Slashdot Mirror

And here's the link I should have attached to my original post:

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html #InternalDistribution

This is an important toehold for the GPL into companies. Say I bring in some stock GPL code (with permission) and show it has value. Then I note that we could increase the value with some modifications, clarifying that we're stuck with maintaining and integrating these when new releases come out, unless we release them under the GPL. "Nice work! Keep it up but we don't release software under any circumstances" says management and everything plucks along and everyone in the company is happy.

Then I leave for greener pastures (for the sake of argument, somewhere were I'd like to use the same code) and no one is left to maintain the enhancements. "Hey," I say, "If you GPL these changes (or release the copyright to me [exclusive or joint, doesn't matter] so I can), I'll try to get them integrated into the core project. Even if I can't, I'll keep maintaining them for a while at least. And even if I can't do that long enough, the code will be available for others who might maintain them for you. Or maybe by then you'll have someone else here who can and you'll have learned the moral of the GPL."

In the meantime, you get my work, which happens to exactly match your requirements, for free!

(This story is true, except I'm still looking for the greener pastures ;)

Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company "distribution"?

Software that has non-commercial-only restrictions is not free software by anyone's definition.

intended - Star Wars would be public domain this year (1977 + 14, plus another 14 assuming renewal).

Instead Star Wars is slated to be public domain in the year 2071 (I read last night that copyright is 94 years).

Sometimes we focus so much on the bad of patents that we can tend to forget the loss to our culture that now stems from insane copyright law.

The numbers come from my reading of Larry Lessig's book (which you get for free, btw, when you become an associate member of the FSF). Imagine how many wonderful movies could be made if things were as they were originally inteded!

FSF also has a relevant answer in the GPL FAQ here.

While the issue is unclear and only courts could give a definitive answer on it (lawyers could give an educated guess and I assume the companies writing binary modules have asked them for it) it is definitely against the spirit of the GPL to write a module for a GPLed program and then keep it closed.

In my opinion even if binary-only modules happen to be legal they still aren't morally right.

That's not true at all. I've hashed it out with a few corporations over wvWare, my MSWord reading library. Usually the threat of action is enough to have the infringers quaking in their boots, and coax them into complaince. When it's not enough, you've got the FSF all-too willing to come to your aide:

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-violatio n.html

Regarding these cases, Eben Moglen (the FSF's general legal counsel) once told me that the reason you've never seen a GPL violation case go to court is because it's always a slam-dunk case that will be decided in your favor; that it's always in the infringer's best interest to settle out of court. I don't know how self-serving that statement was, but it's worth pondering at least. It's been my experience, in any case.

Free Software (as opposed to free software) is all about telling others what to do.

The license has changed to the BitTorrent Open Source License

After a quick read, I doubt that this new license is compatible with the GNU General Public License version 2, though it hasn't showed up on the FSF's license list yet. Will this cause a fork in BitTorrent?

free as in speech not as in beer. Free is far to often misunderstood because usually Linux is both, so people get the language confused. Check out http://www.fsf.org/ No one says that you can't charge for your work (in fact thats what this entire ask slashdot is about), its just that the market doesn't seem to support high prices for software unless its done through monopoly (microsoft) and they can push the price. I don't think anyone would disagree that programmers deserve a paycheck its just that we haven't been able to adequately find the balance between the freedom that so many of us feel is necessary for software to actually enhance and benifit humanity and the for profit world we find ourselves in. Are these two things mutually exclusive or can the co-exist? Unfortunatly, I feel that if they can't live togetherthen there is no way that free software will ever make it. Without nuclear war or a lack of oil I don't see the American lifestyle obsession and its global colonization slowing down and retreating. p.s. I think that you will find that artists musicians, directors, actors, and programmers are in the top half of the distribution of average incomes.

Theft implies the original owner is deprived of the property (As does the word "Take").

Theft also has a specific legal meaning which does not cover IP infringement.

No matter how much you say this, it will never be true.

