I wasn't aware that osxfuse is distributed by Google. If that is the case then I am sorry for spreading false information and indeed, the GPL would apply.
It's still not clear whether the GPL would apply in the way commenters here think it would.
GPL clauses would only affect Google code upon linking. It's often possible to use fuse style software without linking - they could use it via the command-line and mount whatever they need at startup or even dynamically.
Does osxfuse have a command line tool? Most fuse style software does. If it doesn't, Google could have written a command-line client and open sourced just that.
> GPL clauses would only affect Google code upon linking. It's often possible to use fuse style software without linking - they could use it via the command-line and mount whatever they need at startup or even dynamically.
This doesn't matter. If you distribute the isolated program you need to provide the sources anyway. Having to license other Google code as GPL is not the issue. It's making it required to provide back the changes you've made to fuse itself.
There may be some GPL proponents that really want it to "virally" infect other code. But what atq2119 was describing is just wanting to make sure you at least get back the changes to your own code. That's also why I think the trend towards BSD/MIT in open-source is dangerous. GPL/LGPL/AGPL should be perfectly fine for corporations when used appropriately. They are almost always just ways to make sure the best version of your project doesn't end up closed-source. I can't recall cases of those licenses being used to force other code to be open-sourced but maybe they exist.
GPL also only affects people other than the copyright owner. Google can relicense the code to themselves for their own internal use, if they hold the copyright on all the code they are using.
