Slashdot Mirror

The FSF says nothing about the GPL and community giveback. It says only that the GPL exists to give users freedoms to use and modify software. Indeed, "The freedom to use a program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job, and without being required to communicate subsequently with the developer or any other specific entity." (emphasis mine)

Intellectual Propert - A product of the intellect that has commercial value, including copyrighted property such as literary or artistic works, and ideational property, such as patents, appellations of origin, business methods, and industrial processes.

You just lumped copyrights, patents, trademarks (which you call "appellations of origins"), and trade secrets (which you call "business methods, and industrial processes") into one category. Those rights are more different than alike, and for this reason, many critics discourage use of the umbrella term "intellectual property" to conflate them.

Intellectual property is a term used by a great many people to cover well, all of intellectual property.

The term "intellectual property" is not used in the United States Code, and for a good reason: the different exclusive rights that make it up have different purposes and raise entirely different sets of public policy issues.

Let's look at the ways to possible hear content:
1. CD's and cassettes (if they still exist) that you purchase at the store.
2. Legally Downloaded music from a store like iTunes.
3. Television and Radio with the host of radio stations and the few television radio stations.
4. Illegally downloaded music.
...
it items 1-3 money gets back to the RIAA, in element 4 it does not. This means that the RIAA is being deprived of income.

You forgot live shows. Do you claim that live shows should be just as unlawful as element 4 because like element 4, they don't result in a lot of revenue going back to the label?

Now if our fictional person X (and more importantly the multitudes of persons X) is downloading music and not listening to the radio or watching MTV (or VH1 or whomever), they are collectively hurting ratings for stations and networks.

No, they are hurting the ratings for Music_Radio_And_Music_TV_In_General. Those services that are full of illicit file-sharing have their own ratings.

So to re-hash, the courts and legal system seem to be against you when it comes to this idea of the actual quality of property that IP has.

But they are against you when it comes to the conflation of different legal traditions into "intellectual property". For instance, the court in Sega v. Accolade ruled that you can't use copyrights or trademarks to simulate a patent, and this was upheld post-DMCA in Lexmark v. Static Control.

sharing music in the P2P manner is ILLEGAL.

Is it still prohibited even if such noncommercial sharing has been authorized by the author using a license such as CC by-nd-nc? Or do you claim that independent authors of musical works do not have the authority to grant such a license because they can't prove that their work is original?

Heh... Call a spade a spade when regarding RIAA shills referring to copyright infringement as "theft," and get modded up.

Apply the same sense of fair play to someone being completely disingenuous about what the GPL is all about (and should anyone think I was actually trolling, rather than just being zealots) I highly suggest they read GNU's Own statements on the matter. These two are my favorite, but there are others

Heh... Call a spade a spade when regarding RIAA shills referring to copyright infringement as "theft," and get modded up.

Apply the same sense of fair play to someone being completely disingenuous about what the GPL is all about (and should anyone think I was actually trolling, rather than just being zealots) I highly suggest they read GNU's Own statements on the matter. These two are my favorite, but there are others

In what way could delivering a service which doesn't remove anyone rights, but instead gives them additional options, "ease adoption" of removing rights that already exist? Please explain the causal mechanism.

It's like saying that having an option to buy a car in red is somehow easing the way for removing the option to buy one in silver (the most popular colour choice). That argument makes no sense.

CDROM drives can read the standard CD audio tracks just fine - unless you are using Windows, and you've allowed the CDROM portion of the disc to install its 'special' driver which recognizes the 'specialness' of the disc and doesnt allow you to do so.

Yet another reason to avoid proprietary software and treacherous computing. *I* control what my computer does.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html

Making kernels doesn't come easy.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html

My biggest beef with Linus was his brilliant idea of putting the kernel under the GPL in the first place. Thanks to that move, anyone who wants to use Linux now also has to be saddled with Mr. Personality and his Legions of Doom.

That however is only the biggest problem. It's not the only one. Because of several things however, I've done this where Linux is concerned. If I ever use a free UNIX again in the future, it will probably be NetBSD...although in order to avoid these types of problems recurring, I won't be having anything to do with it's developers, either.

