Slashdot Mirror
NewsForge 'Previews' GPL3
Meltr writes: "NewsForge has an interesting sneak preview of the 3rd version of the GNU Public License. Among other things, RMS will make V3 more business friendly and will close the ASP loophole in V2. Check it out here." Now, take things with a grain of salt - RMS [?] doesn't feel comfortable calling this even a "draft" so there's much work still to be done. But's a good article, and interesting to see what's happening.
If GPLed s/w becomes this prevalent, then I think the need for the restrictive licence will cease to exist. However, we are a still a long way from that particular Utopia.
-- flossie
http telnet
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
Is public domain free?
Yes.
Public domain software quickly can be (and is) changed to proprietary licenses, which are most certainly not free.
The public domain version is still free.
The proprietary version is not. BTW, a GPL license counts as proprietary in the group sense.
You are creating a notion of free that is impossible to attain, and then saying that GPL software doesn't live up to it.
Incorrect. I am trying to define what free speech means. By placing restrictions (akin to censorship), GNU licensed software are not free as in speech. Therefore, they should not be considered free as in speech. Calling them anti-copyright licenses (copyleft) are quite exceptable. That is what they were written for.
Those of us arguing against "free" software are arguing against GNU's notion of the word "free". I admit that I do not like GNU licenses; they are unfriendly to other open source licenses. I really detest the misuse of the word free just for appearances.
Sorry, but people who actually care about Free Software aren't willing to render themselves impotent and their actions meaningless to satisfy a few people who can't understand that freedom is something you have to fight for.
Whose freedom? The people or the software? If it is the people, then they should be able to "say" (write) any code they want. If it is the software, it should be able to be whatever it wants. This might be as a binary or an Artistic license if it so chooses. If you restrict its choice, you have restricted its freedom.
I was talking about the "old" Qt license. The QPL version 1.
-- Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
I'm printing and framing this. Convergence, with your permission as well, I'd like to republish this post of yours every time someone starts chirping about 'Communism' and what not.
What say you?
Good point, but it is also a good idea to close up the loopholes in the GPL as they become known. The ASP business model is a real potential problem.
Don't do this unless you have to. The version clause makes your software more useful.
Compare it to the clause of the LGPL that allows relicensing under the GPL. True, it lets someone make a more restrictive fork. Its intent is to allow linking with GPLed code.
If you prefer GPL 2 to 2.1 (or 3, etc.), continue to release your own code under version 2, with the version clause. Include a note in the README explaining your wishes.
If the BSD projects can avoid license forks, versioning the GPL shouldn't be a big deal.
Are you trolling me? You should know very well that when one downloads GPL software, they are bound only by copyright conditions, which allow them to make modifications so long as they aren't distributed, and that you can do so while specifically not agreeing to the GPL.
Your scheme would require legal agreement up front, before the the software is downloaded, executed, or even before the source can be examined. Sounds like a click-through to me. (Not to mention a political nightmare and a removal of one of the supposed advantages of OSS(tm).)
When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Those two examples are reality.
Here's Apple's statement to Number 1.
And the GPL prevented me to program an ICQ client for MacOS X, this one you have to believe me.
Even if GPL-3 is released sometime soon, what about the current open source software distributed under GPL-2? I suspect some people may rely upon section 1 of the GPL since the ASP model "copies" software upon each use. GPL: 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.
Isn't it odd that every time a new restriction is proposed for the GPL, GPL proponents such as Perens claim that it will make software "more free?"
This is only true, of course, in the Orwellian sense -- "Freedom is Slavery." The simple fact is that th GPL makes software non-free, and the new mutation is likely to make it even less free. All out of spite against anyone who tries to earn a living from software.
--Brett Glass
I don't think you are one of the people who says I'm not free unless I have the freedom to make someone else a slave, but that's my analogy for what people are doing with GPL loopholes - just using them to make their improvements to a GPL program proprietary software again.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
The only reason I can see for restricting a DTD or any other interface is pure spite. Using the bad but common analogy of free speech, why do you want to regulate the *manner* in which I speak? Public interfaces, especially those created in the Free Software Movement(tm) need to be completely unrestricted.