In the common usage (e.g. what dictionaries say), "theft" is the "act or instance of stealing."

So, now we look up "steal": "to take without right or permission"

Ah, so now we look up "take": ah... "to assume for oneself" happens to be one of the senses that does not include removal of the original item. Such sense is exactly what is implied when, for example, you "take credit" for someone else's
work. Such usage is very old, even pre-RIAA.

According to what you believe about 'take', that should imply that the original person no longer has the ability to be credited, since the credit is now gone. This is clearly not the case. QED.

(You may also want to consider "take a picture", as well, as an example of a non-removal sense. Taking a picture of a copyrighted picture is still taking.)

Also, in Oregon, copyright infringement on music could, in some circumstances, be considered thef t of services. See clause (2) where it says "entertainment". Under your definition, how does one commit theft of entertainment if it cannot be procured without depriving the entertainment from someone else? Kidnap the band? I know this is mostly talking about sneaking into movie theaters, and such, but this could be applied to recording concerts or movies for bootleg distribution. (Or even for private viewing.)

Disclaimer: IANAL.

There's no clause in the GPL requiring changes are returned to the community.

Yes there is, if you distribute binaries that were created from that source code. See GPL v2 Terms and Conditions section 3.

(Credit for definitions: dictionary.reference.com and American Heritage Dictionary.)

Or Gnome for that matter.

I'm not sure why you brought the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) into this.

Anyway, the Free Software Foundation (FSF) doesn't go after GPL violations when they don't own the copyright, and rightly so. All GPL violations the FSF get involved with are ones where the copyright was either theirs to begin with or where it was assigned to them.

Just because they wrote the GPL, it doesn't mean they are its sole enforcers or the ones responsible for dealing with GPL violators. Just like any copyright violation, the person (or entity) who needs to deal with it is the copyright holder.

Why is the FSF so confused about the difference between the name of a thing and the thing?

Sometimes the name of a thing can be misleading. For example, if I write a license and call it "The License of Linux" that doesn't make it linux's license.

The official party line of the FSF is that it's not free software if you don't have "free" in the name

That's not true. I don't know if you mean the name of the program or name of the license but it's not true in either case. I don't know how you would get that impression.

The FSF obviously considers the GNU project free software and the GPL a free software license and neither have "free" in their name.

thus "open source" is antagonistic to the free software movement because "free" is absent.

I'm a little disappointed by that argument. You should already be aware of what the FSF thinks of open source and why.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

"...but if you called it an onion you'd get cooks very confused." --RMS

I'd like to talk about OSI certification making something open source. If you'd like to talk would you prefer email or slashdot?

They are written in C++ and have been released under the MIT License, an OSI-Approved Open Source License."

Like the FSF says, to call it the MIT license is misleading because MIT uses many licenses. The X11 license would be more accurate. The FSF considers the X11 license to be GPL compatable, and that opinion carries more weight than OSI which is just a corporate relations firm. But beware of the X Windows Trap.

They are written in C++ and have been released under the MIT License, an OSI-Approved Open Source License."

Like the FSF says, to call it the MIT license is misleading because MIT uses many licenses. The X11 license would be more accurate. The FSF considers the X11 license to be GPL compatable, and that opinion carries more weight than OSI which is just a corporate relations firm. But beware of the X Windows Trap.

I agree that "one size fits all" doesn't work. But with the plethora of licenses avaliable today, why create another one?

I mean, I'm a developer. It's horrible to scroll over all these "custom licenses" just to find out what's the catch. You mentioned Mozilla, Apache, OpenBSD, X.org... what does CDDL gives to Sun that those licenses doesn't? Or, better yet: What does CDDL gives us?

My opinion about Sun is the same that I have about opensource.apple.com (BTW, I like Apple a lot more than the scumbags at Sun): They only want to cut development costs "outsourcing" the development to the FOSS community.

Sun is free to do whatever they want with their ancient Unix. They can even pay SCO. I don't care. I will still recommend other better alternatives than Solaris. That is part of what freedom entails.