I no longer look forward to the day Microsoft goes bankrupt, if such a day comes. Linux is a system written by and for autistic juveniles, and is not going to be remotely close to being ready to replace Windows until that fact changes. I hold out scant hope, however, that it ever will.

This was in the body of the story, but maybe it's more appropriate elsewhere. One of the more interesting links in the blog posts about this source code release was a transcript of a speech by RMS on how the Lisp Machine influenced his decision to start the free software movement. Interesting reading.

The upcoming GCC 4.1 release will include a stack protector. Basically it's a reimplementation of the old propolice patch.

Hopefully mainstream distros that have been wary of propolice will start using this new feature. And perhaps glibc malloc will borrow a few tricks from this new openbsd malloc too.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml

I've used ps2pdf and various gs options with Samba to create network printers available to Windows machines that can print to to various types of tif, gif, jpeg, pdf and other printers. We use it in the IT department as a support tool for the users. Someone emails a user a visio file or some other type of off the wall file format they need to look at? First thing they do is email the IT department with something like "How do I print this?". We open our copy of Visio or whatever app we can find that works for what they have which our 1000 or so users do not have and print the file to our virtual network printers which converts it something they can print and open and use from their desktops. Sure, it is not as user friendly as converting or printing to the PDF printer that is supplied with using the full version of Acrobat but this is VERY flexible and much cheaper. Another good use is converting multi page tifs that are users recieve that are not in a standard fax format but should be. Quite often, our users recieve a two or three page tif file that is over 2MB in size but is nothing more then a black and white document and the sender used 24 bit RGB to scan it.

This link is very old but provides the basis for setting up various network printer convertors using Samba.

That's the Technical Fascist's .cshrc.

http://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/know.your.sysadmin.ht ml

Note: I found a GFDL map of the Metro here.

I mean, there exist many fast IMAP clients. Certainly Pine is fast, some (e.g. myself) find it very convenient, and it should be easy to recompile for OS X. It is not free software though.

More seriously, today's software market is such that selling a small app for money is not likely to be profitable. Too many people will write email clients, editors, OS kernels ... and give them away at no cost ("free as in beer"). Most of that software is actually Free Software (TM), but that's beside the point here. This is not dissimilar from the period in the 80s and early 90s when anytime someone would start selling a nice utility Microsoft would bundle similar functionality into DOS or Windows (anyone remember SideKick?). Today that means taht if your piece of software does something not too complicated, and many people would like to have this functionality, then someone will develop a free alternative. When it comes to web-browsing or e-mail reading, you have to content with massive efforts like the , which is even worse.

This is not to say there's room for commercial software today -- but it's in a different market. Since the cost of distributing software is now about zero, and the cost of writing it is effectively small (in the sense that many projects find many people are willing to donate their effots), to charge for software it must embody something more -- some kind of expensive research or expertise that is difficult to duplicate in a community project.

For example, GCC is a great cross-platform compiler, but if you need a good optimizing compiler you will pay for the real thing: 's ICC, or Sun's compilers. In a different field, there is little competition for AutoCAD.

I personally don't see anything in the *original* intent of the GPL (not just in the subtleties of the wording) that is being breached by using GPL

The preamble of the GPL begins with, "The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users." and continues on from there to further clarify the intent behind the GPL.

If you didn't "see" that in the GPL, you clearly haven't even read the GPL.

If Stallman wanted to extend the purpose of the GPL

He doesn't want to extend the purpose of the GPL. As you can see above, he wants to protect the freedoms of "all its [free software's] users". "All" includes those who use software remotely.

My view is that when browsing a website, you are 'using' the HTML and any javascript thats running.

Nice try, but it's not the 'using' of the HTML output that is in question. It's the issuing of commands (such as via HTTP), which makes you the user of the remote software. The data sent via HTTP (such as HTML, JavaScript, images, and so on) is the output of the software on the remote server that you, the web surfer, are using.

"Thank you Mr Xerox - if I'd wanted a copy of a FAQ, I would have got one."