Are you willing to let other people do the same? What would you think if you came across a Java interface or XML DTD that was placed under a GPL-incompatible copyleft? But it doesn't really matter, because I'll just ignore your restrictions and have the full protection of the law to do so, since you cannot copyright an interface to begin with.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I'm assuming the problem with ASPs is the user doesn't have access to the binary, therefore they don't have a copy of the program. But then...
Say I give people logins on my box. They are essentially able to copy any GPL binary on my system, yet I never installed source? Am I violating the GPL by not providing means of getting source? If I modify some of the code on my box and let people use it who I've given logins...I never had any intention of distributing a derived work, yet people with logins can use it? I'm assuming since even though I'm not explicitly giving away derived software, people could indeed obtain copies of it without my knowledge, regardless of whether I care or not, and this violates the GPL?
Now with ASPs we're letting people use software who can't see the binaries (if it's binary) or source code. Now if this doesn't violate the GPL, but the FSF thinks it should, then you have to define distribution in terms of use, ie. anybody who uses this software is entitled to a copy.
How do we define what ASPs are? Should GPL web servers be included? (Apache isn't, of course, so we won't bother with the implications). Anonymous FTP? The difference between "servers" and "ASPs" is so incredibly fuzzy I wouldn't begin to think of how to draw a line between them.
At work I have put up a rather hacked version of Neoboard. This thing has been extremely customized to work with my web site and authentication scheme. My customizations don't really add new features that anybody would be remotely interested in. I hacked it for myself. I don't think my users or the author would want to see what I've done to it. I don't think I should have to let them. I don't think the software is less free if I don't. Wasn't the whole point of the GPL to protect my freedom to hack it as I see fit? And if I chose to give or sell it (as opposed to letting them use an interface of it, regardless of whether they have unpromoted, unspecified access to copy the binaries) to someone, give them that same right? And now if I do that with GPL 3 software, I gotta give the code away? When I'm not making changes and handing out binaries? I'm just letting people use it. It just seems to me to conflict with what the FSF stood for in the first place: letting me make derived works and either keep them secret, or give them away with the same rights as I have.
As I'm confusing myself, I'll stop now.
Require source-code distribution as a consequence of public performance. Public performance is a right in copyright law that is distinct from use or distribution. Unfortunately, copyright law (in the U.S.) gives this right in connection with only some works, like moves, plays, and music, but not computer programs. That's just because copyright law lags behind the evolution of computer software. So, were we to assert a requirement for source distribution with public performance, it could be problematical simply because we'd have to prove that the public performance right is covered by copyright law for computer software.
A more conventional way to do this would be to require source code distribution for a certain class of use, where the use is equivalent to public performance. People don't like use restrictions because of the way licenses have discriminated about types of use, typically licenses say things like "for educational and non-commercial use only". Of course that's not OSD-compliant. However, this particular restriction would be OSD-compliant because its purpose is to achieve a goal of the OSD: source-code distribution.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
I don't have a good answer for this yet - I think it will take a new license.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
One issue that is creating a lot of confusion and disagreement and for which RMS or FSF have not officially (at least i have not seen) taken a clear position on is distributing GPLd programs with a proprietary OS.
If a GPLd program links to for example libc on a proprietary UNIX, my reading of GPL says that it is legal at least as long as they are distributed separately. But what is the situation when they are distributed with the OS (for example GNOME with Solaris or bash with MacOSX)? From what I've read, Apple's lawyers seem to think it is illegal and it was used as one of the arguments to why Qt being counted as an operating system library would not make distributing KDE with Linux legal. Even RMS has been claimed to agree on this.
However, many seem to think distributing GPLd works, that link to the proprietary OS libs, with the OS is perfectly legal and for example the possible distribution of GNOME with Solaris in the future make it IMHO an important question that needs to be clearly answered.
The rationale is that ASP's are public performance, and copyright law grants no rights to the user for public performance.
As it now stands, all free software licenses allow 100% public performance. The GPL currently grants this permission on the basis that it does not restrict *usage*. So the GPLv3 will indeed restrict usage (and the FSF will have to alter their free software definition).
Restricting public performance while still calling the software "free" is bizarre. The words on the FSF pages look less and less like English, and more and more like orwellian gnuspeak.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
How does the future of Free Software look like? To answer this Question we need to answer the question what Software actually is. We have things which everybody just called Software in the Past, like PHP Scripts and ASP Services. And we have some completely different, new Business Modells for Software. Some years ago you just had your Tools and some libraries. Today you have often component oriented Software(development). So you have new questions like:
Is a Software free if some of it's coomponents are free.?