Hmm... typical Sun employee.

Sun would get my respect with they were using an standard license.

Until then... no thanks, I rather use the real free alternatives than to help Sun minimize development costs using the FOSS community.

It's very similar to the BSD license in style:

Copyright (c) year copyright holders

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

Apparently the main difference is that BSD explicity forbids you from saying that you were endorsed by the original writer.

A good list of licenses is http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/license-list .html

Now, I know somebody will point out OpenFirmware [...] This is nothing more than the Maximalist approach [...]
[The OpenFirmware drivers] are good enough to boot the system, and then get replaced by OS specific drivers [...]

Reading your text I think you have a few misconceptions on what Open Firmware is and which features it provides. I suggest reading this very insightful introduction.
If you are an embedded systems engineer, what do you think about alternate approaches like Tinyboot?

http://www.fsf.org/?portal_status_message=ALL+YOUR +BASE+ARE+BELONG+TO+US%21 LOL

I wouldn't characterize only choosing to do business with inferior tools when superior tools are widely available because the inferior tools conform to some arbitrary standard of ideological acceptability "ethics."

My point sailed far over your head, didn't it?

"arbitrary standard of ideological acceptability"? Did it ever occur to you that it's not some arbitrary standard, but a carefully chosen course of action? And that the process of deciding what is and isn't acceptable behaviour is...wait for it... known as ethics?

Journalists, for example, often conform to certain ethics, such as attempting to tell the truth. It could probably help their careers if they just made stuff up occasionally, but that would go against their ethics.

In the case of software, it might be the case sometimes that you can, in fact, get ahead quicker with closed-source tools. But that goes against some peoples ethics, because they are forbidden from sharing those tools with their friends.

You might disagree with these values, but you have no business saying that it's not a decision resulting from ethics.

Their maniacal crusade against anybody with the slightest interest in profiting from the sale of computer software

You are either ignorant or a troll. Buy GNU software from the FSF

Good and bad companies alike will be forced to dance this silly legal jig.

The only real voice we have in this battle is our wallets. I'm sending my spare dimes where they can best help fight this stuff.

Don't hate the players - fix the game.

Initially, there were a lot of concerns when Novell acquired SuSE around their committment to Free Software. But they have repeatedly (YaST, SuSE Linux Open Exchange, FreeSWAN, Hula, etc.) shown that they are committed to the philosophy of Free Software - not just buying the technology to close it up, and make money from selling something proprietary.

Ah, but you aren't granting them any rights at all.

Consult the Free Software Definition from http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html. Freedom 0 is a part of copyright law, as is Freedom 1, insofar as the recipient is able to modify/tinker with the software without access to the source code.

The fact that you seem to believe that you are granting the recipient these rights, as opposed to the rights being received automatically, indicates that you believe that you are able to take them away, which is of course incorrect.

Access to the source code, and Freedoms 2 and 3, are not statutory rights; they must be specifically granted by the copyright holder, via a license like the GPL or otherwise.

RMS' position is that you restrict the freedom of your user if you don't grant him these additional rights.

I'm not as current on licensing issues as I used to be, and perhaps this post will show that (too much) but the artistic license seems historically important; I can't right now find the post/statement from Larry Wall that I remember reading oh, so many years ago about why he devised it. But the spirit of it -- of making
something that had originally been GPLd work for those who were wary of GPL; of dual-licensing under the AL and the GPL, of furthering the spread of Perl at a time when there wasn't nearly as much OSS code around... It seems like some similar variation should still be able to work today. (Apparently "some variations" are underway -- scroll down to "License of Perl" on this FSF page to read more). See also AL considered ambiguous

In any case, perhaps something like the AL is what those who wish to have a "commercial version of the GPL" actually mean. They should follow their own advice, and choose either Public Domain, a BSD-style license, or the Artistic License as their "commercial GPL" rather than invent yet another new one.

