Hole in GNU GPL?

Faré writes "It looks like a hole in the GNU GPL [may allow] people to practically turn GNU-free software into proprietary software, in as much as licenses are granted collectively rather than strictly individually. See the recent discussion thread on the cybernethics mailing-list. If collective licenses are enforceable, then there's nothing left to the GNU GPL (or any free software license); if so, I'll go to the bugroff license." Faré, who submitted this, is one of the main participants in the referenced discussion. Richard M. Stallman is another. They raise some interesting points. And the "bugroff license" is a hoot! An apology from Roblimo follows; click below to read it.

Public Apology

I posted this piece because I felt Faré raised some subtle but interesting ethical and legal points about the GPL that were worth discussion and clarification. I honestly did not expect to get flamed over my decision to post his submission.

I believe that software licenses and documentation, like software itself, should be discussed as openly and publicly as possible so that bugs can be exposed and repaired. However, words (especially legal words) are far more slippery than code. With words the question, "Is this a bug?" is often far harder to answer than it is in software.

But I was wrong to post this to Slashdot, which is obviously not an appropriate forum for discussion of subtle ethical matters, and it is apparent that any mention of even a hint of a possible tiny imperfection in the GPL does not belong here, and that anyone who dares to mention any such thing on this website must expect - and probably deserves - a series of harsh, even obscene, personal attacks instead of rational rebukes or comments.

Please accept my humble apology. I was wrong. I will try not to make the mistake of posting anything even remotely like this on Slashdot ever again.

- Robin

Update: 01/18 01:37 by CT :Another Public Apology I apologize for Robin's "Humble" apology. Robin posts many good stories on Slashdot, but sometimes when he gets flamed, he takes it very personally. The reality is that every author on Slashdot gets a big load of flame every day as part of their job. They get this for mistakes, misunderstandings, or just because someone had a crappy day. Those of us who have been at it for a long time just don't care any more.

I think Slashdot is a fine forum for arguing subtle points. I just think that when things like the GPL come into question, the hostile kneejerk reactions run rampant, and its a good idea to up your threshold a notch if you prefer a conversation to be a little more mature.

- CmdrTaco

Comments

Off on the wrong foot

[Anonymous Coward]

Companies are not individuals and have no right as such. The author seems to have missed on a large body of law that says otherwise. The entire position seems based on his opinion or personal preference rather than actual juridical decisions. I might have read more than two replies into the thread if he had bothered to offer court decisions supporting his belief that licenses can only apply towards individuals. But what do I know, I'm just an Anonymous Coward.

What a messy article ;)

[Chris Johnson]

OK, I went over this and actually wrote RMS about it _months_ ago. Here's the story:

If you are a corporate employee, this can override certain 'human rights' you might think you have. You may not be entitled to your own thoughts, or ideas. You probably are safe from being legally tortured to death with pitchforks, look on the bright side :)

This fellow's hysteria seems to be based on the notion that people who are part of corporations have some sort of 'individual' rights. It's a pleasing argument, but largely hypothetical. Expect corporate powers over 'their own bodies' to become stronger and stronger as they are challenged.

To a corporation, firing and suing an employee to ruin the employee's life because the employee posted internal GPL code is the same as you cutting your toenails or burning off a _wart_. There is reason to believe that this perspective would hold up in court, because the employee theoretically had complete freedom to join, or not join, the corporation in the first place. Having joined, the employee's 'rights' or lack of same are spelled out in contract law... the person might find that they themselves did not own the ideas they used to modify the GPLed software, or any of the other ideas they talked about at work or came up with at home- so after being fired they could be left with _only_ publically GPLed work, and the company project which they forcibly publicized ahead of schedule- and everything else they did, not having been GPLed by anyone, is property of the company and if they tried doing anything with that, they'd be hosed, slammed into the pavement by a very slam-dunk sort of case in which they are STEALING TRADE SECRETS not theirs to GPL.

That is an ugly scenario, but it is quite real. So the trouble is not the corporate employee being harmed for exercising their right to GPL- they have no such right, they are a corporation's toenail in the legal sense and are not entitled to any such grandstanding. The trouble is on a more pragmatic level, and it's a medium sort of trouble, not a big trouble.

Basically, the corporation can fork a GPLed project and put massive resources behind trying to produce a significantly different version, all under tight wraps. It's allowed to discipline its parts as it sees fit, and is allowed to keep its work entirely to itself until it releases it with a well-funded publicity splash. At this point it must release source, and anyone can extend off this reference point- but the corporation can turn around and begin another round of complete revamping under complete secrecy, refusing to cooperate with outsiders.

I spoke to RMS about this, seeing it as a sort of loophole. He remained unperturbed, and I think I understand why- to RMS, 'free' development will always outpace, always outproduce such closed environments. For RMS this isn't even an issue, much less a loophole, to him it's the corporations being fools by turning away from a world full of willing helpers.

I don't know if he's right or not. Certainly he has a point- though there are also examples of types of work where a controlled team can outperform the bazaar- particularly game or art projects where the project's goals and values are very much a judgement call. On the other hand, OSS moves really fast- in the event of a radically altered GPLed codebase being sprung on the world, everything about it would be known and understood within days- there's not a lot of strategic advantage to keeping secrecy when you're inevitably going to make full disclosure anyhow.

Final analysis- this really isn't about the GPL so much as it's about corporatism. Like it or not, corporations get to own people and their ideas, legally. They also get to play in the fields of OSS alongside ill-funded hackers, and what they lack in nimbleness and cooperativeness they gain in sheer ability to market and distribute on a global scale.

