Slashdot Mirror
Python 1.6 Incompatible w/ GPL
WillSmith sent in a bit running over at LinuxToday addressing the fact that RMS thinks that Python 1.6 is incompatible w/ the GPL. The article is basically how to resolve this within Debian.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
It just says that RMS says it's bad, but doesn't specify any of the points of contention. Anyone know?
It might be important, it might not. It would be nice if there was some specific info.
True freedom. Hmmm. That's your own special version of the word 'True', eh?
Freedom involves being able to do what one likes. If I want to change some source code, make it into something the original developer wasn't even able to grasp, and release it under the license of my choice, that is true freedom. Notice I didn't capitalize the 'T' in true.
Stallman's notion of 'Freedom' reeks of 'pie in the sky when you die' wishful thinking. His vision won't really work very well until we live in a world where all software is released with his One True License. In this context, it's very similar to the old Marxist theory that Socialism Is Not Possible In One Country. Software developers will always move on to develop software under a difference license, and scientists and intellecutals will always find a way across the border to a non-Communist country where they are personally rewarded for their talent.
So ultimately Stallman's ideology is already obsolete, and should be relegated to the Dustbins of History.
The real issues is that the Linux community is giving away free software to get you hooked, and is then going to charge you for the upgrade. Come on guys - we can all see through your sham.
Too bad this "great" license needs to be governed by the state of Virginia--the first UCITA state. What does that mean? Well, I believe that means that the license can change at the will of the issuers and be retroactive in scope. Sorry, this smells terrible and the fact the CNRI is adamant about this makes it an order of magnitude worse.
(Score:5 Troll)
soccer is what American sissies call football.
Dont even try and call that game you play football, cause it aint a ball and it hardly ever gets kicked. I suppose the rest of the world is wrong and your right!
If you think (American) football players are so tough, then put them up against a team of rugby players.
Besides, this is slashdot, no place for DUMB JOCKS.
--
Man walks into a bar and says to the barman,
"Have you heard the one about the dumb jock"
The bar man replys "Hey, I played football for my college"
"Nevermind, i dont have the time to explain it".
Paw done shot up the GPL agayaaaaaaan!
The governing state of the license, which I believe is the primary contention, is also the first UCITA state. That says it all in a nutshell.
If Guido owned Python, there would be a lot less of this bullshit going around. Compare:
with (yes, some build-info and noisy output was omitted). See what I mean?Did the license change between versions? And does this effect the 2.x series as well?
See, had this been GNU/Python, there wouldn't have been any trouble at all... ;>
Archaeopteryx Software makes a nice IDE for Python, under Linux - called Wing IDE.
Or a blessing of the sacred code. :)
The problem with visiting the FSF site is that, in many cases, the site offers no *proof.* I want proof, not just bold statements to the effect of "This license is incompatible with the GPL and therefore shouldn't be used to write free software."
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
The problem isn't merely his attacks on various GPLed (and non-GPLed) projects, but his selectivity. He seems, at times, to only go after what he doesn't like (or doesn't support to begin with.)
For example, up until a week ago, he went after KDE like a pirhanna after a monkey in the water. The sad thing was that the problem was with the GPL restricting one's freedom to link (the ambiguous "derivative work" clause), not the QPL. Even sadder is the fact that he's *not* pursuing people linking to Mozilla within the GNOME project.
Come on, RMS, either you persue license violations or you don't...
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
>KDE not complying is damn important, it
>undermines everything that does. Python doesn't? >Well it should and it will.
I agree..and Nautilus and Galeon should too.
Nautlus && Galeon == GPL
Mozilla == MPL
According to FSF, MPL & GPL are incompatible
Therefore Nautilus && Galeon == illegal
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
Naw, thanks to the piss-poor way the GPL is written, a good lawyer could state that a Python script is a derivative work of Python (after all, you need Python to run it, right? And it's not a system essential like libc or GCC, right?) And your script is GPL? Gee, here comes the GPL Police.
The important thing to remember is that many supposed violations of the GPL are really just abuses of the GPL (which are easy since the GPL is so poorly worded.)
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
There's a clause in the license of the Linux kernel. This apparently makes it all hunky-dorey.
BTW I was wrong about Nautilus--and this exposes a potential problem with the LGPL. It's not OK for QPL to give permission to link GPL software to QPL software, but it's OK to write LGPL wrappers to link to GPL software (which is how it's OK for GNOME software to use Mozilla.)
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
See previous thread regarding RMS's RSI.
Next, the issue is not that Python is not using the GPL. The problem is that GPLd code cannot be used with code from Python. Plenty of licenses are GPL compatible (new BSD, MIT, LGPL, W3C license, are some examples). Other licenses are not (Zope, NPL, IBMPL, LaTeXPPL). No one calls this software non-free; but the problem is the old Python license was compatible, and the new one is not.
As for Hurd, it's coming along. Debian is working on a GNU/Hurd distribution. I haven't run it personally beyond booting it once, but I hear X is working a little, networking is there, and a wide variety of programs work on it.
Seeing as your slashdot bio has no homepage or information, I'm curious - do you do any coding yourself?
Windows 2000: Designed for the Internet. The Internet: Designed for UNIX.
The issue is not that it's not GPLd. The issue is that the new license in 1.6 may not be GPL compatible. The old license (for 1.5.2) was. The thing is, 1.6 was released before licensing issues were fully resolved. It may be compatible. It may not be. If it's not, certain programs using Python may now be using it illegally.
What will hurt python more - a lack of inclusion in commercial applications, or a lack of inclusion in GPLd applications?
Windows 2000: Designed for the Internet. The Internet: Designed for UNIX.
The problem is if the licenses conflict for some reason, and one or the other of the licenses claims to govern the license of the other.
I don't know exactly what the situation is for Python, but this can happen when a lib says programs that link it must be distributed under the lib's license (the GPL does this, essentialy) and the license of the prog doesn't permit itself to be distributed under the license of the lib.
This is what the KDE fracas was about (before QT went GPL), and is why license proliferation is such a Bad Thing(tm).
I was thinking about this yesterday. VNC is ditributed under the GPL, but the precompiled distro for Windows is compiled under Microsoft Visual C++. Does this break the GPL the same way KDE did? They are both linking to non-GPL compatable libs. How many other projects are done this way?
:)
I, myself view things this way (I'm sure that I am wrong minded about this), If the copyright holders of both the GPL program and libs have no beef with each of them being linked together, there is no problem. The problem is academic. (sp?) Wonder if emacs or other FSF software has ever been compiled with a non-free compiler/libs and distributed?
Moderate this as Offtopic/Flamebate/Overrated
--fatboy
I want to use KDE code in GPLed GNOME code! I want to use GPLed GNOME code within KDE!
The only problem I see is that if you DISTRIBUTE KDE linked to QT libs, precompiled. You can swap the KDE and GNOME code all you want without ANY problems. If I am dead wrong about this, some please explain it to me.
--fatboy
I trust you are aware that RMS suffers from near-crippling RSI?
Whether you like his principles or not, whether you like his license or not, whether you like his hygiene or not: the man has literally destroyed his body developing software that he believed could and would change the world. That's a hell of a sacrifice and one which deserves a little more respect than a sneering "get back to coding."
Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus
You said "no one give RMS much credit". I don't know why the author of python or any other open source software have to give RMS credit at all. You probably think not so many programmer who program on MS Windows platform give Bill Gates much credit. I thought the purpose of free/open software is to let people to see source code and share the idea. While there are several softwares are open source with different copyrights, RMS refuse to accept none other than GPL. I can understand why RMS is obssesed with GPL. He wrote it, and it's his ideal copyright for every software. But why other people are so obssesed with GPL? Difference between QPL and GPL is quite small (compare to MS windows license and GPL). Still, lot of people said they won't use KDE, because of copyright problem. I guess those people don't use MS Windows.
Sigh.
The only form of intellectual property that requires this "enforce it or lose it" is a trademark.
That's not what the GPL is - as you say, it is a contract (or a license, if you like). I believe the reason for the bickering is that the GPL is a very strong, powerful license that has a very distinct "meaning" in software-development circles. To water it down in any way could pose a problem in the future, if (for example) it was tested in court.
