The GPL forbids including GPL code in code that is not also covered by the GPL.
If you do not want to release your own code under the GPL, the only legal option is to not use someone else's copyrighted code (such as a library that is covered by the GPL)
It's that simple: either accept the license that applies to the library, or don't use the library. Noone was forced was forced to use the library - but somehow people think the decision to use the library should still include the option to ignore the license. It would be interesting to know if they people wanting this would also be prepared to release their work into the public domain (ie: allow anyone to completely ignore their license, as they feel entitled to ignore other people's licenses.)
This is exactly the same as any commercially developed library: if you want to use it, you accept the license, or you write your own code. Of course, the GPL does offer an option to use s/w without paying money - this is not the same as "without any limits" and is not the same as "public domain"
An important detail that people often forget is that the GPL license is opt-in: there is no legal requirement to use it for your own software unless you choose to. (If you do choose to use GPL software in a commercial product, you may only do so if you accept the GPL.)
Incidentally, there are many styles of open source, all of which have people who think they're somehow definitive. As a result, describing software as "open source" tends to be unhelpful - just describing anything as "open source" says nothing about what exactly can be done with it. the specific license needs to be described.
Minor nitpick: The whole "copyleft" thing bothers me, as there's no such thing. However, the GPL license clearly states that the work it is being applied to is copyrighted, and this license is as binding as any other software license produced by, say, Vidomi, or Microsoft, or Apple, or any other company. Once again, if you don't like the license, don't use the product.
[ Parent ]