So, again, what would you change about the GPL to make it "commercial", since you can already make the receipt of sources and binaries contingent on purchase?

The fact that once someone purchases your software, he is given the right to distribute his derived work for free. Quote from the FSF:

You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

Copy code, slightly modify, provide for free. Not a term commercial software companies would agree with.

The original BSD license is considered free (but flawed) by the FSF http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/license-list .html#OriginalBSD

I believe it is considered free by Debian (and their guidelines formed the OSI guideliens)

The OSI hasn't certified the original BSD, but I believe that is primarily due to the fact that it was replaced by the new BSB before their certified list came out. They do accept other "advertising" licenses.

So here's a different idea. Instead of trying to reduce the number of Open Source licenses, people should instead come up with a comparison chart. Much like the Unix rosetta stone except for legalese, identifying general contract features in common (or different) between them.

Egh... it's "free as in speech," although it is very often "free as in beer".

It's a good argument, and it applies to software, that is, if you're a coder. People who don't code might want to republish software verbatim but most the time they don't. In fact, us coders generally tell them that isn't a good idea because of viruses and trojans. i.e., it's a lot safer to download FireFox from the official web site than it is to grab it off a friend or some shareware website. With that struck off the list, what exactly is the non-coder fighting for Free Software for?

There's lot of reasons why users of Free Software should support it, but they don't at the moment. We, the coders, need to make sure they know these reasons. The most obvious reason to me is that it is only Free Software that can be fixed by someone other than the original developer. Proprietary software is inferior because if you want it fixed you have to go back to the original developer. It used to be a given that you wouldn't take your car back to the original manufacturer to get it serviced. Now-a-days you get a warrentee with your car that gives you an incentive to go back to the original manufacturer, but you're still free to seek maintainence from a third party.

Warrentees strike a good balance, they force the original manufacturer to do a good job in the first place to reduce the number of people who claim service under warrentee, and they up front specify a specific date after which the customer is responsible for paying for all future service.

Maybe if coders were to start offering Free Software with a warrentee (something the GPL specifically advocates) users would come not only to expect high quality software, but to be free to have it maintained by a third party.

I think Stallman must be feeling lonely, and lashing out at Gates. Not only has Moglen started up his own organization, but I see the Kuhn has left the FSF to join him...
http://softwarefreedom.org/team.html
http://www.fsf.org/news/new-executive-director.htm l

First of all, trademarks can't be "enforced later on". Either you enforce from day 1, or you never enforce, and lose trademark status. This actually changes the result of such attempts to use trademarks to control GPLed software. In fact, the trademarked name would probably be somewhat useless, because (1) they will be unique to that distribution, and (2) can't match the name the program had previously, due to common-law trademark that program would have... thus (3) few would ever recognize the trademarked name.

Specifically on the judgement question, it depends on the trademark. If they rename a bazillion GPLed pieces of software for the purposes of trademarking the names, then I judge them idiots. I am happy they have spent the filing fees to support the USPTO.

If they are protecting their corporate name, such as what Red Hat is doing, then I judge them the same way I judge the FSF for protecting its own name if someone wants to modify the GPL. I believe they have the full right to do that under trademark law (without restriction because the software they distribute happens to be GPLed).

This is a great day for both free software and open source movements. Hopefully Omaha will serve us well as a great example to follow and soon other banks will jump on the bandwagon. I know that I am much more likely to give my money to people who choose their software intelligently and I am sure that I am not alone. GNU/Linux and *BSD variants are certainly the best bets in such an environment. In the name of the Slashdot community, kudos for Omaha! Another question is: what RDBMs are they using for their critical data? Isn't it time for The Industry to finally move from the legacy DB2, Sybase, Oracle and Interbase, to PostgresSQL? This seems like a logical step after converting to Linux. But one step at a time. Let's be patient and hopeful.

That is exactly why the LGPL is not about free software, but about closed source, proprietary software. Don't use it!