I have no idea where these legal urban legends about enforce-it-or-lose-it start, but I'd like to quash them.
I have a hard time stomaching RMS bitching about the GPL...so what if it's not "vanilla" GPL anymore. As an end user, I dont care and until they someone reuses the code, no one will.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
So fucking what? I don't understand why everyone feels they have to conform to the fascist views and license of RMS. Python releases with a license that's more free than the GPL (in fact, this is one of the strong points of python - it's not GPL), and they get totally flamed for it.
The whole issue is ridiculous, and I think Python should take the same stance as QT/KDE, and tell RMS to get lost. We need more projects doing that, instead of bowing to the whim of this looney.
-lx
There shouldn't be a declared venue, and beyond that, Virginia is a particularly odious one, because Virginia passed the UCTIA, which empowers authors retroactively do all sorts of malicious things with their code.
In reading the license, it just seems like a BSD-ish license.
(There's a good chance I'm wrong about that evaluation, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I want ot be one.)
My question is why is this such a big deal?
The source is 'open', it's modifiable, redistributable, etc, why does it matter that it's not under the GPL?
All the CNRI license seems to prevent is plagiarism.
No, it won't prevent a commericial entity from forking it and making their own closed version, but hey, there will always be the 'official' sanctioned version from the Python group, and usually the standard version wins in the marketplace.
Finally, it's their code, and they can do with it as they please.
--K
---
Superintendent: That's funny, I'm from upstate New York and I've never heard of "steamed hams" before.
Skinner: It's more of an Albany dialect.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
That's the way I used to see it, that he was using self-promotion to spread his ideas, but I don't hold that belief anymore. I can't pinpoint a specific incident that changed things in my mind, but it was around the time when he first started doing some major grousing whenever people wouldn't refer to Linux as "GNU/Linux."The way it seems to me now is that he still wants to spread the idea of the FSF and GNU, but his reason behind it is because he's the public face of those entities — what journalist off the top of his or her head could name even one other person in the GNU Project or the FSF? Publicity for the FSF/GNU is publicity for RMS, and he's a bright enough guy to be very aware of that.
Cheers,
Isn't splitting hairs what law, licensing, lawyers, etc all about?
I'm starting to think the end of the open-source movement will come due to RMS single-handedly declaring everything incompatible with the GPL.
It's hard to claim tens of thousands of applications (as MS does) are open-source if the foremost advocate spends so much time looking to exclude them from the club...
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there.
Q.Tell me what the trail was.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
I think I could actually sing this, and that's a scary thought.
.sig
Fellowship 9/11
Darn, Slashdot ate my less-than sign between "Python" and "2.0"
Earlier, I see the KDE folks get jerked around by the GPL chain. Now this. It looks like major licensing issues these days center around GPL compatibility. I wonder if the GPL is really worth all that grief, with all its viral restrictions.
Simple solution for those who can do it: stop releasing your software under GPL. It causes way too much grief.
It's UTICA.
Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
Once again, some development group/model, thinks it can't use either the GPL or the BSD license, and comes up with it's own. After much dicking around, they'll eventually just pick one. Both these licenses work and are, in my opinion, a no brainer. Either pick one, or go proprietary, but spare me this half assed crap. I've seen this with Mozilla, Qt, and no doubt others will follow. Just bite the bullet and get on with it.
Guido van Rossum pretty much wanted a BSD-style license, but CNRI didn't agree. AFAIK, everybody in the BeOpen Pythonlabs team wants a GPL-compatible license.
p tember/000073.html.)
The only objection of RMS is against clause 7, the "State of Virginia"-clause. The strange thing is, this clause may not be applicable outside the US, so the license may be GPL-compatible outside the US after all. (Only lawyers can sort this out).
(See http:// mailman.beopen.com/pipermail/license-py20/2000-Se
Perhaps some European lawyer could look at the clause (SuSE? RedHat Europe?). Maybe CNRI could be persuaded to drop the clause if it's void in the rest of the world (good) (or maybe they would append a ton of legalese to the license (bad)).
It's useful as an abstract-conceptweight. You know, one of those things you use to plunk down on your grasp of a complex problem to keep it from blowing away.
Sure, in the concrete world, retaining the copyright while giving free permission for all uses to everyone serves no purpose, but in your own mind, you can't just pick up a rock and put it on top of a thought, so you need something useless, yet abstract.
Also, the BSDL keeps those evil GPL bastards from using your code. You know they're evil, why let them have your code?
--------
I don't see why Debian cares whether the Python licence is compatible with the GPL, though. The licence certainly seems to be DFSG-free, and I'm not aware of any GPLed software that has ever incorporated Python bodily. (People have written GPLed software in Python, of course, but that's a different thing; there's no requirement GPLed software be written using a GPLed system or platform.)
I thougth that was evident from the article.
Yes, DFSG covers both GPL and Python's CNRI licence.
But Debian distributes software that is under GPL license, and which is just a python scripts. If GPL and CNRI are conflicting, Debian must not distribute all those GPL programs which use Python (because GPL says that if you want to add additional restrictions to GPL software, GPL is void, and you have no rights to distribute software at all)
I agree..and Nautilus and Galeon should too.
Nautlus && Galeon == GPL
Mozilla == MPL
According to FSF, MPL & GPL are incompatible
Therefore Nautilus && Galeon == illegal
Don't know what Nautilus is, but Galeon is not derived work of mozilla, so the GPL does not apply to it. Sure, it uses mozilla. But it is not derivated work, AFAICT. (IANAL)
I could use for example Microsoft internet explorer (commercial license) to execute GPL'd mutt for sending mail. That is not vialation, since mutt is not derived work of MSIE.
BTW, Isn't mozilla going to be dual licensed (MPL/GPL) RSN ?
Does it seem like RMS is saying EVERYTHING is incompatible with GPL these days... KDE, now Python... what next? the Linux kernel itself?
How about sliced bread? The internet in general. The Wheel. . .
woof!
To me it seems that RMS is really splitting hairs. Most contracts that I've seen specify a jurisdiction under which the contract is to be interpreted.
From the Python License:
7. This License Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in all respects by the law of the State of Virginia, excluding conflict of law provisions. Nothing in this License Agreement shall be deemed to create any relationship of agency, partnership, or joint venture between CNRI and Licensee. This License Agreement does not grant permission to use CNRI trademarks or trade name in a trademark sense to endorse or promote products or services of Licensee, or any third party.
This license is restricting the terms of its governance to the laws of one state in one country. Since Free Software is intended to be distributed far and wide (and most certainly outside of the US), I can see how the FSF would be concerned about this.
"Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack
1. The BSD license.
"Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack
They are not 'negotiating' with RMS per se. It seems here on Slashdot a lot of you think that RMS is being too critical of licenses that try to be compatible with the GPL. What none of you seem to recognize is that he /HAS/ to. For the GPL to be a valid copyright license it has to be protected everywhere it is being violated. In all of the cases I have seen, RMS has pointed out exactly where the license falls short of being compatible, and what must be done to correct it. It's not at all like he is arbitrarily deciding what is and what is not GPL-compatible, since he gets his legal advice from a professor of law. 'Compatibility' is not bestowed with a sprinkling of 'holy geek pee' - it is determined by the GPL itself.
"Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack
Its not about splitting hairs. If I release software under the GPL and say that Virginia law applies; you need to worry because UCITA allows me to retroactively change the license after sending you an email. The 'irrevocable' nature of GPL is lost in this case because of conflict with UCITA. Venue does matter.
But don't worry, RMS will hammer this out and in the end you will get truly good software!
Could someone please fill me in? I don't quite see the poing in using the BSDL. To me, it looks like public domain with a copyright notice.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
It's this kind of stupidity that is holding back free software, not promoting it. Python is free, GPL is free. Get over it.
-- Ken Kinder ken@_nospam_kenkinder.com http://kenkinder.com/
Sometimes once the revolution is over, perfectly good revolutionaries become an embarrasment.
RMS had better start watching out for icepicks.
For the GPL to be a valid copyright license it has to be protected everywhere it is being violated.