The different kinds of Software are not the only problem the guys at GNU will have to solve. Internationalization is also a problem (i don't mean the internationalization of software). How can you make sure the new GPL will work in all countries around the world. This countries have different Copyright Laws, with different backgrounds.
RMS & the Lawyers of Free Software have a difficult task to solve, because there are many new aspects descibing the word free software.
I think the point here is being missed. From a legal stance, almost all
/* This is Bill's program. You may not modify this in ANY way what
instances of dynamic linking could be argued a as "fair usage", in a court
of law. Consider something like, the zlibc-0.9e, distributed on ftp.gnu.org
and containing the GPL copyright (not the LGPL as I would think is more appropriate).
That utility works is indescriminately overloading the "open()" function for all
applications on a person's computer. It doesn't descriminate by license. If
I have a program on the machine that has a copyright like:
so ever. You may not view the source, run strace, or any attempt at
reverse engineering, because this is mine, all mine, and nobody elses.*/
It will just as happily, and siglently overload the open() function in that
program as any other. It would be hard pressed to say that is even morally
wrong, because presumably the program links to libc.so, which is distributed
under LGPL. Consiquently, there is nothing prohibiting someone from replacing
the open() function in that library. All the LD_PRELOAD trick is doing is allowing
the user to do so without the inconvience of rewritting the libc.so library.
Now consider a program that physically does a dlopen() to load a particular
symbol... Presumably someone could just as easily put that dlopen() in a
separate file that was LGPL'd. Unless we start saying LGPL code can't call
GPL code, in which case we'll have to scrap the Linux kernel, there is really
little to stand on from a legal stand point in saying it is illegal to do
so.
The real question is when is it moral to do so? Presumably someone with a
couple of weeks on there hands, could go through every single GPL library
and utility, and make an LGPL interphase, that in most cases would have
almost the same efficency.... Would that person be viewed as a hero for
releasing the software from a more restrictive copyright, or a villian
for robbing the free software community from some of it's exclusive
property?
Bill
I don't think Linux wil cause a problem since I'm sure that it is restricted to GPL v2.0
Doesn't HIRD use a bunch of GPL'ed apps + a BSD microkernel?
I think the article missed the point somewhere. Or they just said what they said in a misleading way. If you prevent people from linking, then surely it ges both ways, and its illegal to run GPL'ed apps on a non-GPL'ed OS.
I don't understand why people feel uncomfortable with this. Indeed, as is said in another reply already, even Linus Torvalds doesn't like the idea that the GPL can be dynamically altered.
;-)
The current GPL clearly states that any newer versions will be in the same spirit, but that it may simply solve some problems with the current version, or make some vague sections more clear. Now, that's what we need! If someone detects a Great Big Hole in the GPL, the statement "or any newer version" is the only way how this can be plugged: by issuing a better version!
Even if Microsoft buys the Free Software Foundation (why hasn't this happened yet, anyway), then they're still obliged to keep the GPL in the same spirit as it is as of today.
I don't know how legally clear a line like "in the same spirit" is, however. But hey, maybe GPL v3 will be a little more clear about this
It's... It's...
"We can confirm that Debian does *not* ship the version with the trojan horse. Our version predates it." [CA-2002-28]
An interesting article, but not particularly news-worthy yet.
-- flossie
http telnet
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
I think there's something wrong with your paradigm.
The object-oriented revolution has mostly not happened. Part of the problem is that black boxes don't work for software as well as they work in electronics. One can have interoperable components that are entirely proprietary, anyway, if black box interfaces are all you want. Where Free Software excels is the ability to snip code elsewhere than at the object boundaries. This is not the object-oriented model - we're getting behind the interfaces and messing with actual code :-) . Perhaps that's one reason for our success. And IMO, that's a good reason to do something that encourages people to make more software free, so that you can have more reuse, which is what the GPL does.
By the way, yes, I'm an O-O programmer by choice.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
I'm starting to doubt that this is the "real" Bruce at all! Of course you can own your own copy of the software! It is only a license that can take that away!