Except i didn't even read the FAQ, i just read the plain thing, as in
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt

In special, this section, already showed arount here:

"You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

        a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
        stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.

        b) 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."

Read the b) clause above? I don't need a FAQ to understand what it means nor to "know this is required from the text of the GPL itself".

If it's hard for you to understand, let me condense it to make it clearer:

"You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it... and copy and distribute such modifications... provided
that you also 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."

Plainly, if you modify and publish your work based on GPLed work, you must supply the changes to the GPLed work. not that hard, huh?

"Client-server lesson 101. Code exists on your client computer."

Really?! what about RPCs? XML-RPC? webservices? it's all really just dynamic linking to libraries physically located _outside_ your computer, but that you still _need_ in order to do your computations. Publishing is making something public for people to use, not necessarily publishing it like a closed box in a store.

"I'm certain they aren't. However, I'm equally certain that they'll be tied into Apache and some database system, probably hard-coded for speed."

Apache is not GPLed work, so Google has every right to do it.

"Sheesh indeed."

yep.

My ideal license would be betwee[n] GPL and BSD: one where only contributions (changes, fixes, enhancements, etc.) to so-licensed code would have to be published. This way, open code stays open without 'infecting' everything that uses it.

• If something is sold, lemon laws and the like should apply, and the seller is not allowed to globally disavow their limited responsibilities to the buyer, or to impose additional terms (by contract-of-adhesion) after the sale.

• If something is given away for free (e.g. GPLed software), then the "seller" does have the right to demand adherence to licensing terms (e.g. no reverse engineering, etc. -- though that would be meaningless for GPLed stuff), and also has the right to disavow any responsibility (a la Clause 11 of the current GPL).

That's very different to a "loophole" where the intention of the licence is extremely clear but people are using clever tricks to avoid it.

The intention of the license is very clear--it's to promote four very specific freedoms. In the opinions of RMS and Moglen, the current version of the GPL fails to ensure those freedoms in a specific set of circumstances. This is due to a loophole--a loophole not between the wording of the GPL and this specific set of circumstances, but a loophole between the intention of the GPL and that set of circumstances.

To my knowledge, the current GPL talks about copying and distributing, not using.

Copying is where the GPL applies, because it's based on copyright law. Distribution is where they chose to focus because:

1. This keeps the GPL simple (too complex and unintended consequences are more likely)
2. Distribution was the most prevalent way users became users.

Now, it's increasingly common for a person to become a user (as per the opinions of RMS and Moglen, and their opinion is what applies regarding the intent of the GPL, as it is their document) without having the software they use having been distributed to them. Therefore, in order for the GPL to more accurately address the intentions of its authors, it will need to be updated, which is exactly what they are in the process of doing now.

Indeed it would - so if I used my program to write static HTML which I then published, would this program require me to publish the source?

I'm fairly certain they do not intend this, and that the new GPL will not require this. If you read the pages on the FSF site, it will become clear that they believe users should have the right to use modified GPL'd software without distributing their changes if they so desire. Your static HTML example would fall into this category.

It's only because web surfers are, in effect, using the software that this question has come up.

If you use a program to create a static html page, you are the user. If I click a button on a web page, the program that is run by my click is now being used by me, and thus I am the user.

At least, as far as RMS is concerned, as I understand it.

There will be no need to be able to make a living from programming.

Sorry, but you are wrong, in the copyright law they are the same thing.

No, they're not. Try and quote that law, if you like. The excerpt you already pasted implies exactly the opposite, as I explain below.

already has the right of making copies, modifying such copies, and installing them on all of its machines!

No, they don't have that right already. If the GPL wasn't there, they could only install the program once. They only gain the right to multiple installs if they obey the GPL, which means each time the software is distributed, it must be with the source code (or an "offer for the source code, valid for any third party, etc etc").

Come on, read 17USC106 -- those are the exclusive rights of the copyright owner (no ellipses here, this is an exaustive list):

Yes, of course I've read it many times. (Although that's not in the Friendly Article, but is a separate reference you brought up). Looking at it again, I am reminded that it's a very useful tool to reinforce my point.