Since Python is not using GPL code, it is not violating anything with the GPL.
If anything, their license is closer to BSD than GPL. If they BSD'd it, there would not be any problem with the GPL (or almost any other license). They like their license, so I assume they will keep it as is.
Your objections to a Python license change would go away if they offered [1] a dual license or [2] simply negotiated with RMS about the very small (legal jurisdiction) dispute or [3] offered the BSD license upfront.
Note that TrollTech is dual-licensing -- if your PHB doesn't like the GPL then use the QPL.
Anyway, it sounds like the Python folks themselves think this is easy to resolve.
It seems to me that those are the same folks who hold the copyright on nethack. Hmmm... (Checks www.nethack.org)... Yup, here it is on the bottom of the page: NetHack is Copyright 1985-2000 by Stichting Mathematisch Centrum and M. Stephenson. See our license for details. These guys can't be all bad if they gave us nethack AND python, can they?
I think the title explains it all.
ROFLMAO... I loved that episode :)
Thanks for the memories..... steamed hams..haha
s/KDE/Python/g
Any sufficiently advanced civilization is indistinguishable from Gods.
I'm certainly not stupid enough to be so idealistic that I have no room for practicality. Or dumb enough to write the worst text editor ever.
RMS is just a trouble maker. He likes to annoy us all by saying "X is incompatible with GPL. SOUND THE ALARM! IT'S SUCH A TRAJEDY!".
Here's something that comes as a surprise to broke college students (myself included) and the pimple faced 15 year olds who love to troll on slashdot: open-source isn't mandatory and not everyone accepts it. If RMS and his like where that militant for their precious GPL they would openly censure proprietary big-name software for Linux like Oracle but instead they like it when it benefits them.
Because, it might be technically illegal to link your code with a GPLd library, or to cut and paste from a GPLd application, if your license is not GPL-compatible.
The GPL is a legal contract. If the FSF does not enforce it, they legally lose the right to enforce it in the future, as they did not exercise "due diligence" in its enforcement. The GPL (and other freeware licenses too) could lose whatever little legal protections they have.
That is why RMS is so insistent on licensing issues.
Of course, if all you care about is to make sure that your source is available to the users and don't care about licensing issues, you could always put your code in the public domain, or BSD it. That way, you don't have to bother with RMS or the FSF.
Of course, you might not be very happy when some company adds some features to your code and starts selling it for $5000.00 per license, while not even acknowledging your existence.
Hari.
>It offers us legal protection.
What 'protection' does it offer? None. It offers up a way for a judge to make a ruling that MIGHT allow for compensation, but that is not protection, that is compensation AFTER the 'damage' has been done.
And, if you believe source code/computers/technology is out-dated the day it is released, by the time any decision winds its way thru the court system, the damage was long ago.
Micro$oft used that 'long ago' argument with DR-DOS in the lawsuit.
>And in a lawyer-happy country,
To gain 'your protection', you *NEED* the happy lawyers to hit others with a rolled-up legal brief. And, for evey violator you catch, there are many more who get away.
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
>Then there's the fact that a great deal of GPL code is out there, and there have been reletivly few incidents thus far.
What you see are the incidents that someone got caught.
(warning RL anology!)
Given the large number of cars that drive everyday, and the few people who get speeding tickets, most cars must not violate the speed laws.
Larry Wall says humans are lazy. How many lazy/inept coders have taken GPLed code, cut and pasted it into their closed source projects? Just because you have few people caught, doesn't mean they do not exist.
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
And for anyone who cares, I'd opt for solution #2.
It looks like the negotiations were going long into the night, and the Python team decided to simply release and deal with the consequences later. I don't know what the background of the CNRI license is, but they can always re-release under a new CNRI license if the question(s) that are being aired are not satisfied.
This to me is like receiving beta product. You get a damned good idea of what it does, and you're allowed to make an intelligent decision regarding its usage. Otherwise, we could have waited on 1.6 for a very long time.
-- Talonius
My reality check bounced.
He's getting annoying. I say he should get some stock options from Sega to shut him up for, say, 2 consecutive days.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
Well, yes, RMS is splitting hairs. However, in the matters of contract and copyright laws, I believe that a hair can be the difference between legal and not legal. The entire point of a license like the GPL or BSD license is to provide an unambiguous set of rules for distribution. If another license violates these rules, its not compatible. This case is really small, but it could in theory open up problems.
Better to split hairs and be legally sound than to have both declared illigitmate in court, right? (Extreme example, I know. Apologies, but its the only one I could think of)
Please note that IANAL, so if someone can provide more details on how contract/copyright law applies here, I'd be very grateful.
-RickHunter
And, if you visit that site, you'll also conveniently get a list of all the licenses that the FSF defines to be free and how they relate to the concept of copyleft. There's even a little bit in there that wasn't removed last time I checked about how to resolve problems with the old QPL. I seriously recommend that anyone considering debating software licensing issues go read this. It may not be accurate, but it does definte the FSF's position on things quite clearly.
-RickHunter
... the lifeguard in Jaws who annoys everyone on the beach by causing a fuss and then saves them from the shark.
Galeon is a derived work of some other GPL software, so GPL _does_ apply to it. It is also derived from Mozilla, so MPL applies to it.
The combination of both licenses means a compiled version of Galeon cannot be legally distributed. You simply don't have the permission of the authors of the code which Galeon is based on.
AFAICS they all can be sublicensed under GPL, which you do the moment you use it in a GPL'd work.
If thats true then the original statement stands, GPL is only compatible with itself. I find licenses which allow sublicensing under GPL a rather trivial counter-example, not really worthy of mention.
which are incompatible with the GPL. So you can tack on the GPL (sublicense) without the original license biting the GPL. And since all source in a GPL'd work has to be GPL you are implicitly sublicensing the original source the moment you distribute it.
Does Stallman have anything better to do than bitch about licensing issues associated with quiality programs?
I think in this case self promotion is a form of making him (and more importantly im sure to him) his ideals known.
Why I said "Hey fame is an illusion" The people who have it usually dont want it and the people who dont have it usually think they want it.
But used properly you can create the illusion of fame and thus use it to promote your agenda whatever it is, self promotion does the guy need it? He wrote a C compiler by himself and hes worked at MIT and any Tech Job he wanted he could have.
Jeremy
Thats true enough however, he has not sold out just yet and people who are true to themselves are rather rare, perhaps he is or perhaps hes already using his fame to boost himself some along the way
:)
Until he sells out there is nothing really wrong with making yourself more of an authority on a topic to promote your ideas, it gives what you say more weight and thus furthers what your goals right?
I mean if this is blatant self promotion I dont see it, but I really would like to see some examples of him blatantly doing it, any articles references and I am with you.. I dont like people who needlessly attract attention
Jeremy
I have nothing against the GPL, but consider what would have to happen before this bone of contention (re: whether the choice of law provision of CNRI's license is GPL compatible or not)would even be an issue.
Suppose you were to use Python 1.6+ under the CNRI license. Under what conditions could you be sued for mixing it with GPL code? As near as I can figure, you would have to have taken the Python code-base, extended it or embedded it within an application that you distribute AND have embedded someone else's GPL'ed code within your application. Then and only then you might be running the risk that the copyright holder of that other piece of code could try to sue you for having violated the terms of the GPL by including his code in a project that wasn't completely GPL compatible. (And if he did two out of the three sets of lawyers that have looked at both licenses agree that he wouldn't have a case.)
To me, this is a ridiculous thing to worry about...you're more likely to be struck by lightning or killed by terrorists than to become the test case where the alleged incompatibility of the GPL and the CNRI license is fought out in court.
According to the latest thoughts of RMS, GPL is not compatible with itself either.
He's just an arrogant asshole. Read this interview for some good insight into his delusional mind.
http://tlug.linux.or.jp/rms.html
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
True, but usually the splitting of hairs is towards the final aim of removing ambiguity, at least in the eyes of other lawyers. RMS seems to want to increase the ambiguity, which is over there, in a box.
A well-crafted lie appears unquestionable - Dama Mahaleo
--
I was astonished to see so many people overreacting on this subject. Sheesh, CmdrTaco please clarify the @!#@$ editorial. Please?