When you buy a book, you own that copy. When you buy a CD, you own that copy. And when you buy software, you also own that copy. Only when you don't buy the software, but instead buy a license to it, is the copy not yours. This is one of the reasons that one-click licenses are starting to become more prevalent: because the US Commercial Code says that when one buys a shrink wrapped box, one also buy the complete contents, so manufacturers need to make their "agreements" more explicit, instead of unilaterally declaring that you are under contract.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Most other Free Software licenses do not shy from use of contract law. It may be necessary for the GPL to incorporate more contract law than it does today.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
If anyone wants to leave questions about it here, I'll answer them later today, and pass them on to RMS.
Actually, I have a couple questions, although they're more philosophical than legal or technical. I'm running a project to create an online roleplaying game system, with source code under the GPL and all of the art, music, and game content released under the GPL and GFDL. The ideal we've chartered for ourself is the promotion and facilitation of Free Game Development, in the same spirit as the FSF promotes Free Software Development.
Yet it has come to our attention that guaranteeing the freedom of our source code will be difficult. On several occasions we have been approached by individuals wishing to make use of our code and media for commercial purposes, and have stated emphatically that they "cannot" release the contributions they would make (for the usual reason given - because they feel they couldn't make money otherwise). Now, the uncomfortable fact is that either through dynamic linking or through the "ASP loophole", they can run our server code with their additions and charge for access without ever releasing a line of their added code, as nothing legally or technically exists to prevent that.
But in discussing this with the other WorldForge developers I'm not so certain that there *should* be technical or legal preventions against this, for various reasons including one I'll outline in more detail below. The question I have been wondering and that I would like to get yours' and RMS' viewpoint on is whether or not we *should* be concerned about this? Since the GPL appears to allow keeping code secret either by not distributing the binaries, or by dynamically linking it, does this mean that it is morally okay to do so?
What I worry is that if it is possible for individuals to take advantage of our code and not have to share their own contributions back, it may stifle the free environment we are attempting to establish. I suspect that if sharing was required, then assuming all commercial participants follow this rule the competition would be fair. However if it is possible to hold parts of the game system proprietary, then it will be seen (rightly or wrongly) as a competitive advantage to do so, and thus in spite of all the problems we all KNOW are intrinsic in hiding source code, they will take this route instead.
Without the use of legal or technical means of ensuring the freedom, it would appear that we would need to fall back to reliance on "peer pressure" and tradition to ensure sharing of code. E.g., "blacklisting" companies that choose to use one of the loopholes.
Now, there is a side issue and a second question which is, I suppose, one of the issues peculiar to games. While with "normal" software there is usually little or no reason to prevent ALL of the code, documentation, and content from being released openly, with entertainment software it is sometimes desired to keep parts secret not for commercial reasons but instead to preserve some degree of mystery. One might argue that with a book, one is expected to read the pages in order and not cheat by reading the last page, however book reading is a solitary endeavor; this would be more akin to browsing through the poker deck when your partner is off buying beers. Now, there are many arguments and counterarguments on both sides that can be made. But here is the question: Does the need for hiding source code for purposes of ensuring mystery pose a legitimate exception to the free software / open source principles?
The approach we at WorldForge have been toying with is providing for "softcode" additions to the game, which are stored in a database and kept segregated from the primary game code, rather than encouraging use of the "ASP loophole" or dynamic linking loophole as workarounds. There are of course performance issues implied in using scripting rather than hard code, but we like this because it discourages hiding "too much" code.
Now, I hope our concerns are not dimissed because "it's just a frivolous game". Game software can and has been used for many purposes outside of entertainment, including education, visualization, and communication, and the issues outlined above will be of critical importance in assuring that these non-game applications of the software can enjoy the same freedom that the original code is being given.
The section on applying the GPL to your code is not part of the actual licence. Same with the preamble. The version 2 or any later part is a suggestion and applies only when that is added specifically to the code.
Linus has made it clear that Linux (the kernel, not the OS that should be called GNU/Linux)is version 2 and version 2 only.
No, it isn't called stealing. Go get a dictionary. It is impossible to steal what is free.