There are two rights of interest here, #1 and #3. #1 is the right to reproduction, and #3 is the right to public distribution. Notice that the wording is "distribute copies ... to the public", which should clue you in that "distribution" is not synonymous with "publication", or else "public" would be redundant. The use of "public distribution" is an acknowledgement that "private distribution" and "in-house distribution" are other possibilities.

So, we've seen that copyright holders have those two rights. Of them, the right to reproduction is more important than that of distribution, because distributing copies without first reproducing them is impossible. So the reproductive right has primacy over the distributive right. It is that right which is violated if a programmer modifies GPL source code without obeying the GPL's terms.

Now, I'll ask you to read a different FA: the GPL. Search for every occurence of the word-fragment "distribute" in the file. It occurs 53 times. Of those instances, zero of them are followed by a qualifier like "to the public", which a reading of the copyright law has already established is necessary to distinguish publich distribution from other kinds of distribution (such as in-house).

Furthermore, note that the GPL contains the text "distribute or publish", which further reinforces that, in the understanding of the GPL authors, "distribute" and "publish" are not synonyms.

Therefore, I have established that "distribute" is different from "publish", and "public distribution" is one sub-category of distribution. The implication is that "private", "in-house", and "corporate use" are other categories of "distribution".

So finally, back to the GPL. When does the GPL "attach" to software, meaning anyone who has access to the files has been given permission to redistribute both the binaries and source (or "an offer for the source code..." etc)? Any time you "distribute" the modified software.

When a corporation distributes a modified GPL program amoung it's employees, they are giving them permission to publish it whenever they like. If the corporation hadn't intended to give them that permission, then it couldn't have distributed the software at all.

(Note that this conclusion is consistent with the FSF's stated goal: that users of software have freedom to modify and re-distribute it. A million users unable to edit their desktop software because they are employed by a corp would be against RMS's ideals. In particular, it would allow China to pass out modified Linux to all their citizens, without any rights to the source code)

Sorry, but you are wrong, in the copyright law they are the same thing.

No, they're not. Try and quote that law, if you like. The excerpt you already pasted implies exactly the opposite, as I explain below.

already has the right of making copies, modifying such copies, and installing them on all of its machines!

No, they don't have that right already. If the GPL wasn't there, they could only install the program once. They only gain the right to multiple installs if they obey the GPL, which means each time the software is distributed, it must be with the source code (or an "offer for the source code, valid for any third party, etc etc").

Come on, read 17USC106 -- those are the exclusive rights of the copyright owner (no ellipses here, this is an exaustive list):

Yes, of course I've read it many times. (Although that's not in the Friendly Article, but is a separate reference you brought up). Looking at it again, I am reminded that it's a very useful tool to reinforce my point.

There are two rights of interest here, #1 and #3. #1 is the right to reproduction, and #3 is the right to public distribution. Notice that the wording is "distribute copies ... to the public", which should clue you in that "distribution" is not synonymous with "publication", or else "public" would be redundant. The use of "public distribution" is an acknowledgement that "private distribution" and "in-house distribution" are other possibilities.

So, we've seen that copyright holders have those two rights. Of them, the right to reproduction is more important than that of distribution, because distributing copies without first reproducing them is impossible. So the reproductive right has primacy over the distributive right. It is that right which is violated if a programmer modifies GPL source code without obeying the GPL's terms.

Now, I'll ask you to read a different FA: the GPL. Search for every occurence of the word-fragment "distribute" in the file. It occurs 53 times. Of those instances, zero of them are followed by a qualifier like "to the public", which a reading of the copyright law has already established is necessary to distinguish publich distribution from other kinds of distribution (such as in-house).

Furthermore, note that the GPL contains the text "distribute or publish", which further reinforces that, in the understanding of the GPL authors, "distribute" and "publish" are not synonyms.

Therefore, I have established that "distribute" is different from "publish", and "public distribution" is one sub-category of distribution. The implication is that "private", "in-house", and "corporate use" are other categories of "distribution".

So finally, back to the GPL. When does the GPL "attach" to software, meaning anyone who has access to the files has been given permission to redistribute both the binaries and source (or "an offer for the source code..." etc)? Any time you "distribute" the modified software.