New Section suggestion: RMS's GPL Violators
The guy has done a lot of good, but I'm sick of his whining. Get back to coding RMS!
Well, if you are going to release software under the GPL, Stallman's pretty much the authority if it doesn't meet the licence requirements. If you don't particularly care if you're software is GPL-compatible, don't use a GPL licence.
I fail to see what the big deal is. The Python people approached Stallman for the express purpose of complying with the terms of the GPL licence. Stallman told them where their software is incompatible. He's only concerned if someone calls software GPL if it is not.
You should only give a shit about Stallman if you want to release software under the GPL. If not, don't bother. However, if you are writing software because you want to make it free-as-in-speech, rather than free-as-in-beer, you might want to consider joining the GPL club.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
...fan of stupid people who insist on saying things like:
First IANAGE (I Am Not A GPL Expert).
You've just typed heaps more than you needed to, and there's just no need. Either just spell it out (as you need to in braces afterwards, anyway), or use your brain and just say
IANA GPL Expert
Isn't that so much easier?
Why is there only one Monopolies commission?
my fear is this has nothing to do with RMS and everything to do with the fact the beopen.com writes Guido's check. doesn't anyone else think it wrong that python's new financial backer is calling the shots on issues this critical to python's user community and future success?
GvR, i'm not so sure that the python developer community shouldn't have some say in the matter.
for instance, will python's spread slow if it can't be included in commercial applications? what about the commercial applications that currently shipping or in development that include python because they bought into python's BSD spirited license?
as a python developer and advocate, i would feel much better hearing from Guido (and not beopen.com) why the BSD license has become unpythonic.
jim
the linux today GvR response clears up my questions.
apologies beopen.com folks.
jim
Or worse, suing you for piracy when you decide to update your own program.
Notice how choice of legal venue doesn't affect the rights granted in the GPL, since the GPL doesn't grant the licensor the right to choose the legal venue!
I stuck in that bolded text where you left it out because it's the only way your statement works. IANAL, but if actual venue chosen does in fact change the users' rights, rights granted I presume where the user lives, then RMS would have a point.
get rid of the quotes
if you want to get picky, despite the fact that they are called quotation marks, their function is to turn that text into meta-text in the context I used it. There was no "quotation" necessarily implied. You, BTW, used double quotes... were you quoting someone twice? ;)
As a programmer I will release my software under whatever the hell license I feel like. This isn't meant as a flame it's my serious opinion: fuck GNU, fuck the GPL and fuck RMS! Where does he get off complaining about the license of software??!!?? Release your code under the license that suits your needs the best!
Pardon my ignorance, though, if someone can explain to me why as the author of some open source software (all gpl'd actually, but not because RMS said I should) I should give a shit.
Garett Spencley
Well, considering Bill Gates makes about 1000x that of RMS (at least!), I think your little joke is kind of lame... :\
Why would it? RMS is the FSF (and vice versa). If there's anyone else, they sure don't say a helluva lot.
I've been wondering why Linux-based systems as a whole are not in violation of the GPL. As I understand it, the GNU C Library for Linux includes Linux headers and should therefore be considered a derivative work of Linux under the GPL, and therefore GPL'd itself. Since the C library is used by everything else, everything else must be GPL as well, making the system as a whole a huge mess of license violations.
I don't see anything in Linus's "Linux's license ends at the system call interface" interpretation that provides for the inclusion of header files. Perhaps I missed something?
I disagree. Here's what it says:
I don't read this as permitting the use of any part of the source code of the linux kernel in any other work. I consider this important because the inclusion of header files is used as an argument for the application of the GPL to any program which makes use of a GPL'd library via dynamic linking (absent this, all you have are two programs, one of which calls some of the functions of the other).
If you buy the FSF's claims concerning what are derivative works, the resulting wrapper would have to be GPL'd. I don't see anything in the GPL that says otherwise.
RMS is the FSF (and vice versa).
Well, at least there's a Treasurer:-) No, seriously: It's a foundation, not a membership organization. RMS is for sure the most prominent evangelist, and I think it's OK to let charismatic people like him to the PR job, so that others can do the important job to keep the (GNU) wheels turning. Anyway, it was a kind of rhetoric, "RMS equals FSF" might hold quite long, but there are in fact others, too.
echo $FAKEMAIL | sed s/soccer/football/ | sed s/" at "/@/
I didn't want to blame you. I might have gotten a little bit too sensitive in these days. As said, I nearly awaited a comment like yours... it seems to become usual to bash RMS and FSF for them defending their position.
It's the whole Free Software vs. Open Software stuff. You might prefer the BSD-style, but it's the Free Software folks right to stand in for their believes.
I'm Sorry if you felt offended.
echo $FAKEMAIL | sed s/soccer/football/ | sed s/" at "/@/
The GPL does not state under what jurisdiction it shall be interpreted, and jurisdiction will effect interpretation. Read CNRI's discussion of the license, in particular item #11 and the concerns regarding general disclaimers of liability. I'd say this is a valid concern - I'm surprised it hasn't been raised sooner.
My gut says that this has more than a little something to do with UCITA. I'm looking forward to what RMS and the FSF have to say about this issue. Right now, CNRI has a valid concern that is going to have to be resolved, one way or another. Just don't be shocked if it doesn't go the way GPL supporters want - vague wording in the original license may cost you later.
Why is this a story now?
Lots of people talked about that in Tuesday's story.
Us windows people, we may have some hardware incompatibilities, maybe some backward incompatibilities... sometimes dll incompatibilities... But YOU LINUX people have LICENSE incompatibilities! (..and you're supposed to save us from M$ !?)
. . . so the next thing you know, GNOME will be re-written in perl. =P
--
<><
-- Geof F. Morris
I must comment to the statement that implies that the BSD-licens is not free. Please read these two quotes from http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/license-list.html
==BEGIN QUOTE 1==
The original BSD license. (Note: on the preceding link, the original BSD license is listed in the "UCB/LBL" section.)
This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license with a serious flaw: the ``obnoxious BSD advertising clause''. The flaw is not fatal; that is, it does not render the software non-free. But it does
cause practical problems, including incompatibility with the GNU GPL.
We urge you not to use the original BSD license for software you write. However, there is no reason not to use programs that have been released under the BSD license.
==END QUOTE 1==
==BEGIN QUOTE 2==
The modified BSD license. (Note: on the preceding link, the modified BSD license is listed in the "General" section.)
This is the original BSD license, modified by removal of the advertising clause. It is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license with no particular problem. It is compatible with the GNU GPL.
It is risky to recommend use of ``the BSD license'', because confusion could easily occur and lead to use of the original flawed BSD license. To avoid this risk, you can suggest the X11 license instead.
==END QUOTE 2==
As you can see BSD is and has aleays been free (speach). The original had some small problem that made it incompatible with the GPL, but this is taken care of.
and see whether the GNU really has no opinion under which jurisdiction(s) the GPL is to be interpreted :-)
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
Founder's Camp
Founder's Camp
News for non-Nerds. Stuff that matters.
Python will still be in Debian; you must have been listening to the wrong propaganda. I haven't been keeping track, but it looks like the question is actually about whether you can distribute GPLed programs that have Python embedded in them (I doubt it could reasonably affect Python scripts); Python itself is still obviously Open Source (tm), free to distribute, or whatever.
WTF?
Debian wants to distribute free software, and they wrote the DFSG to clarify what they mean with that. There is no preference for the GPL like you claim above.
Quick, burn him!
______
Love Always,
Cobalt
(Score: -1, Statuephile)
as you continue your little cleansing tirade against us peoples of a differing opinion on sexuality. I tell you, it's sexaulist discrimination.
Or possibly flamebate, or insiteful.
______
Love Always,
Cobalt
Here's the final paragraph of the interview, from: http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-09 -07-011-21-OS-CY-SW
"GVR:The sad thing is that all of this is based on technicalities: Stallman agrees that Python is free software, but a technicality in the licenses prevents compatibility. The choice of law clause in the CNRI license, which is causing the incompatibility, is very common is software licenses, and CNRI doesn't want to drop it because the validity of the general disclaimers in the license may depend on it. At the same time, Stallman doesn't want to allow any choice of law clauses, because one could stipulate the law of "Unfreedonia" which might reverse the meaning of the GPL. Even though the state of Virginia does no such thing!"