If you share something with someone but demand something back, that is NOT sharing, it is loaning. And with the GPLv3, the FSF is getting more usurious every day.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
The point I am making is that community ownership is not enough to call something Communist.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Probably the best effort in this direction so far is Sun's Industry Standards Software License, otherwise known as the SISSL, pronounced "sizzle" and not to be confused with the non-Open-Source SCSL. It allows proprietary derivative works as long as you publish an open reference platform that implements your changes. You might consider applying that to your DTDs, but I doubt it will protect you in all cases.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Hypothetical situation: RMS has a stroke, religious revelation, whatever, and decides to make a version of the GPL that changes its entire meaning. since most software these days "can be distributed under or any later version" or the license, that could present a problem.
There is indeed a notion of "public performance" in copyright law. When you buy a video tape you can perform is privately for yourself and a few guests. You may not, however, perform it publicly in a movie theater.
Once a licence starts to restrict a users runtime rights, it's no longer a "copyleft" and instead is more of a EULA.
There is one small point in the GPL that does indeed take away a right already granted by copyright. And that is the right to use the work for the purpose of creating a non-derivative work. When I buy a hammer I receive no restrictions on what I build with it. But when I receive a GPLd library, like readline, I am under all sorts of restrictions regarding my end product. And the end product is most certainly NOT a derivative of readline! I am only referencing the library, and that is allowed under copyright.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Do you only need a few lines of GPL code? Then write it yourself, it shouldn't take long and you don't have to deal with the GPL at all.
And thus the stallmanistas fall into a trap of their own making... By that logic *all* software is free! Don't like the Window's EULA? No problem! Just rewrite the sucker! I have just as much *real* freedom to use or not to use Windows as I do to use or not to use Linux. The only difference is that one is "open".
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Well, I just don't agree. For one thing, I don't think many of Apple's customers will care one way or the other; most will just use graphical tools. Second, I installed BASH on my OpenBSD system the other day, and it took about a minute. Not so bad. I just can't see this as an evil attack on humanity.
AFAIK the person that buys my product is allowed to modify my code and redistribute it. That's not acceptable.
I don't mind it but if it bothers you, don't use it. I still don't see how this makes the GPL "evil" or how it stops you from developing proprietary software for Linux. But whatever; to each his own, as it were.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
The "Free" in Free Software refers to the software itself
Does software have free speech? Of course not! But free speech is what RMS says the "free" in "free software" is like. The software may be free in the sense that it is free from attached restrictions, in the same way that my carpet is free from dirt after I vacumn it. But it hardly has the freedom of speech.
free 1. Not under the control or power of another; having liberty; independant
This definition is obviously intended for *people*. Software cannot have liberty. It does not have any will. Applying that definition is just plain silly.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Does this mean that RMS plans to make it illegal to communicate with a GPLd program over a socket? SysV IPC? Files? That's essentially what restricting GPLd daemons from communicating with non-GPLd programs without the non-GPLd programs opening up their source code would be.
Oops, now it's illegal to put a Linux box on the internet, to use XFree86 (ooo, X, socket), etc.
We need a Slashdot Interview with RMS with regards to GPL v3. This would be a good chance to get some of these questions answered!
Where do you guys get your twisted and corrupt definitions of freedom? Freedom means the absence of restriction. But killing someone is restricting them! Can't you get that through your head?
In a truly free society, I can do *anything* I want within my own domain. I have no rights to you or your domain. There is no need to place any restrictions on me in order for you to be free.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
The GPLV2 says:
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.
When this license is finished it will apply to all software that bears the above notice.
This just gets sicker and sicker...
- They have hair-splitting discernment for logic, whether seeking an implicit flowchart of programming or an unbroken chain of evidence.
- They have the ability to focus greatly on attention-to-detail.
- Their skills are (usually) in better demand/pay on the market than most jobs.
Thomas Jefferson was a Lawyer with a lot to say about freedom... but could he have been a programmer in our day and age? The 'Program' of the U.S. Constitution seem to say so... it shows enough discernment and fault-tollerence 'exception handling' to avoid overregulating the freedom it protects. I believe he once said 'Those who would trade a little freedom for a little order will lose both and deserve neither.'RMS still often comes across as a totalitarian with a focus on hisown Emacs... but this latest news is encouraging. Harmony is all about finding ways the differing parties can cohabit the planet, and my confidence in his abilities has gone up a notch today.