When a corporation distributes a modified GPL program amoung it's employees, they are giving them permission to publish it whenever they like. If the corporation hadn't intended to give them that permission, then it couldn't have distributed the software at all.

(Note that this conclusion is consistent with the FSF's stated goal: that users of software have freedom to modify and re-distribute it. A million users unable to edit their desktop software because they are employed by a corp would be against RMS's ideals. In particular, it would allow China to pass out modified Linux to all their citizens, without any rights to the source code)

I'd still really like to see the definition of "distribute" you are using, because it's hard for me to imagine one that would both create an "in-house" exception to the GPL, but not also open a loophole permitting almost anyone to break the GPL by adding a little boilerplate ahead of every sale.

From page 195 of the copyright law [copyright.gov]:

(6) "Distribute" means to sell, lease, or assign a product to consumers in the United States, or to sell, lease, or assign a product in the United States for ul- timate transfer to consumers in the United States.

The only reason that internal distribution doesn't count as distribution is because the corporation isn't a customer of itself.

Yes, exactly. The GPL is not a "site license". It includes no text that applies specifically to a corporation or organization. Corporate licenses to software only happen when the license explicitly gives a corporate buyer more rights than an individual would have. The GPL doesn't do this.

The GPL is effectively a site license. Just because it gives the same rights to individuals doesn't mean that it doesn't work like a site license. Section 2 of the GPL gives rights to modify and copy the software. There is no limitation on the number of copies an entity can make. If a corporation is using the software, then "You" refers to the corporation.

Section 2 says: "You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above". The claues makes no significant restrictions. This gives the entity agreeing to the license the right to make copies.

The only place the gpl that says you need to publish source code is section 3. It starts with, "You may copy and distribute the Program . . . in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:".

Based on section 2, verybody has the right to produce unlimited numbers of copies. Section 3 says that if you transfer the copies to a consumer in any way, you need to provide source code. If you don't give a copy to a consumer, you still have the right to make copies based on section 2. This is why the GPL faq says that private modifications are ok

> > In terms of "the license with the most restrictive terms,"
> And since a license is defined as a set of terms, that is the way to look at it.

There is more than one way to look at things. As a user I am interested in the license that grants me the most freedom - public domain is the superset of all freedoms.

> Using GPL maximizes the availability of other projects you can grab code from.

No, it can't grab code from the old BSD license. Your link:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#OrigBSD

Plenty of licenses can exclude the GPL. I think some MS-designed licenses do so explicitly.

This simple license may also exclude the GPL:

This source code is licensed to you at no cost, for use in any purpose, and with no further conditions except:
1. this code may never be distributed with a license that imposes tighter restrictions that this one
2. you take necessary steps to enforce this condition (for example by indicating parts of your software which come under this license).

> If your video-game is GPL, you can borrow image-processing code from The Gimp (GPL),
> but a BSD or PD game couldn't do that.
Some it can reuse, some it cannot. Same with any software.

You can change the license of your work to the GPL (or, possibly, one of the licenses deemed "GPL-compatible"; IANAL, so consult a lawyer first). (Emphasis added)

You cannot use the GPL to include code licensed under the GPL in an application licensed under a "GPL compatible" license. The GPL is very clear, you can only use the GPL to license code under the current or later versions of the GPL.

"GPL compatible" as defined by the Free Software Foundation works the other way. The FSF defines GPL compatible code as code that can be incorporated into a GPL program and licensed under the GPL.

Let's say I write a CGI script implemented in an interpreter distributed under GPL 3

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpr eterIsGPL/

and/or my CGI script calls such an open source program.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggre gation/

Does this mean, I have to distributed the CGI script source code?

Not because of the interpreter, however depending on how you've "called such a program" in your CGI script, you might have to.

Let's say I write a CGI script implemented in an interpreter distributed under GPL 3

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpr eterIsGPL/

and/or my CGI script calls such an open source program.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggre gation/

Does this mean, I have to distributed the CGI script source code?