Oh, no? Here are a few excerpts from Virginia's UCITA law, which goes into effect in July 2001, I believe, and the link where you can read the whole thing, if you wish:
" 59.1-501.5(b) If a term of a contract violates a fundamental public policy, the court may refuse to enforce the contract, enforce the remainder of the contract without the impermissible term, or limit the application of the impermissible term so as to avoid a result contrary to public policy, in each case to the extent that the interest in enforcement is clearly outweighed by a public policy against enforcement of the term."
Later the law adds this:
" 59.1-501.13. (2) The limitations on enforceability imposed by unconscionability under 59.1-501.11 and fundamental public policy under 59.1-501.5 (b) may not be varied by agreement."
and then this:
" 59.1-501.14(c) Whether a term is conspicuous or is unenforceable under 59.1-501.5 (a) or (b), 59.1-501.11, or 59.1-502.9 (a) and whether an attribution procedure is commercially reasonable or effective under 59.1-501.8, 59.1-502.12, or 59.1-502.13 are questions to be determined by the court."
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?001+fu l+SB372ER
What I understand this to mean is that you can enter into any contract you want with whatever license terms you choose, but if the court feels it violates public policy in Virginia, and your opponent had the foresight to include a choice of law clause specifying Virginia, the court can elect to throw out your contract or license... So...do choice-of-law clauses matter?
And is Stallman crazy? Or crazy like a fox?
For anyone interested in reading what some of them have to say, you can go to IEEE-USA (Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers) site on UCITA: www.ieeeusa.org/grassroots/ucita/index.html or to www.4cite.org or to Cem Kaner, Esq.'s page at www.badsoftware.com. (The latter site is down for a bit because of changing ISPs.) There is also a very thorough list of links on this subject here:http://www.arl.org/info/frn/copy/ucitapg.html
All the above folks do understand the law.
As for the discussion here, my point was that choice-of-law clauses do matter. Nothing you said changes that truth. We're not here to argue the virtues or flaws of UCITA at the moment. I think it's quite clear that it does matter what state contracts are enforced in, which is precisely why companies like to choose the state. As an IP lawyer, I'm sure you would agree at least to that.
My chief point was that people who criticize Richard Stallman for being so "picky" and "dogmatic" don't realize that he is clearly aware of these legal issues and is trying to respond within the framework of the current legal system...which he didn't write but must make use of. All the attacks on him and imputing of wrong motives to him because of his stand are amazingly off-base. In other words, though folks could argue back and forth on whether a UCITA state such as Virginia is a better forum (as is implied by your saying that UCITA's provisions are "better than prior law" ... if that were true, then the logical thing would be to want to choose that state), the fact remains that choice-of-law clauses do matter and so Stallman's position in this case is based on reality and not on some power trip.
RMS: "Resistance is futile! You will be assimilated!" Has anybody ever seen Gates and RMS in a room together?
What 'protection' does it offer? None. It offers up a way for a judge to make a ruling that MIGHT allow for compensation, but that is not protection, that is compensation AFTER the 'damage' has been done.
It is at least better than just handing it over (as public domain and some licenses do).
By extension of your logic, dumping toxic waste into drinking water should be legal because corperations usually get away with it anyway. (I know, nobody dies when GPL is abused, but the point is there).
If you have a novel way of implementation, what is stopping anyone from taking your code, creating a spec of it, passing that spec over the cube wall and having another implement the spec?
No copyright can protect from that. Your confusing copyright and patent. I HAVE considered the idea of 'Patent-left'
How about this: They just cut and paste your code into their product. Do you have the money to track down all the different people who might have done this cut-n-paste job? Do you have the money to take them to court?
Of course I don't, but do they want to take the risk that a dis-gruntled employee might tip me off? That I might transfer my copyright to the FSF and get RMS on their case?
*IF* your modivation is "to stop theft of my code", I wish to remind you that 'locks keep honest people honest'.
That IS my motivation for releasing under the GPL. I prefer to risk having someone cheat on the license rather than lock up the source.
Then there's the fact that a great deal of GPL code is out there, and there have been reletivly few incidents thus far.
IMHO, even though the risk for a large company is small, the consequences are big if it actually happens. Smart companies don't take the chance.
And, well, your code may not worth taking :-(
That's always possable, but then the whole point is moot.
Specifically, CNRI wants to resolve all disputes in Virginia which has passed UTICA.
Think about it.
--
Ben Kosse
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
RMS and the other Free Software advocates have felt strongly about this issue for a long time. They have a long history of not bending. They simply get more press nowadays because more people are using their software.
Like it or not there are a great deal of talented people that believe strongly in the GPL. Because of this there is a huge body of source code that becomes off limits if your software is not compatible with the GPL. That is why groups like Sun, TrollTech and now the CNRI want their licenses to be considered GPL compatible. Unfortunately for those of us caught in the middle, the people creating these new licenses also have their own agendas. They want RMS to give in on his principles so that they can have their license the way they want it, and still be able to use GPLed code.
Fortunately for all of us RMS is not going to budge unless it is in all our best interests.
This is not going to happen. The FSF has spent a lot of time and effort creating a body of software that is only available to people who don't object to sharing code. Since sharing code is what RMS is all about, he isn't about to give ground. After years of struggling he finally has the upper hand. Plus, he's on a roll. QT, StarOffice, and MySQL are just some of the recent examples of major software products that have succumbed to his pressure. BSD style license advocates are up in arms because GPLed software is more damaging to their cause than commercial software, but that's another story...
Bingo! give the man a prize. This is the root of the problem. Instead of sticking to one of the licenses that is already well accepted in the community each and every major non FSF project seems to want to create their own license. There is a long list of acceptable GPL compatible licenses. In fact, the old Python license is one of them. Yet, for some reason, people keep thinking that they need a license of their very own. In this case the CNRI added a clause that specified the jurisdiction for any disputes. Since that is an extra restriction on the rights of us that don't live in Virginia, then RMS is technically right. The license is not GPL compatible.
Now, if the CNRI was smart, it would have simply slapped a standard BSD style license on Python and called it good. But instead they have screwed it up for Pythonistas everywhere. Now every single GPLed program that embeds Python will either have to 1) stay at version 1.5.2, or 2) pick another scripting language.
Since I happen to be one of the Pythonistas affected, I am quite upset, but then again, I probably should have stuck with a language that guaranteed my freedoms. Something nice and LGPLed would be perfect (as I could then also use it in my commercial projects). I suppose I could go back to Perl, as it's dual license is both safe (it's GPLed) and commercial software friendly (the Artistic License).
Hopefully this will get sorted out post haste, but I don't plan on testing the new versions until they do, and if they take too long, I will find some other language. If there is one thing that has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt it is that Open Source software projects that end up with licensing problems have a hard time gaining mindshare. KDE should have been the undisputed desktop leader. They had a years head start, and the Gnome guys had to create nearly their entire framework from scratch. And yet despite all of KDE's advantages it wasn't until after StarOffice was pledged to become a part of Gnome that they finally relented.
There are enough good truly Free scripting languages that Python can ill afford to have problems of this sort. Perhaps now would be a good time to take a look at Ruby...
I don't see why Debian cares whether the Python licence is compatible with the GPL, though. The licence certainly seems to be DFSG-free, and I'm not aware of any GPLed software that has ever incorporated Python bodily. (People have written GPLed software in Python, of course, but that's a different thing; there's no requirement GPLed software be written using a GPLed system or platform.)
It seems you're claiming that a script written in Python is derivative of the Python interpreter. But that's wrong, because it would mean you can't write a GPLed Delphi program (because Delphi isn't GPLed) or a GPLed set of Excel macros, which is silly; the fact that you're using a non-GPLed development environment doesn't mean you can't write a GPLed program for that environment. Otherwise, how could you legally run the GNU tools on a non-GPLed OS like Solaris?