I'd like to see how they attempt to close the ASP loophole without invalidating the entire GPLv3 license... I mean, the GPL's legality is already still untested in court... I think any attempt to close the ASP loophole (while it may be unfortunate) is just going to put the GPL on shakier legs.
What a pessemistic stance! The first part just doesn't make sense, and the second part seems to say that since it's not tested in court yet that no changes can be made. I'd think all the IT lawyers out there may have something to say about that, as your proposal would basically put them out of work. "Oh, Mr. Microsoft lawyer, we can't make any changes to the EULA because it's untested in court. If we made changes it is just going to put the EULA on shakier legs. Why are we paying you again? You can't do any work, so I guess we will have to let you go."
Its one of those slippery slope problems, really...At what point do you determine that the ASP has to comply with the GPL and release modifications? When the web server they are using is GPLed? That one seems clear...When the backend database they are using is GPLed? Less clear. When the filesystem that the database stores its data files on is GPLed? pretty muddled. When the OS its all running on is GPLed? who knows?
Oh brother, more FUD. I don't know how much simpler you can get than to say that they would have to release changes to GPL'd software if they make that software publically available, even though they are not selling or distributing the binary changes themselves. If they had a proprietary, non GPL'd software package on top of a GPL'd OS and they made changes to their proprietary software they would not have to release the changes, as they were not modifying GPL'd software. If they made enhancements to the underlying OS software so that their proprietary software works better they would have to release the changes, as they are modifying GPL software (even though they are not distributing the binary end results to others and are technically keeping it inside their own organization). Why is this so difficult to understand? Are people braid dead? Or do they have alterior motives...
The BSD license is a perfectly socialist license--it says "Here, we're going to give this away, indiscriminately, do with it as you will". The GPL, on the other hand, attempts to control people by forcing them to give stuff away. Anyone who does not see the parallel between the GPL and communism is ignorant. I'm not drawing this parallel because communism is a dirty word--I don't think it should be a dirty word and I don't think it's as terrible as people make it out to be. I'm drawing this parallel because people keep denying this simple fact. GPL is clearly very, very communist--the notions of no property, community ownership, and being forced to give it away all say "Marx".
The ONLY reason Stallman denies it's communist is that he knows communism is a dirty word and he will be harangued in the US for saying it. He doesn't want to be associated with a group that, in the eyes of the American populous, is on the same level as the Nazis. Of course they are not on the same level of the Nazis, but US propaganda says they are. If Stallman were honest and really willing to stand up for his beliefs he would not make this stupid denial and he would admit the obvious truth. All you have to do is look at the license, forget all else--it's communist.
In contrast, code under the MIT license (which is the BSD license without the advertising clause) is a gift. There is no expectation that the recepient will reciprocate.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
http://darwin.anu.edu.au/display.cgi?view=/darwin
What would you have done if icqlib did not exist?
Nothing. But if icqlib were LGPL, I would have programmed one.
Any proprietary company can grab all the server source code to run their own game, thus taking advantage of free software, without having to contribute any code back to the community.
Under what rational should company be required to "contribute" their private modifications to the community?
Let's say I'm a graphic artist, and I design cheesy web pages for a living. I go grab GIMP, modifiy it, then go create a bunch a web art with it. I am the only one using this modfied GIMP, and the only thing I am distributing is its output. Should I also be required to release my modifications? After all, I am "exploiting" you by profiting off of your work...
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I write software, and can't imagine having a problem with that...granted, all my software tends to be free anyway.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
They can release the code under whichever license they want. This is just an example why the GPL can block development and the freedom of choice.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
Hear hear. I don't see a problem with it at all, etiher. There is still room for interpretation.
At the users option.
Much like the mozilla dual license, you obey the one you choose. So any GPLv2 software could still be used by abiding only to the terms of GPLv2, while you couldn't do that with GPLv3 software. Which means the changes such as the ASP protection will only apply to new releases or if the people who make the software change the license (or the ASP provider chooses to apply GPLv3).
-----
Nonsensical uninformed (most likely) rantings of noone in particular. Please put on you Peril Sensitive Sunglasses now.
Nobody forces you to give anything away. Release your software under another license, and you don't have to release the source code. It's your code after all. Seems perfectly clear to me.