Not because of the interpreter, however depending on how you've "called such a program" in your CGI script, you might have to.

Yes, by limiting the freedom of people to use free software for purposes Stallman doesn't like.

Absolutely wrong. Stallman doesn't like Communism, but his license doesn't say the Chinese can't use emacs to draw up the death-sentence for some dissident.

The *sole* purpose of the GPL is to promote the FSF's Four Freedoms. Nothing more, nothing less.

It's an irony, but inescapable fact, that to promote freedom, one must actually limit freedom. It sounds illogical, but it's not a matter of logic, it's a matter of reality. For example, if you don't have laws that limit someone's ability to kill someone else, you have less overall freedom because the threat of being killed can be used to force people to do what you want.

Similarly, the GPL limits certain freedoms (more specifically, it outlines certain responsibilities, and limits your ability to add further licensing restrictions to a piece of software) in order to promote more freedom overall. Of course, just as in the real world, it's possible to go overboard and limit freedom in such a way that is not rational. I'm sure you can think of some laws right now that do that. The GPL, on the other hand, does not do that. The GPL is simple, is predicated on four basic freedoms, and is fully consistent with those four freedoms.

Plus, let's not forget what happens when you make free software too difficult for commercial entities to use ... that's bad for the free software world, because if it happens too often, people will standardize on something else and free software will become marginalized.

RMS's goal is not for all software to free. His goal is for free software to exist. He has stated many times that you are perfectly free to use non-free software all you want. ESR is the one who's more concerned with promoting a system he sees as superior for practical reasons (read The Cathedral and the Bazaar), and while he's a libertarian, he really isn't primarily focused on promoting freedom, he sees that as a nice side-effect.

So, stating that the new GPL may make some companies not use the GPL is not a counter argument because it doesn't have "companies use GPL software" as its primary goal. If you want that, the BSD license is more in line with that goal. You (and everyone else) is free to chose whatever license they wish for their own fully-owned code.

You are right in that the GPL does not expressly say "If you do not distribute the software, you do not have to distribute the source", but it certainly *implies* this notion, which is why I presume that even the FSF people have said this. Below are a few sections from the GPL license itself (copied verbatim from the www.gnu.org site):

DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, but I have a fair grasp of the English language and can extract meaning and intent from written documents (most of the time).

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

{SECTION 2: The section that applies to modifying the source.}

====
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.

b) 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.

c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
====

Notice that it says "and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions". By including "and distribute" in that clause, the license is specifying that those particular conditions *must* be met when *all* the actions of causality are in place. Thus, for those conditions to apply you must "modify your copy or copies" AND "copy" AND "distribute".

Moreover, further down in Section 2 it states:

====
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.
====

It does more than imply -- it expressly states -- that the intent of this section is to "exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works", and not its access or modification.

All other sections of the license stipulate conditions on copying, distributing, or redistributing the original work or its derivatives, and do not directly deal with modifications as in Section 2.

Consider also that the notion of not having to distribute the source to modified versions used in-house without distribution is expressly stated in the GPL FAQ:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequir eSourcePostedPublic

====
Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?

The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.

But if you release

You are right in that the GPL does not expressly say "If you do not distribute the software, you do not have to distribute the source", but it certainly *implies* this notion, which is why I presume that even the FSF people have said this. Below are a few sections from the GPL license itself (copied verbatim from the www.gnu.org site):

DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, but I have a fair grasp of the English language and can extract meaning and intent from written documents (most of the time).

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

{SECTION 2: The section that applies to modifying the source.}

====
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.

b) 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.

c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
====

Notice that it says "and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions". By including "and distribute" in that clause, the license is specifying that those particular conditions *must* be met when *all* the actions of causality are in place. Thus, for those conditions to apply you must "modify your copy or copies" AND "copy" AND "distribute".

Moreover, further down in Section 2 it states:

====
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.
====

It does more than imply -- it expressly states -- that the intent of this section is to "exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works", and not its access or modification.

All other sections of the license stipulate conditions on copying, distributing, or redistributing the original work or its derivatives, and do not directly deal with modifications as in Section 2.