The consultations will go on, and there's still hope that a settlement between RMS and CNRI will be found that produces a license that's compatible with the GPL.
Sorry to point this out, but to RMS, the only license that is compatible with the GPL is the GPL.
Woz
I'm with you, man. I am dumbfounded at the hostility displayed here on Slashdot to a man that has done more than any other person on the planet to bring us these wonderful Free Linux systems (including Linus, there's a bit more to your average distro than just /vmlinuz).
I just don't get it... it's truly sad.
"Free your mind and your ass will follow"
#1: You convert Python into an OS so that it can have all of the system resources to itself and your Python programs can run faster
#2: instead of using `ls', in unix, you use:
python -c "map(lambda x: __import__('sys').stdout.write(x+'\n'), __import__('os').listdir('.'))"
-rozzin.
Second of all, I seriously doubt RMS has a list of software vendors that he consults and then goes out to badger them into using the GPL (or a compatible license). More likely, Python went to him to see if they were GPL-compat. He said "no" which is entirely his choice. Furthermore, Python acknowledged that it was his choice by the very act of asking.
It is certainly RMS's choice to say "The Python License is not compatible with the GPL". However, his saying so does not necessarily make it true. The issue is whether a GPL program can be linked with Python, and whether the requirement of the Python License that disputes are governed under the laws of Virginia prevents such use.
If you write a program which you want to GPL, and it uses Python, there is a way out; RMS explains how in a section on the Qt license in his article Various Licenses and Comments about Them. If you are creating a Linux distribution, or even a large software collection which includes Python and GPL software, you're ok:
Third, this causes no problems to the FSF, the Python people or the general public. It's only a problem for groups like Debian that want to distribute A) only GPL and GPL-compatible software and B) Python.
This isn't quite true - if I write a program which incorporates the Python interpreter, or pieces of it, and want to (or have to) use the GPL, then I have that problem. I'm not sure if I can legally distribute a work under the GPL plus the statement:
I understand why CNRI included that statement; I'm not clear on why that becomes a significant problem with respect to the GPL, or if it indeed is.I'm not quite sure how you can say that he's never been about self-promotion. To me, his whole GNU/Linux crusade has been about himself. And I'm sorry, but I see no reason to give someone style points just for being consistent, when it's clear to a lot of people (not all, but many) that he's being an ass. ("Yeah, but he's consistently an ass!" ?) As a much better writer than me said:
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." — Ralph Waldo Emerson
Cheers,
The real problem isn't that they couldn't package Python for inclusion. The real problem is that it's questionably legal to embed Python in a GPL'd package. I'm doing some of that, but I'm not particularly worried.
CNRI, the previous employers of GvR, own the code; they were guaranteed a Python 1.6 release by Guido. BeOpen will do the 2.0 release. That's why the two are so close together. CNRI is being a bit difficult about the licensing issues (claiming that the previous Python license doesn't count as a real license, etc.)
In the best case, all of this will be worked out and people can distribute binaries of this package with Python linked in. In the worst case, none of this gets sorted out until Python 2.0 (BeOpen wants GPL compatibility) and no one can distribute said binaries with Python2.0.
Humm... I wonder if RMS will ask them to beg for forgivness?? It's funny how some people in the open source community select their reaction depending on the targets. KDE moves to the GPL and they get flamed, now Pyhton is not compatible with the GPL and people try to work a way to make them fit in.
By the way, this was not flamebait this was just sad irony...
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear"
Since the GPL is silent on endorsements and promotions, this is an additional restriction. But lest you think I'm making this up, RMS has already decreed the new Apache license incompatible for its clauses 4 and 5, and Apache clause 4 is the same as BSD condition 3!
Face it, nothing is compatible with the GPL.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Emacs.
(I wonder if the entire Free Software Movement has just been a Illumnati plot to position emacs ahead of vi in the eternal One True Editor Jihad?)
(K)
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
So that's what GNU-Latin looks like.
One of Python's strengths is its license, which is very BSD-like. It allows people to redistribute modified Python as part of their project, embed Python as a built-in language and extend it with their own C-based modules. I have been trying to convince my own employer to use Python for some products, and the license is a big plus in that fight --let's face it; businesses are more amenable to the BSD-family of licensing than the GPL.
If the Python people follow TrollTech onto the GPL bandwagon it will probably hurt Python in the long run... Before you know it, RMS will be arguing that products using Python as a scripting language or based on Python extensions (and there are quite a few) will have to switch to GPL...
INo copyright can protect from that. Your confusing copyright and patent. I HAVE considered the idea of 'Patent-left'
Indeed, many of us have done so. although I prefer the term "Latent," for "left-patent," to the awkward "patent-left."
There are many interesting issues that make Latents a much harder thing to accomplish. And the OSS community seems unwilling to consider Latents (because it is about software patents) sufficiently politically correct to get behind it. However, Latents offer the single best chance, IMHO, to protect the future of OSS against monied interests abusing OSS with software patents.
it's not splitting hairs. The GPL says (and I'm guessing that this is the reason) "no extra restrictions" and this is an extra restriction.
Oh, if only that were the case, then this would be easy. The issue is not that any extra restriction makes things incompatible, but that some restrictions do and others do not. The arbiter of what are improper restrictions, at the end of the day, is RMS, in his view.
And the law is on his side -- at least technically. The language is clear that any addtiional restriction would violate. Thus, at the end of the day, the enforcing party can be the arbiter -- if only by deciding which violation to enforce, and which not to enforce.
So, I would agree the author is correct that its probably not "splitting hairs" to claim ANY non-GPL license is incompatible if it has any word not in the GPL or any provision not expressly a subset of a GPL restriction.
It is, however, arbitrary and capricious in practice. To pretend that some licenses are clearly naughty and others are clearly nice, and that this distinction is somehow embodied consistently in the GPL itself, or in the corpus commentary at FSF's web site is to engage in fantasy.
So for those of us who actually do care about, or are fiduciarily responsible to others, about license compliance concerning, GPL, we must take the view that only GPL is clearly compatible with anything that is not GPL, lest our clients find ourselves at the business end of that caprice.
So for those of us who actually do care about, or are fiduciarily responsible to others, about license compliance concerning, GPL, we must take the view that only GPL is clearly compatible with anything that is not GPL, lest our clients find ourselves at the business end of that caprice.
Sorry about the syntactic instability. I meant to write something different, but clicked the wrong key. The sentence should have read:
Some of us actually care about avoiding license violations, or are responsible as advisors to those who want to avoid the same. For us, we must take the conservative view, that only GPL, and a very few other licenses, is compatible with GPL. Any other view exposes them to the caprice of the copyright holder.
This, IMHO, is the primary difficulty with the GPL.
Please cite what you believe to the relevant provision of UCITA which permits a licensee to unilaterally change a license in this manner.
What if mathematicians create the Algebra of Licensing - formal science for calculating license compatibility. The licenses will have much more compact formulations. And it will be possible to use OBJECTIVE means to figure out if software is composed legally and what is the resulting license or, on the contrary, is illegal and uses bad license mix
Not likely. Mathematicians have already proved it is impossible to create a general process determine whether two non-identical programs have the same input/output characteristics.
Far more likely, either the language will be too limiting to support most desirable license constructs, or it will be too expressively robust, implicating Godel-like or Halting-problem-like self-reference issues, to permit the existence of a general algorithm for determining equivalence or violations.
arguments?
Nonsense. As a lawyer well-versed in computer law issues, two things are apparent: (1) these issues are not beyond the ken of the Slashdot audience, who on both sides have manifest a fair understanding of the legal questions; and (2) one should never blindly accept the conclusions of a lawyer, such as Eben, who is acting in his capacity as an advocate for a client, in this case RMS and FSF.
Surely, when a lawyer makes cogent remarks, complete with reference to authority, one should take notice. But guess what? The folks on the "other side" are represented by counsel as well -- indeed, the lawyers who advised them to include the "offending provisions." They might take a different view. Thus, we as laypeople must make these calls on the merits, informed by the ARGUMENTS, not the assertions, of learned counsel.
This is why we have juries.
Bottom line: don't pretend this is beyond the ken of anyone here. The issues are fairly clear, and there is nothing deeply obcure from a legal position. In short, I see no reason a non-lawyer should feel shy about chiming in about these general policy questions.
The only objection of RMS is against clause 7, the "State of Virginia"-clause. The strange thing is, this clause may not be applicable outside the US, so the license may be GPL-compatible outside the US after all. (Only lawyers can sort this out).
Nah, actually, once you have formation of contract under applicable law, remaining choice of law clauses are generally enforced, even in international scenarios. There are exceptions, but I don't see one here.
In this sense, the choice of law clause actually seems like a good idea. I think that RMS is troubled not by the idea of a choice of law clause per se, but by an ideological opposition to laws passed in some jurisdictions. The problem is, that he is not arguing his underlying opposition -- he is pretending that this is a clause inconsistent with free software -- I disagree.
And is Stallman crazy? Or crazy like a fox?
Just crazy. (Actually, I don't think he is crazy -- merely unnecessarily dogmatic, and to the detriment of his stated cause and philosophy.)
But I just LOVE the anti-UCITA arguments made by folks who don't understand the law. While UCITA does have some provisions offensive to me, if these provisions are your lead concerns, well LOL. UCITA is no better or worse in this regard than the
This particular argument is one of the weakest reeds on which I have seen an anti-UCITA advocate lean.
For centuries, violations of fundamental public policies, and more recently, but for decades, unconscionability have been grounds for courts to void provisions of contracts. This is true not only of the common law, but also the fifty-year-old UCC, which is the statutory law most likely to apply in its absence.
Indeed, UCITA's provisions are somewhat better than prior law, in that they LIMIT the scope of discretion a court will have by more rigorously defining the notions and their application.
Your bio says you are an intellectual property lawyer. It may be easy for an IP lawyer to fall in love with UCITA...though there are plenty of lawyers who haven't.
I wrote computer games long before becoming a lawyer, and have since left the law to make internet security appliances. You seem to think my background disqualifies me, and I'd like to think these combined credentials give me a fair perspective on things. Let's lose the ad hominems on either side and discuss these issues on the merits, OK?
None of your remarks address the point I made. While there may be sound arguments against UCITA -- and there are many points of UCITA with which I disagree -- none of them were raised by the ridiculous propositions that UCITA, and not present law, permits unenforceability of unconcionable and counter-policy laws; or even that such provisions are bad things.
You might be interested to know that it was precisely these grounds with which the only Circuit Court cases not enforcing a shrink-wrap agreement based their judgment. Leave those cases out, and you are stuck with Zeidenberg's 7th Circuit shrink-wrap-uber-alles opinion, and all that under the common law and the UCC!
Except, of course, to release it under a more restrictive license, or distribute binaries without making the source available, or using it in proprietary software.
Did I miss any?
A bit of searching should find you an .au clip of RMS singing "Cooperation with RMS is impossible" or something like that. It was a long time ago and I'm too lazy to find it again.
>I don't want to see it in a year or 2 with Sun's or MS's name on it.
:-(
If you have a novel way of implementation, what is stopping anyone from taking your code, creating a spec of it, passing that spec over the cube wall and having another implement the spec?
The GPL protected your intellectual property how?
How about this: They take your code, move the indentations about, change some var names, add one or two new vars...the GPL protects you how?
How about this: They just cut and paste your code into their product. Do you have the money to track down all the different people who might have done this cut-n-paste job? Do you have the money to take them to court?
*IF* your modivation is "to stop theft of my code", I wish to remind you that 'locks keep honest people honest'. People who are going to take things they should not, will take things they should not. Given the risk of you comming out of the woodwork and suing is miminal, taking your code and making a closed source project from it is a minimal risk.
And, well, your code may not worth taking
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
The bad news is that there's still no agreement from Stallman that the CNRI open source license is GPL-compatible. See my previous post here. (Re: Conflict with the GPL.) Given that we still don't know that dual licensing will be necessary and sufficient to make the 2.0 license GPL-compatible, we decided not to go for dual licensing just yet -- if it transpires later that it is necessary, we'll add it to the 2.0 final license
So, they're considering it, at least for 2.0. But they hope to avoid it, and they are not sure it is enough.
Ciao
----
FB
What I mean is, the comments are usually made by people who don't know or understand the history of GNU, Unix, BSD, gcc, Linux, and all the other little stories that created our current environment. It would take too long to go into this history here, but I'd strongly encourage people who think that RMS is a whiner to read up on how all these threads began.
It's anachronistic in the same sense that folks in countries with a history of democracy and political liberalism (in the technical sense) don't understand why people get so worked up about voting and free speech. They've benefited from that history, but have also been blinded by it.
Disclaimer: I'm not blind to the attempts by both governments and corporations to marginalize the democratic process and civil liberties in the US and other countries--I'm being somewhat simplistic in these comments to make a larger point.
--
--
We have fought the AC's, and they have won.
I'm not privy to any inside story, but this one seems plausible and deserves to be moderated up. On the other hand, the RMS-bashing and utter nonsense from non-lawyers in other postings on this topic is excessive even by /. standards.
I respect Eben Moglen, the FSF attorney who is trying to help out here upon request of CNRI and the others involved. I think we should leave this matter to the expert lawyers and not feel afraid that somehow our interests as users or programmers will be hurt.
For example, one legal concern that has not been mentioned is that some U.S. states don't allow unconditional restriction of user rights in warranty disclaimers. You have probably seen such a statement on your cereal box in all capital letters, but failed to understand it. Maybe some CNRI attorneys are trying to suggest that either they should put such a statement into their disclaimer of warranty, or else restrict the contract enforcement to a state such as Virginia that doesn't void such disclaimers. Such a warranty concern might not have anything to do with UCITA at all!
The GPL has wisely adapted to new concerns by evolving the text of its license. One such concern has been the question raised by some distinguished legal experts that the contract might not be valid without some consideration exchange--at least a dollar bill. This was raised and never answered satisfactorily a few months ago on /. during the CyberPatrol fiasco.
Eben Moglen has been looking into such matters for the FSF. We ought to support such work financially, since at the moment it is done on a shoestring and with overworked volunteers. But instead of that, what do we see here but a bunch of opinionated crusaders pitching in with free legal advice on how others ought to do it for them. Is that what the Free Software movement is all about?
Have RMS's complaints about different liscences ever done a damn thing for open source?!
Although I think RMS is a bit much, he has never said he supports the open source movement; he supports the Free Software movement. Free software is a bit more than open source... it involves true freedom to do whatever you want with it once you have it. Open source is just a side effect of his vision of free software. RMS and the FSF don't care at all about pragmatics, just principals.
"Evil beware: I'm armed to the teeth and packing a hampster!"
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
All statements like this accomplish is stir up conflict in the community. (And endless liscense flamewars on slashdot.) There's no point in expecting him to stop this sort of thing, but we can hope.
Eye of Argon at +1 LIVES!
Anybody missing interesting diploma project?
SOme kind of Licode (~ geekcode of licensing) is needed, sure! And Freeware community could set this standard.
Maybe this way people will look at the licenses and understand them at one glance, like E = mc^2 ;-)
I hope my idea will not be forgotten and somebody will take notion of it and realise it.Thanks for your attention! Roman
First of all, I'm just a Python user. For official infomation look in comp.lang.python or on the beopen.com Python website. Here is what Guido and others have described:
:-)) to work on Python at BeOpen.com. This caused a looonnngggg discussion between CNRI and BeOpen.com about a new Python license. The discussion took place largely at CNRI's insistence, IMHO.
Guido spend the last several years working at CNRI. During this time, the only Python license was the original CWI one however CNRI says that they have copyright to versions of Python produced while Guido worked for them.
Guido and others left CNRI (and other places
CNRI and BeOpen.com (lawyers) agreed on what they thought was a GPL compatible license and asked RMS about it. They made several changes at his request. This eventually became the current license which CNRI agreed to release Python 1.6 under. BeOpen.com agreed that Python 2.0 was/is a derivative work of Python 1.6 so they have to live with the Python 1.6 license terms. This does not mean that they have to release Python 2.0 or any later version under the CNRI license though.
CNRI lawyers insist that the license contain a jurisdiction clause because of fear that someone will abuse the license (hard to do) and bring suit in some strange jurisdicion with laws or court rulings that would pervert the license (or some such -- I have trouble thinking like a paranoid lawyer). RMS objects to this clause. It is unclear whether the fact that the jurisdiction in question is the state of Virginia is relevant to either party. At last word, discussions were continuing...
The main Python developers are now at BeOpen.com where they have no control and little influence on either side of this disagreement. They'd really like to see a fully GPL compatible resolution but there is nothing they can do about it.
Until the GPL is tested in court, people cannot risk violating it, even over petty things. Who knows what anti-GPL court tactics have already been thought up in the legal departments of Microsoft and Corel?
If some code in Python violates the GPL in some way then you might think "so what?" but if someone then re-uses this code in another project (X) and inadvertently releases this code under the GPL, he could land into big trouble.
If someone takes code out of X and violates its GPL licence, he could take it to court and find that the license was invalid anyway due to the fact that the original sourcecode (from Python) was breaching the GPL!
In other words, in order to release something under the GPL, ALL code within it has to be either GPL or upwardly compatible with the GPL.
Is the title of an op-ed at Dr. Dobb's.
Best Slashdot Co
In breaking news today, Free software advocate Rischard Stallman noticed his Webster's included the clause As this conflicts with the key GPL clause, "Richard should always get his way," RMS has called for an immediate boycott of this evil corporate entity.
"one treats others with courtesy not because they are gentlemen or gentlewomen, but because you are" --G. Henrichs
RMS is a zealot. His latest tirade has left me with the feeling that he is just one step seperated from a Catholic Priest.
Priest: You must beg god for forgiveness.
RMS: You must beg the creator for forgiveness.
Priest: You shall have no other god before my god.
RMS: You shall have no other license before the GPL.
Priest: You must admit to the possibility of one true god.
RMS: You must admit that no license is open source except for the GPL.
Is anyone else sick of this diatribe?
Bite my yammer.
compatible with RMS?
Some information is missing here. A license doen't need to be compatible with the GPL for debian to software covered by it. It just has to be free. Debian includes lots of free software covered by licenses that are not compatible with the GPL.
Will some Debian comment what the real issue is?
PS: I predict we will see lots of flames here (condemning RMS, Debian, Python or the GPL) from people who haven't bothered to find out what the issue really is.
Have RMS's complaints about different liscences (anything other than pure 100% GPL) ever done a damn thing for open source?!
Why would RMS care about Open Source? He is interested in Free Software. And several people talk about RMS as if he's getting in the way of OS. WTF? OS is just a watered down form of Free Software that people like ESR approach businesses with. If you think the two are the same movement, then you are sadly mistaken.
it really doesn't encourage the adoption of open source to insist on a particular liscense scheme
Again, you are missing the point. Open Source is the watered down, pragmatic movement that doesn't address user freedoms. That's not what RMS wants, so why would he help in it's acceptance? RMS is seeking to educate people about their freedoms, and at the same time write enough quality software that people have a viable free choice. He has a higher goal than just "better code", and is not interested in compromising on his ideals.
There's no point in expecting him to stop this sort of thing, but we can hope.
I sure hope he never stops. The man may not be someone you want to take home to mom but, then again, he is a freedom fighter: radical, unkempt, and fighting the good fight.
I'm amazed at the number of people who don't understand RMS. Have you never read the GNU Manifesto?
--Lenny
People seem under the impression that RMS pronounced a verdict ex cathedra about the new license. That's wrong; the Pythoneers explicitly went and asked him for an opinion on the new license's GPL compatibility. RMS has not said you should not use Python; RMS has not said that Python's license is bad. He was asked if it's GPL compatible, and his legal advisors don't think it is, that's all. If you blame anyone, blame GvR and BeOpen for considering GPL compatibility an important criterion. I think they're right, and expect the situation to be resolved somehow by the time Python 2.0final arrives.
First IANAGE (I Am Not A GPL Expert).
We are seeing more and more GPL incompatibilities these days. Now I am not sure but here might be some reasons why :
1) People defending the GPL are becoming more and more fanatic about it because they feel "threatened" by all these incompatible licenses
2) Maybe the GPL is just a bit too strict and should be loosened to help people develop under some other license withouth having to bother thinking too much about pissing off other developpers
3) People are writing other licenses not caring about the GPL and it's compatibilities and only realise later when they are threatened to not be distributed that they have to modify it??
Whatever the reason I definitly think something should be done quckly... After all the goal of open source is to develop good software working all together in the same way and not against each other...
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear"
Who cares? I don't even see why they're "negotiating" with RMS. The man won't be happy until the software is used his license or a license that is just the GPL with another man. He's a zealot. You can't negotiate with that.
The fact is that the current license is an Open Source license. RMS just tries to use his fame to denegrate any OSS software project that doesn't agree with his radical "software wants to be Free" ideals. Witness the latest KDE & Qt nonsense. I think he's quite frankly power mad with his fame.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
If you really think it's splitting hairs, why don't you accuse CNRI of the hair-splitting... they could easily take it out if it's so insignificant as to be hair-splitting...
Perl has been doing this for many years with GPL and Artistic, easy to do, no possible problems.
You offer the code under a choice of licenses, refuse all patches that don't fit both licenses, and call it a day. If you wish to use Perl with some drivers or some packages, you may need to use the Artistic license. If you need to use it in others you may need to accept the GPL. Most people don't ever bother deciding...
Cheers,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
GNU/I GNU/just GNU/Dont GNU/see GNU/what GNU/everyone's GNU/problem GNU/is GNU/with GNU/RMS. GNU/Maybe GNU/I'm GNU/just GNU/biased.
-GNU/Rich
Something else which I'll bring up that hasn't been is that this is about leverage. Don't confuse it with anything else. It is about positive leverage for change. As the GPLed code base grows, being able to use it becomes more and more desirable. To use it you need to contribute to it, that's the leverage. It's reaching a critical point now, there is a lot of good software that is GPLed. That is how and why RMS designed it. It's also a good thing, the leverage is controlled by us, there isn't an IBM or Microsoft on the other end, it's us. The community, the programmers and the users. It's not an RMS thing either, ESR brings it up at the end of Magic Cauldron and in his eyes it is much much more than that because he believes that opensource has already won and that in 3 to 5 years when just about everything is opensourced that leverage can be applied outside of software; applied to laws? social causes? all sorts of things, we're talking about wholesale social change! This isn't a communism or socialism thing, it's about restoring power to the people, the people own GPLed software and the people need to police it and protect it.
KDE not complying is damn important, it undermines everything that does. Python doesn't? Well it should and it will. There will be countless others, as the GPL's importance grows so will the amount of attention given to products which go against it and I'm betting that there is a pretty fair number of them.
I don't know if Bruce Perens or ESR are reading but I suggest that an ammendment be made to the opensource definition. There needs to be a level of license interop that is supported. We've already seen the NPL fail to comply with GPL, the QPL fail to comply with the GPL, the CNRI license fail to comply with the GPL, interoperability is critical. I want to use KDE code in GPLed GNOME code! I want to use GPLed GNOME code within KDE! I want to use mozilla code with both! If the interop can't be worked out then what is the point really? It seems like a lot of the ideas and theories about opensource go out the window if interop isn't part of the deal.
This is my signature. There are many signatures like it but this one is mine..
First of all, licenses matter. To programmers they matter directly--which code can you reuse and who can reuse your code. To non-programmers they matter indirectly--which products get which features, when and how compatible.
Second of all, I seriously doubt RMS has a list of software vendors that he consults and then goes out to badger them into using the GPL (or a compatible license). More likely, Python went to him to see if they were GPL-compat. He said "no" which is entirely his choice. Furthermore, Python acknowledged that it was his choice by the very act of asking.
Third, this causes no problems to the FSF, the Python people or the general public. It's only a problem for groups like Debian that want to distribute A) only GPL and GPL-compatible software and B) Python.
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
A well-crafted lie appears unquestionable - Dama Mahaleo