The holder of the copyright for the code in question has the power to offer such a deal. I.E. if you hold sole copyright over the piece of code MS wants to use in your example, it is completely within your power to offer them a separate license in return for a donation of a certain size to the FSF.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Yes, that would be ok, since I'd get money for my work.
I write software, and can't imagine having a problem with that...granted, all my software tends to be free anyway.
I wrote free software, too. Small things (less than two weeks of development) aren't worth paying for. But I'm writing a program for half a year now, and this one won't be free.
>Installing = time = money = hurting people
Your software is going to have to be installed too, unless you make a deal with MS/Apple to get it "integrated" into their OS. This really is a non-issue, since if you _wanted_ too, your installation program could easily call a routine to install bash. Just include it on the CD.
>AFAIK the person that buys my product is allowed to modify my code and redistribute it. That's not acceptable.
It's too bad you feel that way. I write notes in textbooks I own all the time, and NOT ONCE has anyone ever complained. I also open electronic devices (sometimes) and modify them. Again, no complaints. I never even got any complaints when I sold some of this stuff, too. For the kicker, I've seen many modification plans on the internet that get nary a complaint from the company (unless it is computer hardware).
Hell, once I took an old lamp with a cracked base and smashed the base right off so I could use the bulb holder in another project. Again, never heard any complaints.
I think that software (and occasionally computer hardware) developers are the only ones in the world that have the strange notion: "Modifying my stuff is immoral." I can't even think of a religion that supports the idea.
Oh well, each to his own, I guess.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Yes, but I'm not the user. Since this software was never written because the required lib is GPL'ed, the user has less choices.
I don't think that libraries you link with are a part of a program.
I don't think that linking with a library is equal to modifying it.
While what you say is accurate I think some people would like more than the GPL. They think free software should be a right and not just a community.
With the GPL, free software is just a community of people who decide to work with free software under various motivations. Some people would like the ideas of free software written into the law then there would be no need for the GPL since all software would be free. The GPL is just a pragmatic way of using the existing laws to attempt to achieve free software.
Does this mean the ideas of free software are communist. I don't think so. Free software is more about the debatable intellectual property laws in many countries.
Chris Mesterharm
Under current law, my code is my property. Thus, you have no right to distribute it without me allowing it. In order to let you distribute MY code, I exact a price on you. You must distribute your changes to my code. Instead, I could have required you to pay me $10 per copy and required that you give nobody else redistribution rights.
Both of these are capitalistic. Each option exacts a price on you. One is measured in dollars, another is measured in requirements. You aren't obligated to do either of them, but then again, if you don't, you're not allowed to distribute MY code.
This isn't communist. I'm not forcing you to give anything away. You have no right to force ME to give MY things away to you to do whatever you wish, just as I have no right to force Oracle to give me their source code.
Just because GPL software is distributed with full source code doesn't mean it's public domain. If you want source code that has no restrictions on it, write it yourself, or use public domain. Otherwise, live with the restrictions other people put on their source code. Whether they be monetary renumeration (Oracle/Windows/Office/Kai C++/Mathematica/Matlab), or requirements that you must allow your changes to be redistributable under the terms of the GPL (emacs/gcc/linux kernel/tinyfugue).
There's no coercion going on. Your code and your changes are your own. You can distribute them however you wish. What you CANNOT do is distribute MY source code.
>This GUI is closed-source (for whatever business reason, this is NOT the point).
:-)
Yes it is the point, if you ask me.
>Now GPL3 comes along, and of course gdb will move to it. What is hp to do ?
Open source EVERYTHING. You either do it the whole-assed way, or not at all. Trying to do something half-assed is only going to get you into trouble in the future.
The GPL isn't a "lets see if we can apply this here but not here" sort of license. It is all or nothing. Either GPL it all the way, or don't do it at all.
Imagine if the kernel was 1/2 GPL and 1/2 not. I can't. That's because the GPL isn't meant to work like that. The LGPL is meant for the half-assed approach.
Of course, all the above is just my opinion. If you think the GPL is meant to be used for half a project, and not for the other half, flame away...
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
The current GPL makes it very hard to distribute GPL and non-GPL programs together
How? Distributing programs together isn't a problem as far as I can see - it's just combining them to create a derived work that can sometimes cause problems.
You overlook that you CHOOSE the GPL.