Consider also that the notion of not having to distribute the source to modified versions used in-house without distribution is expressly stated in the GPL FAQ:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequir eSourcePostedPublic

====
Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?

The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.

But if you release

I'll go to the horse's mouth here

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequir eSourcePostedPublic

It all hinges on what "you" and "distribute" mean. This clarification tells us that in the licence "You" can apply to corporate entities, and that distribute means to third parties (i.e. people who aren't you - those outside the company).

So you challenge is to find something credible that backup up your statement - that in-house changes should be distributed.

You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

Notice that this gives the licensee (i.e. the user) the choice of which GPL version to use. NOT the person issuing the license.

That is the form of the copyright notice using the GPL that I've seen on all GPL'd software I've looked at the notice for, except for the Linux kernel and the occasional other code that sometimes explicitly remove the option for the user to use a later version.

This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

]]Only a small percentage of Java/C# libraries have Free implementations.

What are you talking about? You're free to use all of the standard java libraries without paying a dime.

This kind of free. (Don't read Slashdot much, do you?) Kinda lame to spend thousands of man-hours building a Free desktop only to have it depend on non-Free software, no?

]]Qt does multi-platform at least as well as Java.

ROFLMAO! Good one!

Glad I gave you a laugh, but I was actually serious. Java is riddled with platform- and VM-specific issues that pretty well kill the "write once, run anywhere" mantra. Qt generally ports pretty well.

]]STOP DRINKING MS AND SUN'S KOOL-AID.

SUN's Kool-Aid is great! Drink up!

For philosophical reasons, I only drink Free beer.

(Also, Sun is clinging to a failed business model and would be dead already if it didn't have so much cash in the bank. If it's board had any sense, they'd dissolve the company, sell off the assets, and return the money to investors. Their kool-aid sucks.)

It's not up to Stallman. Call it whatever you want. Your *BSD box has a lot of GNU stuff on it too ... call it GNU/BSD if you wish.

A potato by any other name would be just as potato-esque but if you insist on calling it a rose you confuse both cooks and florists.

GNU/BSD exists. GNU's opinion on that.

"If you use the functions from the standard library, you aren't required to comply with the GPL, only if you redistribute and/or modify the library."

Can you point to the part of the MySQL license that says this? If you can't then I think I would prefer to take the word of /usr/share/doc/libmysqlclient12/copyright over yours. ;)

If MySQL were licensed under the GNU LGPL then you would be right... but it's not. If you link against libmysqlclient, then the derivitive work you have created must be licensed under the terms of the GPL.

"It's like saying that if you build your application on top of Linux that you are required to comply with the GPL. Only if you make modifications/distribute/copy the Linux kernel for your project would this requirement hold."

Not at all. I refer you to Linus' statement at the top of the Linux COPYING file:

NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".

I see no such similar statement in MySQL's copyright file.

I would like to point you to an article on gnu.org. Very interesting.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html

The existance or popularity of non-free systems has no real bearing on free systems. Computers that attack their owners, destroy their files, spy on their owners online activity while reporting said activity to mafia-like groups like the RIAA, etc will be the ecosystem that dies out. Why will people pay for OSes, hardware, etc that are not merely defective, but actively hostile to their activities when Free systems exist that can be obtained for little or zero cost? Witness the explosive growth of the Firefox browser as an example that this can and will happen.

Oh, this discussion is not complete without a link to The Right to Read - overly paranoid or eerily prophetic, the predicted orwellian information society is approaching.

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html - it allows use without "GPL infection", tho someone told me to use the BSD license instead.

Many thanks for taking the time to clarify some points.

No problem at all. The article has now fallen off the front page, so I'm not sure how many people are still reading this, but you deserve a response.

It's fairly easy to show people the fruits of desktop Linux - pop in just one Ubuntu (or Mepis or whatever) CD and leave an hour later with a machine humming away nicely and in the case of Ubuntu very good online user forums to help with the many questions. The user doesn't know it's all based on Debian and may never know. Debian will be mentioned, but probably not that visibly unless you dig around for it.