In response to several scattered posts that touched on the GPL and `internal software'...

Let's dissect the interesting scenario. Your company is working on some software for internal use. You have no initial intention to sell or distribute it. It just solves some local problem you need solved. It's based on GPL software, hence, it's subject itself to the GPL. It embodies proprietary business logic that you would prefer not to share. Therefor, you decide not to distribute it, as once you did, the GPL would prevent you from further limiting what distributees could do with your proprietary business logic.

Theoretically, this might apply to your own employees: does `distributing' the software to them force the GPL to kick in? The Free Software Foundation's GPL FAQ has something to say on this topic: Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company "distribution"? The short answer is 'no', that should be OK. In this situation, the FSF at least feels the GPL doesn't stop you from telling your employees not to give away your source code. On the other hand, that same FAQ item points out "In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution."

So when consultants from a professional consulting company come to help out and you have to give them a copy of the software so they can do their job, that does count as `distribution'. If a big company sends analysts to do due diligence, and you have to give them a copy of the software so they can complete their analysis, is that `distribution'? If the big company ends up buying your little company to keep as a research division, and they decide your software could be useful to their accounting team in Iceland, will that be `distribution'? Does the GPL give your Icelandic accountants permission to give away (or even sell) your proprietary business logic? These questions haven't yet been answered in the courts, but my gut feeling is at least two of them would absolutely be considered distribution, if not all three.

We could continue examining case-by-case to decide if we might be forced to obey the GPL in any particular situation. Those who ask `will the GPL apply to me' in this way plainly are asking because they don't want to be encumbered by the GPL. Those people shouldn't build atop GPL software; and they can have Qt unencumbered: just buy a commercial license.

Again, it goes back to the underlying theme in dual licenses of quid pro quo. Why in this situation would someone use GPL software in the first place? Do they truly intend to abide by letter and spirit of the GPL? If they do, then more power to them. They're getting something of value and they're electing to pay it forward by sharing their work with the community (in lieu of backward to the originator, funding continued development). On the other hand, if they are taking software under the GPL all the while trying slip past its terms, then they are stepping on `free as in speech' and `free as in beer' to get to `free as in lunch'.

In response to several scattered posts that touched on the GPL and `internal software'...

Let's dissect the interesting scenario. Your company is working on some software for internal use. You have no initial intention to sell or distribute it. It just solves some local problem you need solved. It's based on GPL software, hence, it's subject itself to the GPL. It embodies proprietary business logic that you would prefer not to share. Therefor, you decide not to distribute it, as once you did, the GPL would prevent you from further limiting what distributees could do with your proprietary business logic.

Theoretically, this might apply to your own employees: does `distributing' the software to them force the GPL to kick in? The Free Software Foundation's GPL FAQ has something to say on this topic: Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company "distribution"? The short answer is 'no', that should be OK. In this situation, the FSF at least feels the GPL doesn't stop you from telling your employees not to give away your source code. On the other hand, that same FAQ item points out "In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution."

So when consultants from a professional consulting company come to help out and you have to give them a copy of the software so they can do their job, that does count as `distribution'. If a big company sends analysts to do due diligence, and you have to give them a copy of the software so they can complete their analysis, is that `distribution'? If the big company ends up buying your little company to keep as a research division, and they decide your software could be useful to their accounting team in Iceland, will that be `distribution'? Does the GPL give your Icelandic accountants permission to give away (or even sell) your proprietary business logic? These questions haven't yet been answered in the courts, but my gut feeling is at least two of them would absolutely be considered distribution, if not all three.

We could continue examining case-by-case to decide if we might be forced to obey the GPL in any particular situation. Those who ask `will the GPL apply to me' in this way plainly are asking because they don't want to be encumbered by the GPL. Those people shouldn't build atop GPL software; and they can have Qt unencumbered: just buy a commercial license.

