer (browser), and operating system graphics calls. I.e. the SVG is useless without these, therefore the SVG literally requires this be part of its running code in order to display. So, it all has to be GPL compatible because it's a GPL product being displayed, and without being displayed or visible (maybe the user is blind), it's just dumb text.
You could say I'm being picky here but really, what use is an SVG if it isn't calling the operating system graphics display api's, and what use is an SVG without a box to show it in (called your web browser).
So when someone releases a SVG and/or related SVG Javascript, under GPL, laugh in their face of the stupidity of the situation.
It's horky ponky double donkey shit.
It's just a pipe! It's just a pipe! They will say. So it doesn't matter.
No, actually the SVG is rendered useless without the browser and OS, so you're going to have to ask Microsoft to release MS Windows under GPL, along with Internet Explorer, and any other non compatible GPL code, under GPL, if you want the SVG to ethically and legally render on your screen. To clarify, it could also be released as gpl compatible, if not gpl.. i.e. it could be a bsd licensed web browser, but Internet Explorer is not that, and the operating system (MS Windows for example) is likely not that either.
Then your brain also has code in it, neural network code, so let's not go as far to say your brain is fucked too, but knowing GPL, indeed it is. Release your brains and bloods under GPL compatible license and you'll be safe. But let's not go off topic about the human brain being a crappy computer with eyes as the input. Let's stick to the browser and OS...
The browser and OS is likely, very likely, not going to be GPL compatible, and you absolutely need that OS and browser, or some kind of viewer to render and see the SVG. Therefore the total product here, is not just the SVG but all its parts that make it minimally useful: the minimum software to actually utilize the SVG sensibly, is all the software that makes the SVG work, and therefore must be GPL or GPL compatible. If the SVG is just considered an xml library of sorts, then it must at least be LGPL (another nightmare for another day, I won't go into LGPL issues here).
The SVG by itself without all these parts is useless dumb text, that only a blind person with a character readout text to speech system could make any use of.. and even then it would be mostly useless, other than dumb data that doesn't mean anything - unless that person is a genius and can parse the SVG file in his mind, which is indeed possible (especially for a blind person that has had to deal with life disadvantaged and has some kind of genius power) but improbable and virtually impossible.
So, releasing SVG under GPL is highly impractical and silly, but people do it all the time, and they release the Javascript along with it under GPL too. Nasty.
Now, GPL 3 or 2 may have some bizarre exception to this hidden in its rambly verbose license somewhere, and if it does (probably not - the "it's just a pipe" argument is not a valid excuse), then even if it does it's still a complex super hard to understand infectious (impractical) license. Just release the fucking SVG as mit/bsd or similar and be fucking done with it. There's no question of what happens with bsd/mit licensed SVG: people are free to use it. No bull shit or lawyer degree required, even. Or possibly, something like Creative Commons could be used.. I'm sorry I have not studied that license, I find it a bit rambly so tend to avoid it, but it's probably better than GPL for SVG's and related javascript.
|