That's true, but it's not a problem trademark law can solve. Remember that a trademark only protects a mark (logo or word). We could slap all the acknowledgement requirements we like on our trademark license, but it's still easy to avoid them by simply not using the mark except buried in footnotes, as some derivative distributions do.

What you seem to be after is more like the BSD advertising clause, which the FLOSS community has more or less rejected as a bad idea.

I think the solution lies more in Debian advocates and evangelists spreading the word that these derivatives really are in fact derived from Debian. Trying to promulgate something really heavy-handed will probably fail, as RMS's attempt to get people to call their Linux-kernel-based OSes "GNU/Linux" largely has. It's hard to force people to use a label of your choosing, but you can try to educate the marketplace. The results are more difficult to measure, but that doesn't render the exercise worthless.

I wonder if it would make sense for the Debian website to have a "good neighbors" page that identifies derived distributions that prominently acknowledge their Debian heritage and cultivate a good relationship with us.

What's wrong with Intel or gcc?

• Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted

The modern BSD license is no "subset" of the GPL license.

Of course I use "subset" a little loosely- they aren't strict subsets, because outside of pure math, nothing ever is. But knowing that I only mean a very strong approximation, you can see why BSD is a virtual subset of GPL, and similarly why PD is a subset of BSD.

First just look at the lengths of the license files. PD is one line, BSD is 22 lines, and the GPL is 275 lines. Each of the longer licenses imposes more terms than the previous ones (PD has no terms at all). Furthermore, each of the terms in the shorter licenses are basically equivalent to a term in the longer one. Because the bigger license already includes all the terms of the smaller, code with a "smaller" license can be freely merged into a "bigger" project.

If I find some PD code, I can add it to a BSD or GPL project without violating the restrictions of the PD license (since there are no restrictions). But if I find some BSD code, I can't add it to a PD project, since I'm not the copyright holder and have no authority to release it into public domain. But I can add it into a GPL project, because all the requirements of the modern BSD license can be obeyed without violating any GPL requirements.

However, if I have a PD or BSD project and want to insert a little GPL code, I can't do that and leave the end result PD or BSD- I must change the whole thing to GPL, because that is the license with the most and most restrictive terms, and thus the superset of the others.

[...] but it's not as if software under an OSD-compliant license isn't Free.

Software under any 1.x version of the Apple Public Source License qualifies as open source but not free software. For more on this, consider the GNU Project's APSL essays (including the older one still published for historical reference). I also discuss this (pointing to the older APSL document) in another post I made in this thread.

The entire point is that Peru wants to be able to have the Four Freedoms, and to not be controlled by a foreign corporation. That's more important than any amount of money!

The parent poster gets it exactly right, and the grandparent poster managed to give important and interesting evidence then reach the wrong conclusion.

To build on the parent's article, one specific example of a practical benefit free software gives us that open source software does not is the freedom to make private derivatives. Private derivatives are changed versions of programs one never distributes. The open source definition has nothing to allow users to make these, but the definition of free software requires that users have this right ("You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.").

This came up in the discussion around the early version of the Apple Public Source License. It was one reason that those versions of the APSL were not free software licenses, even though they qualified as open source licenses. The earlier revisions of the APSL required notifying a central authority—Apple—of any "deployed" APSL program.

As a result, the GNU Project commented on what Apple had picked up from the then year-old "open source" movement:

Aside from this, we must remember that only part of MacOS is being released under the APSL. Even if the fatal flaws and practical problems of the APSL were fixed, even if it were changed into a very good free software license, that would do no good for the other parts of MacOS whose source code is not being released at all. We must not judge all of a company by just part of what they do.

Overall, I think that Apple's action is an example of the effects of the year-old "open source" movement: of its plan to appeal to business with the purely materialistic goal of faster development, while putting aside the deeper issues of freedom, community, cooperation, and what kind of society we want to live in.

Apple has grasped perfectly the concept with which "open source" is promoted, which is "show users the source and they will help you fix bugs". What Apple has not grasped--or has dismissed--is the spirit of free software, which is that we form a community to cooperate on the commons of software.

I found the commentary to be apropos then and still find it to be informative and helpful today.