It may be that eventually corporations will set the course for OSS by using their capacity to control collective programming skills and choke off communications. However, in a way this hardly matters- the source will get out there, no amount of GPL-allowable obfuscation (i.e. minimal) would stand up to the eyes of the world for longer than six hours or so, and frankly, if anyone thinks the amount of kluge and mess created by a world of corporate OSS 'coders' trying to trip each other up... would be worse than the current world of _closed_ corporate coders collectively trying to do exactly the same thing, with no expectation of eventual source disclosure.

Expect the corporations to abuse their privileges as hard as it can. It only adds a scattering of immensely rich, and twisted and obnoxious 'individuals' to the talent pool. Think of it like having some prima donnas who keep re-inventing everything, and just roll with it...

Corporations are *people* under the law

[Jamie Zawinski]

AC wrote:

Companies are not individuals and have no right as such. The author seems to have missed on a large body of law that says otherwise.

Sadly, this is untrue. Someone else pointed this out earlier but it bears repeating: in the United States, a corporation is a "natural person" under the law, entitled to all the same rights as people who happen to be made of meat.

This great Adbusters article goes into a lot of detail of the history of corporations and how we ended up in this mess. From the article:

Then came a legal event that would not be understood for decades (and remains baffling even today), an event that would change the course of American history. In Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad, a dispute over a railbed route, the US Supreme Court deemed that a private corporation was a "natural person" under the US Constitution and therefore entitled to protection under the Bill of Rights. Suddenly, corporations enjoyed all the rights and sovereignty previously enjoyed only by the people, including the right to free speech.

This 1886 decision ostensibly gave corporations the same powers as private citizens. But considering their vast financial resources, corporations thereafter actually had far more power than any private citizen. They could defend and exploit their rights and freedoms more vigorously than any individual and therefore they were more free. In a single legal stroke, the whole intent of the American Constitution -- that all citizens have one vote, and exercise an equal voice in public debates -- had been undermined. Sixty years after it was inked, Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas concluded of Santa Clara that it "could not be supported by history, logic or reason." One of the great legal blunders of the nineteenth century changed the whole idea of democratic government.

Adbusters is wonderful, you should subscribe.

Summary for the lazy

[Nimmy]

Here is my interpretation of the issue. Reading this is not a substitute for reading the real posts.

Background: GPL says that you can't just distribute a binary (in essence). If you distribute at all, it must be with source.

The Issue: Can a company make an internal distribution of GPL software and not release it? (E.g. NSA secure linux, or Corel closed beta)

View 1: Companies are not people. A developer in a company may modify the code and give to other workers in the company. These other workers have all the rights to source from the GPL. Thus, if one worker decides to publish the modified code, the company cannot (legally) do anything, it's GPL code still. Thus, internal distributions of software can only be enforced through threat of firing. Even if only a binary is leaked, people who d/l the binary can require the company to give the source!

View 2: Yes of course. That is not subject to the terms of the GPL, you are not distributing it. The problem with this view is that what if I want to sell modified GPL code? I can say: $10 to join NickSoft, Inc. Then I will send you code, but you may not distribute as terms of 'employment' with NickSoft. Boom, there goes GPL.

The original poster says both views are flawed and you cannot have any other (legally they are mutally exclusive).

RMS says, yeah maybe its a flaw, but its really minor.

Again, this is only my interpretation. Read the original posts.

(My personal opinion is close to RMS', its a very tough issue and is hard to avoid, however one states a GPL-like licence. I'd say leave it be)

--Nick

Don't panic

[JoeBuck]

The idea is that someone creates an organization, and then requires everyone to be in the organization as a condition for software distribution. Then the modified GPLed program is only distributed to club members, and all the club members agree to only distribute the program within the club. In a sense, the Trillian project (which is porting the GNU tools and Linux to the IA64 architecture, which is still under nondisclosure agreements) is such a club.

So, does the fact that this can be done break the GPL protections? No, because it doesn't get around the requirement to provide sources to everyone who gets binaries. Attempts to do this kind of thing for a different reason (e.g. charge everyone big bucks for being in the club and forbid them from sharing information with outsiders) may run afoul of antitrust provisions in the US and the EU (forcing people to be in a club before you do business with them may not be legal, depending on the circumstances).

RMS often points out that the GPL (and other licenses) shouldn't be written, or read, as if they represent the whole of the law. Just because the GPL doesn't exclude some possibility doesn't mean that it is legal. It may be illegal for another reason.

Hey hey, wait a minute

[Kaufmann]

As a colleague of Faré in the Tunes project (shameless plug) and a subscriber to (and occasional participant in) the cybernethics mailing list, I'd like to point a few things out.

First of all, Faré is French and resides in France. So before attacking his integrity, honesty, manhood, morals, intelligence, competence or whatever, ask yourself this question, American-boy: do you have any idea as to how French law applies to this issue? What if it were the case (perhaps not in France, but somewhere else) that this loophole _were_ applicable and an issue under some other country's law?

Also, as other posters have said, Faré is worried about what might happen if a corporation were created with the express purpose of hoarding otherwise GPL'd code. This might be an issue.

Finally, please don't fuck cybernethics up! If you want to join in on the discussion, that's great, but the membership is really soaring, and it'd be very unfortunate to see the list deteriorate, and I'm afraid that this is going to be the case. So try to keep the S/N ratio up.

Anyway, if anyone cares, Faré and I are on IRC right now (#tunes at openprojects.net). If you've got a problem with him (or me!), come over... we've already got the boxing ring set up.