Again, it goes back to the underlying theme in dual licenses of quid pro quo. Why in this situation would someone use GPL software in the first place? Do they truly intend to abide by letter and spirit of the GPL? If they do, then more power to them. They're getting something of value and they're electing to pay it forward by sharing their work with the community (in lieu of backward to the originator, funding continued development). On the other hand, if they are taking software under the GPL all the while trying slip past its terms, then they are stepping on `free as in speech' and `free as in beer' to get to `free as in lunch'.

According to this story, Poland seems to have the second largest population of communist spies in the world, right after China. Suddenly some of the recent news stories about an unusual resistance of certain people against the introduction of capitalism in Europe which would be obviously harmful to the communistic status quo start to look much less surprising.

No kidding. And with a 380k tarball, it might actually take some work to port it.

What for? That pretty much goes against the whole concept of free software.

Now to apply that to the GPL/LGPL, any file that links to anything GPL _must_ be GPL according to the license.

For your C# example, your hello world application is a derived work of the runtime; you can put an exception in your licence to allow you to link against it (see section 2 of the GPL for an example, where it talks about "a special exception").

What if you just like to use what you regard as the best and most economical tool for the job?

This is very reassuring to see that software patents nightmare will most likely never happen in European Union where politicians seem to be concerned more with public good than with lobbying, which probably will lead to their abolishment in the United States as well, because American programmers will never agree to be left behind the whole Western civilization even facing quite different priorities of politicians on their side of the pond. This is a great time to sign this letter and start sending snail mail letters to these addresses. If you know of any other place where people can easily voice their opinion on those issues in a way that actual politicians will see them, please post them here. This is a truly great news, no matter if you are a free software believer, an open source pragmatist, or a proprietary zealot. In the end, every programmer has to face the same problems with software patents. It's wonderful to see a bright future and it's quote amazing to see honest politicians acting in the best interest of Their People.

I think that Linus is really trying to say that he really agrees more with the Free Software Foundation's GNU Philosophy more than the Open Source Initiative's, though he continues to use the term "Open Source." This is where some of the confusion comes from.

I think the OSI has effected great positive change in making business aware of the benefits of Free/Open Source software, but I think they were pretty arrogant and short-sighted to try to 'dump the confrontational attitude that has been associated with "free software"'. The idea that freedom is important for its own sake may be confrontational to a lot of businessmen, but that doesn't make it any less true.

I think a lot of conflict could be avoided if RMS would admit that business cases are important for Free Software and ESR would admit that freedom of Open Source software is important in its own right.

Nope. It's been 100% about eliminating proprietary software.

Unfortunately, it appears it isn't. The FSF isn't about "eliminating proprietary software", it's about making free software the norm. And what you've quoted of me is absolutely, 100%, correct:

The work GNU and others have done on software, licenses, etc, has been 100% about creating that infrastucture.

Your original argument was that the FSF was, like the OSI, a bunch of loudmouthed ineffectual blowhards who never do any real work... erm, I mean 100% about publicising free software:

FSF's goal is publicity for the idea of free software. The software it creates is merely a mechanism.

I see what the FSF has achieved and how they achieved it. That doesn't mean that the method they chose is their goal!

They're using good means to achieve good ends, yes, but they are separate, which I would like to hear you acknowledge.

Here's some reading material. It describes the goals of the body you've been disparaging. You'll notice it's entirely constructive. You'll notice that the entire statement is not describing ridding the world of software, but building a world with free software, where users have rights, where, by implication, all software is free.

First they approve Non-Free Sun licenses as Open.

What's up with accusing FSF with everything?

Read up on what they actually say!

"This is a free software license ... which is incompatible with the GPL.

How hard can it be to understand. Yes, they say it's free. But it's not GPL-compatible beacuse it contains restrictions the GPL specifically disallows.

RMS would be proud!

True enough, it's not Free Software as defined by the Free Software Foundation - because they have defined Free Software to mean GPL/LGPL and nothing else.

False. FSF License page clearly states that the CDDL is a GPL-incompatible free software license. And I quote: "This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL."