Slashdot Mirror
John Carmack Enforcing the GPL on Quake Source
GuavaBerry writes, "John Carmack's latest .plan update is really really interesting. Apparently a modmaker is trying to derive work from the newly GPL'ed Quake source without releasing source to his binaries, and Carmack isn't happy about it. The debate is chilling, but we must appreciate Carmack's no-nonsense approach to enforcing his rights under the GPL. "
Read the emails here.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
You know what I hope? I hope that the guy releasing the binaries keeps it up. That way, we can see what the GPL is legally made of if John takes him to court. That'd be cool, especially if the GPL prevailed... I've always been a little skeptical about the power of the GPL, and I think a good litmus test would do it wonders.
As a avid quake player, the source code release of Quake has almost destroyed the community. Through extensive monitoring of servers (which should exist anyways) most popular servers have a no cheating policy that includes instant bannishment. I respect the QuakeLives project, and its programmer, but I feel that Slade is destroying the community further. Mega TF, arguably the best quake mod out, is beginning to move towards QuakeLives only, a dependance that could kill both Mega TF, or regular Quake. The QuakeLives project is attempting to create a server that only THEIR client can connect to and monopolize the community. Slade has attempted to swindle his way around this multiple times, consitering making difs, or other such ideas, including this "click through" of giving up your rights. I wish slade would realize that there ARE ways to get past cheating, and they CAN include not breaking the law. I applaud Carmack for his protection of the community. Slade attacks the fact that no one is attempting to fix bugs, or make Quake better. I ask you, what has Slade done to fix bugs and make Quake better? He himself has closed the source of his tree, and isn't obiding by the wording, or the intent of the GPL.
My 2 cents.
SB.
[00:11] i made diffs(esentially :( ;) :( ;) :) :)
:-)
[00:11] <Slade> let me show you
[00:11] <Palisade> right
[00:12] <Slade> lets pretend that this is the quake source code
[00:12] <Palisade> that means there is GPL'd code in there as well
[00:12] <Slade> 12345
[00:12] <Slade> and thats the code needed to make quake run(its oversimplicfication i know)
[00:12] <Slade> now iD owns the license on all that right?
[00:13] <Slade> and the license they've granted is the GPL
[00:13] <Palisade> ok
[00:13] <Slade> with me so far?
[00:13] <Slade> ok
[00:13] <Slade> now.. if i make code thats 123945
[00:13] <Palisade> so you link in some modifications
[00:13] <Slade> who owns the copywrite on the 9
[00:14] <Slade> i do right?
[00:14] <Palisade> ok 9 is your modification, but by linking it it becomes a part of the whole
[00:14] <Palisade> you own the copyright, but for you to be able to link it it must be GPL compatible license
[00:14] <Slade> hang on
[00:14] <Slade> you're jumping the gun
[00:14] <Slade> keep with me
[00:14] <Slade> ok
[00:15] <Slade> so technically
[00:15] <Slade> its ok for me to have that binary on my system right?
[00:15] <Palisade> slade, you can make as many binaries as you want
[00:15] <Slade> even if i say this code is everything against the principles of the GPL(hypathetically)
[00:16] <Palisade> if you distribute that binary though you must provide the source code
[00:16] <Slade> correct
[00:16] <Palisade> and so you're saying you're just providing a patch and not the "actual" binary
[00:16] <Palisade> right?
[00:16] <Slade> i'm providing the
[00:16] <Slade> diffrences between my code and the GPL code
[00:17] <Palisade> literally you are the one who linked it, not the end user who applies the patch...
[00:17] <Slade> who did i link it?
[00:17] <Slade> err
[00:17] <Slade> how
[00:17] <Palisade> you had to compile the binary which you made a patch available for
[00:18] <Palisade> therefore you had to link in your non-GPL'd code
[00:18] <Slade> thats one way
[00:18] <Slade> but i didnt distribute that binary
[00:18] <Palisade> you distributed the binary in essence
[00:19] <Palisade> just because a method was used that cut down it's size doesn't mean you didn't distribute it
[00:19] <Slade> ok. lets go back to the code issue
[00:19] <Slade> 123945
[00:19] <Slade> 12345
[00:19] <Palisade> otherwise people could use encryption or compression as an excuse to pirate... "well the binary isn't *exactly* the same"
[00:19] <Slade> the dif is '9' right?
[00:19] <Palisade> well the diff would be:
[00:20] <Palisade> 123
[00:20] <Palisade> +9
[00:20] <Slade> byte[4]9 shift 1
[00:20] <Palisade> 45
[00:20] <Slade> yeah
[00:20] <Slade> now i own the 9
[00:20] <Palisade> diff cuts code and places it in front of and behind the code you changed
[00:20] <Palisade> or in this case the binary
[00:21] <Slade> not the method i use
[00:21] <Slade> if does it like this
[00:21] <Slade> byte[4]9 shift 1
[00:21] <Palisade> is that how your patch was really made?
[00:21] <Slade> in kindergarden basics, yes
[00:21] <Palisade> so you didn't use diff?
[00:21] <Slade> diff is gpl'd code
[00:22] <Slade> and i cant find a good diff for win32
[00:22] <Palisade> diff is a program
[00:22] <Palisade> oh you're against using GPL'd programs?
[00:22] <Slade> no
[00:22] <Palisade> there is a commandline diff program available, i should find out the url for it
[00:22] <Slade> but that would make part of my patch GPL
[00:22] <Palisade> oh you were making it so the end user can just run a program that patches it, ok
[00:22] <Slade> yeah windiff. but its buggy
[00:22] <Slade> right
[00:23] <Slade> point and click, win32 style
[00:23] <Palisade> ok and no GPL'd code from the Quake 1 engine slipped into the patch at all?
[00:23] <Palisade> just location jumps
[00:23] <Slade> how could it have?
[00:23] <Slade> if you notice
[00:23] <Palisade> that reminds me i should write a nifty front-end to patch
[00:23] <Slade> i released the source to 2.52
[00:23] <Slade> so 2.52 is perfectly legit
[00:24] <Slade> under the GPL
[00:24] <Palisade> did you write the patch program?
[00:24] <Slade> nope. its shareware. under the general license 'you can use it all you want for as much as you want any way you want so long as you dont use it for commercial purposes'
[00:24] <Palisade> slade, ok so we aren't really sure how it patches
[00:25] <Slade> on their site
[00:25] <Slade> they explained the method
[00:25] <Palisade> slade, which means some GPL'd code from the q1 engine could be in there (or rather object code of that code)
[00:25] <Palisade> ah
[00:25] <Slade> i think its nasty compared to diffs
[00:25] <Slade> but it works
[00:26] <Palisade> mm
[00:26] <Palisade> well it certainly must work well on binaries
[00:26] <Slade> which is part of the reason i picked it
[00:26] <Slade> no it doesnt
[00:26] <Slade> it wouldnt even patch the GL server
[00:26] <Slade> err client
[00:26] <Slade> it failed its compare
[00:27] <Slade> but that method is much cooler for binaries then diff
[00:27] <Palisade> ah
[00:27] <Slade> if they wrote the code right
[00:27] <Palisade> ok so anyways, so assuming it doesn't insert any of the original code, just your modification and locations
[00:27] * Slade nods.
[00:28] <Palisade> in order to create the patch you had to link it... so literally you were the one who linked, not the end user who applies the patch
[00:28] <Slade> i linked it, which is legal, so long as i dont distribute the GPL code
[00:28] <Palisade> no
[00:29] <Palisade> that's false logic...
[00:29] <Slade> how so?
[00:29] <Palisade> you see in order to actually provide the patch, you had to link the proprietary code with the GPL'd code
[00:29] <Slade> correct
[00:29] <Palisade> it doesn't matter what you do to it afterwards, compress it, encrypt it, rearrange it, diff it
[00:30] <Palisade> in order to get it to the end user
[00:30] <Palisade> you still had to link the incompatible licensed code together to create it
[00:30] <Slade> correct
[00:30] <Palisade> which is illegal
[00:30] <Slade> not that i see
[00:30] <Palisade> the license doesn't allow that
[00:31] <Slade> what i see is its only illegal if the binary is distributed
[00:31] <Palisade> as i said it doesn't matter how you want to obfuscate the resulting binary
[00:31] <Slade> so you're saying that the patch is under the GPL
[00:32] <Palisade> the fact that exact locations were calculated is exactly as if you had distributed the full executable
[00:32] <Palisade> no i'm saying the patch violates the GPL
[00:32] <Slade> how so?
[00:32] <Slade> well let me ask you this
[00:33] <Palisade> since it is proprietary code linked with GPL'd code
[00:33] <Slade> are we both in agreement that the binary does not violate the GPL so long as its sitting on my own machine
[00:33] <Palisade> slade, i'm not sure about that
[00:33] <Slade> or is this the point we are arguing right now?
[00:34] <Slade> from talking with Carmack, he said that was the hazy part
[00:34] <Palisade> it is a pretty hazy part
[00:34] <Slade> after i explained it
[00:34] <Palisade> btw have you talked to gnu@gnu.org yet?
[00:34] <Slade> and linux people cant really say anything about it without being hypocritical
[00:34] <Palisade> slade, JC is under the misconception that you're going to release the source code later
[00:35] <Slade> Palisade: i cleared that up and told him i wasnt
[00:35] <Palisade> slade, ah what did he say?
[00:37] <Slade> Palisade: Well I had told him that if he says the word I'll do it just as he says it. and he said it was kind of hazy so I removed the patches from the site until we could figure out more. I told him I had done that, he basically said ok. and we continued our conversation on other ways to make a more secure client
[00:37] <Palisade> slade, ok, so you're waiting to hear back about that until you do anything further
[00:38] <Slade> um. its not that. its basically we've gone on
[00:38] <Slade> he wasnt to concerned about if it was a violation of the GPL or not. more that it didnt really matter because the situation was remided to his satisfaction
[00:38] <Palisade> slade, i see where some people are getting upset of course, if we assume that you're wrong then of course that's why many are demanding the source...
[00:39] <Palisade> slade, the problem seems to be that everyone is confused as to the details, on both sides...
[00:39] <Slade> I'm not confused.
[00:39] <Palisade> slade, you've gone on?
[00:39] <Slade> yes. we're moving on to ql 2.54
[00:40] <Palisade> ok
[00:40] <Palisade> so what's all the fuss about?
[00:41] <Slade> people still want the source
[00:41] <Palisade> slade, ah
[00:41] <Palisade> slade, well... here's how i see it
[00:41] <Palisade> slade, you made a mistake (or rather, decided not to bother with the proprietary patch and moved on, whichever way you want to look at it)
[00:42] <Slade> the way i look at it is the copywrite holder was made happy by it being brought down for review
[00:42] <Palisade> slade, and you stopped distributing the patch
[00:42] <Palisade> slade, now since code 9 was yours
[00:42] * Slade listens
[00:43] <Palisade> slade, and you reversed your decision
[00:44] <Palisade> slade, then the code is yours, the code is under a proprietary license, and you are no longer distributing it linked to the GPL code, then you have the right not to provide that code
[00:44] * Slade nods.
[00:46] <Slade> then whats the problem again?
[00:46] <Palisade> no idea
[00:46] * Slade chuckles.
[00:46] <Palisade> well i think i have an idea
[00:46] <Palisade> you see you pissed off a lot of people who really like the GPL
[00:47] <Palisade> and so basically they've decided to hassle you about it and see if they can get you to release the code so they feel that they've won somehow
[00:47] <Slade> thats the way i see it
Email me for the complete log if you really want it
SB.
Carmack gets to release older engines and such things under the GPL, _knowing_ that nobody can take his work and build it into a competing closed source project. Granted, he can't cherry-pick ideas from the GPL stuff he seeded and use them in his closed stuff, but he doesn't need to, he has plenty of ideas of his own to use. The point is, Carmack does not want people to be 'free' to take the stuff he's giving to the opensource hackers, and turn it into a rival engine. He wants it to stay in the domain of the hackers, stay visible and accessible to all. If his GPLed works end up becoming terrific enough to compete with him (the recent GPLing of Bungie's Marathon 2 source resulted in the fixing of all the engine bugs, and a flurry of new mapmaking!), he'll make the effort to remain competitive, but that's still a very different thing from allowing his old code to go out there under a license that lets other companies take it, do proprietary mods on it, and then start selling that.
It's immensely gratifying to see that the GPL suits Carmack's purpose so well, what with the constant bashing it gets. Fact is, the only reason to bash the GPL is if you want to rip somebody off. If you are a creator and want to share, it's the single most effective way to ensure that sharing will happen _and_ that any resulting projects won't get in the way of any separate, proprietary projects you're depending on. I wish John Carmack the best in working out this little problem of his, and totally support his hard line. GPL means GPL. People choose it for a reason.
_________________
rooooar
"the first deliberate violator of the GPL"
Ha ! That's funny. There have been *many* deliberate violators of the GPL. Anyone who has managed a large, successful GPL'ed project will have come across these people (I know Samba has).
What usually happens is that after some polite legal words the violators back down (in all cases I know of). This is why the violators have never ended up in court.
This is a testament to the legal security of the GPL, in that no violator has yet had the courage to challenge in court what they did (and some have been *very* well funded indeed).
I expect the same thing to happen here that happens in most of these cases - the violators will back down before losing in court.
Regards,
Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.
I joined the QuakeLives project to try and make relations with the QuakeForge project a little better, and to keep QuakeLives in check, to make sure Slade understood the legal and ethical issues..
Things were a little rough, but likeable, and I thought things would work out, until the 2.53 release, which was another attempt to avoid the GPL..
I asked several people, on my word, to hold off any flames on 2.53 until I had a chance to talk to Slade, believing that it was a mistake which could be straightened out, until I talked to Slade, at which point I left the project..
At this point, he has lost all respect and trust that he may have had, and has proven that at heart he does not give a damn about the community, he is a egotistical brat who is in it for the glory, and no matter what happens he refuses to believe that he is wrong..
All I can say, is that this is about time, he has been asking for this to happen for a long time, shoveling shit at people, now, I suppose it comes back at him..
I hope he eventually grows up, and gets a clue, and as I've told him, and others, if he cleans up, and plays it straight, I'm willing to go back to the project to the same position, but I see little sign of him even admitting that he has ever been wrong, so I suppose time will tell..
Zephaniah E. Hull.
> lets pretend that this is the quake
> source code
> 12345
> and thats the code needed to make quake
> run(it's oversimplicfication i know)
> now iD owns the license on all that
> right?
> and the license they've granted is the
> GPL
> now.. if i make code thats 123945
> who owns the copywrite on the 9
> i do right?
Actually.... people should re-read their copyright
law. This is clearly addressed in the US Copyright
OFfice FAQs...
The new code is a derivitive of the original, and
as such copyright is legally in the hands of the
original author....NOT the modifier.
This means that if you make a simpsons episode (to
use an example) that is not an obvious parody
(which would be exempt under fair use), then the
copyright on your episode is owned by the people
who own the copyright on the simpsons.
In THIS CASE the GPL gives him the right to modify
and redistribute (a right not normally granted).
However...if he choses to ignore the stipulations
of the GPL, then he has no right to distribute.
He either honors the GPL or never distributes
to anyone. (Or gets special licence from ID...
which obviously isn't happening)
Go check the US Copyright office web page...they
spell it all out clearly.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
I always thought (and I suspect this goes for most people) that the first time the GPL was challenged in court it would be by some massive corporation stacking high-priced lawyers up against whatever trickle of legal funds the FSF could provide to some starving Linux programmer.
Now, instead, it's some starving programmer trying to rip off John Carmack, a recognized programming god among both Windows and Linux users, and a man with a successful company and a Ferrari collector's level of personal wealth backing him. Sweet. Could we ask for a better opportunity to get some legal precedent to back up the GPL? I'm sure Slade will back down... but ironically if he really "is a strong supporter of the GPL" the most helpful thing he could do is throw away a bunch of money on legal fees and lose a court case attacking it.
He should lose, of course. He claims:
To download binaries or proceed into this site, you have to give up your rights under the GPL.
Whereas, the GPL claims one of the conditions of distributing binaries is:
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.
That's it. Either you distribute modified work under the same license or don't distribute at all.
Otherwise you make Carmack mad. And between the Quake player and the Linux advocate in my soul, there's some kind of sweet righteousness in the image of Carmack pouring a can of whoop-ass on a GPL violator.
There are valid, legal ways to provide a level of protection equal to closed source binaries (which is really only a level of obfuscation).
I realize that they (proxies / loaders / obfuscated modules) may be more of a hassle, but he doesn't get to choose to break the license to avoid a hassle. I traded several emails with Slade over the past month, and I still have a degree of sympathy for his position, but I can't just let him walk around the code license.
All the conspiracy theories about me wanting to destroy the Quake community are silly. I loved what happened with the DOOM source release, and I hoped that the Quake release would have similar effects.
John Carmack
(sigh) Here restarts the classical and purely semantic debate about what the GPL does or does not do.
I do agree that "forever" was arguably too strong a term, as it could imply alternate license negotiations are prohibited, which as you point out is not the case with single author GPL source.
So what's your point? That GPL tainted code isn't tainted if I obtain untainted code from the authors? Yes, I'll agree with that, but then it isn't GPL code, is it.
I am tired of hearing GPL defenders making such ridiculous assertions over what is essentially a semantic issue. Lets see - you also object to my use of the term "taint" on moral grounds. Look, if you believe that the GPL will make us all free, then stand up for the GPL - and all of its clauses, with all of their implications.
Please don't try to deflect criticisms of the GPL by pointing out that by negotiating terms other than the GPL you can resolve specific complaints with the GPL - most defenses of the GPL I have heard attempt this. As to negotiating licenses external to the GPL, I've been there and been asked to pay exorbitant fees for the "privilege" of not wishing to post my own source, numbers in excess of $1M. I would stipulate that use of the GPL functions as a significant deterrent to releasing code under a non-GPL license, as I would argue was part of its intent. Additionally, it is sometimes impossible to craft satisfactory terms for release of previously GPL'd code into a source base under other terms such as BSD. The use of the ex-GPL is often restricted to the point that it severely limits the reusability of the code using it, due to the need for all subsequent uses to negotiate license terms. I'm not talking commercial code here, just unencumbered open source.
The GPL debate to me is summed up simply: GPL code cannot be used in non GPL code, and GPL prevents the use of any traditional business model (other than VC/IPO fed burn rate games), and serves primarily as a "poison pill" to commercial developers. To GPL code is to say "you can use my code as long as you don't make any money with it, and I get all of your code too." In some code niches the GPL is appropriate, in most larger application spaces it is not, as someone does have to pay the bills, and not all of us are willing to work as waiters to subsidize our coding.
If you want to argue GPL vs. open and truly unencumbered source licenses, I'd be glad to entertain the discussion, online or off. Lets not waste time arguing semantics or pretend the GPL does less than it does.
I've managed to make it into a fairly clean website, The QuakeLives Files.
At the moment, there's only the verbatim material, without any commentary. However, it still makes for very interesting reading, and the agenda and methods of QuakeLives and Slade are still very apparent...
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Oh yes - and check out this directory -
t op\quakelives
\\adsl-61-0-42.dab.bellsouth.net\C\WINDOWS\Desk
(especially current-source2-19-00.zip)
Viva GPL!
We can't have it both ways: if the GPL is upheld in court, that gives some legitimacy to the notion that you can be held to a license that you have in some way agreed to, without having explicitly signed a contract.
(1) Imagine you receive a disk from me with a file foo.c on it. The first line of this file is:
/* Copyright (C) 2000 Jared Showalter */
No other copyright notice or license notice is given.
What rights do you have? Under US copyright law, you can compile and use foo.c, and make copies for archival purposes.
What rights do you not have? You cannot distribute copies of my code to third parties. You cannot distrbiute binaries without source (or with source, for that matter) to third parties.
(2) Imagine you receive a disk from me, with a file foo.c on it. The file states:
/* Copyright (C) 2000 Jared Showalter
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.*/
What rights do you have? All the rights in (1), plus some additional rights, if you follow the terms of the license which gives you these additional rights.
What rights do you not have? Since you did not sign the GPL, you are not bound to obey it. However, whether or not you agree to the GPL, the code is still copyrighted by me. So, if you do not agree to the GPL, you will have exactly the same rights as you would in (1). Note the in (1) you did not have the right to distribute binaries without source.
Just because you didn't agree not to distribute copies of my binary without source, doesn't magically give you the right to do what would be illegal under ordinary copyright law.
(3) Imagine you receive a disk from me, wrapped in plastic. A sticker prominently states: "By opening this package you agree to the terms of the End User License Agreement." You open the package, and find an EULA that says: "Every time you run this program, you must dump a glass of milk on your head. If you do not agree to these conditions, you must destroy the disk." Because you have not signed the agreement, you throw it away, and have the same rights as you would in (1).
In conclusion, under normal copyright law, the theory that agreements are not binding unless signed is compatible with both the validity of the GPL and the invalidity of shrink-wrap licenses. This is not having things two ways: the asymmetry exists because the GPL gives you additional rights, while shrink-wrap takes away rights. You don't need to sign an agreement for someone to grant you additional rights, but you do need to sign something to waive your existing rights.
Well it looks like the source is out now, intentional or not.
http://douglas.min.net/~drw/slade.gif
--
-rw-r--r-- 1 drw drw 3336079 Feb 24 01:34 current_source2-19-00.zip
Yes it is true, check out the screenshot. Ask on irc.slashnet.org:#slashdot or irc.openprojects.net:#quakeforge
Sorry for the off topic post in this thred..umm..wait. This is VERY on topic because it changes everything.
I have to return some videotapes...
The CDROM's were usually document retrieval CD's full of sales lit for such large corporations as Tandem, Northern Telecom and FedEx. I couldn't really tell you which CD's got the GPL'ed code and which didn't; but because we tended to just reuse all the source to all the previous CD's on the next CD, the chance are pretty good that the graphics effects got rolled into an awful lot of programs even when it wasn't actually used.
They also did some consumer titles such as the 2Market Home Shopping catalog CD (with such catalogs as the sharper image with products on the CD) and the CD Version of Men are From Mars, Women are From Venus.
I was pretty angry about them using the GPL'ed code but I really wasn't in a position to do anything about it. It was during a pretty low time in my life and I just needed to keep working.
Medior is defunct now as an independent corporation, but it was purchased by a small networking outfit you may have heard of - America Online who renamed it AOL Productions. AOL inherited all the assets of the company, the source code, rights to everything, most of the engineers and executives. I left just before the buyout.
Eventually AOL Productions was shut down and sucked into AOL. But a lot of Medior people are still working for AOL, including former Medior President and Founder Barry Schuler who is now AOL's President of Interactive Services.
You might drop him a line and ask for the source code for all the CD's that included the GPL'ed graphics effects libraries.
Regards,
Mike Crawford
GoingWare - Expert Software Development and Consulting
http://www.goingware.com
crawford@goingware.com Tilting at Windmills for a Better Tomorrow
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
I hope my esteemed colleague the Honorable Coward did not intend to insinuate that the Libertarian Party itself necessarily opposes the use of the GPL. However, it is only fair to note that certain Opportunistic Persons will choose a party based upon a selfish desire for personal Gain, rather than on a true Agreement with the party's Principles and a deep Belief in what is right.
For this reason many welfare recipients may be Democrat, big businessmen tend to be Republican, and many who wish to disregard the Law as it stands claim to be Libertarian. These people, Self Centered as they are, also tend to be 'single issue' voters, and have no Loyalty to true party Philosophy. Thus little Sue Perkins next Door would eagerly support even Bush, if he promised to score her some Good Weed. Vinny down the street would be Gore's friend for life, if he but thought that would aid his Business of Unsolicited Knee Surgery. This of course does not mean that there are no good Libertarians, Republicans, or Democrats, but only that there are a few bad ones, and that the Correlation of their Particular Defects is well known.
I myself have a few Questions and Concerns regarding the Libertarian Platform. In Section 6, Article the Second, it is argued that grants of legal privilege make government "the source of monopoly." Copyright is a monopoly granted by the United States Congress, but of this the Article gives no specific mention. By that Silence, ought I to construe consent thereto? If this matter is elsewhere addressed, please be good enough to let me know, as the question bears Grave Import upon the Libertarian Opinion of Copyleft.
(And, for my own personal curiosity, I must wonder if the Libertarian Party in general favors a government overview of the Purity of Food and Drugs, or is it to be a private contractual matter between Producer and Consumer, whose ultimate arbiter is the Court?)
In any case, I am enboldened by Carmack's Proclaimation, and feel that those who have put their Trust in the Strength of the GPL will not soon be disappointed.