All licenses force everyone but the owner to follow certain conditions.
If you don't like the GPL, don't use it.
I don't like the MS EULA, I don't use it.
The current GPL makes it very hard to distribute GPL and non-GPL programs together
There is no restriction in the GPL against shipping works not derived from GPL code aggregated with works licensed under the GPL, unless the GPL'd work depends upon the non-GPL'd work. Simple aggregation of independent works covered under different licenses is perfectly legal.
Can you clarify what you think is the problem?
Many people have expressed concerns that changes to the GPL could affect the distribution of current software. This is incorrect.
From the GPL, version 2:
"9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation."
and from the example copyright notice:
"This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version."
According to the License, only software that explicitly states that later licenses may apply are vulnerable to changes in the GPL. So if you don't want your software to change with each new release, specify a version number!
Visit the
Ahh, that makes sense. It would be very hard for the GPL to allow derivatives to be reliscensed under any liscense it considered sufficiently free, and still retain the conciseness and brevity that is its strength.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
you are FORCED to share it
Like hell you are. I can modify Mozilla and Linux all I like, but I'm not forced to do a single thing with it unless I give it to someone else. Then I have to give them the same freedoms the owner of the work chose to give me. And you still have a choice about whether or not to share without an insane concept like IP (which is an inaccurate description, see below). You can just not release things.
BTW, there is no such thing as IP. Copyrights are a limited monopoly over the COPYING and DISTRIBUTION of a work over a limited period of time. As government interference in a free market, copyrights are intrinsically not capitalist. Trademarks are something completely different. Patents are the closest thing to IP, but even they are still only limited monopolies.
-RickHunter
I have relinquished my freedom...
Sorry, but you are wrong here. Consider all those who choose to "dual license" their product under GPL and something else.
I write a program using about 1000h of my rare spare time, and I sell it for $10 per license.
ONE person buys it, moves one interface element for 1 pixel, and redistributes it for free.
Now tell me: How many dollars will I get per hour of work? I'd be very surprised if it will be more than
It's a different case with hardware. You can't duplicate it for free.
A good reason to restrict a DTD or interface would be for compatibility. Standards are useless when they are extended in an ad hoc fashion. MS has made a point of this, hence their "embrace and extend" policy.
A DTD or interface are as much works in their own right as software programs. I'm not sure of the situation in US law, but under International Copyright Law they all derive protection from the same principle: authorial copyright. You cannot, without permission, produce an exact copy or a derived work.
Unfortunately the GPL is incompatible with DTDs or interfaces, as it explicitly allows (even encourages) modification, whereas the sole purpose of an interface or DTD is to provide a fixed and unmodifable standard.
Further changes to the GPL to curtial the activities of ASPs are likely to hurt free software far more than assist it. Although ASPs may be considered "freeloaders" and apparently are not giving back to the community, they contribute in the form of advertising.
Whether they are blatent or not, word gets around that major sites and companies are using free software, which gives it a credability that cannot be obtained through any amount of technical ranting.
Free software can come to prominance only through acceptance by commerce. Commerce still decides the standards for applications and communication - until that mindset changes to accept open source standards, free software will be relegated to being considered a second rate solution that must support other peoples' standards.
If open source software is going to take a lead in the computing world, and stop being a follower, it must start to define its own (open) standards, and prevent them from being maligned through extension. Hence the important of rigid, unmodifiable DTDs and interfaces.
Consider the example of HTML: despite it being a W3C controlled standard, every HTML author must be aware of the various non-standard behaviours of different browsers. Using "valid" HTML (according to a W3C lint) can restrict the aesthetics of the document, which is why so many authors choose to develop for a particular browser. JavaScript (now ECMAScript) is another classic example.
Standards are only useful when the major players in the arena agree to honour them, for mutual benefit. But we are in Unreal Tournament here - few major players want to cooperate, and free software is hardly a major player, and cannot dictate the rules. Ever seen the ref catch it in a boxing match?
Free software needs to gain credability in order to dictate the way ahead. To do so, it must develop standards for others to follow, become accepted by commerce, and shun the modification of open standards. It cannot do this by shutting out business. It cannot do this through in-fighting and ego mania. It cannot do this by closing its standards inside code that commerce cannot use. It cannot do this through the GPL.
i-name =twylite [http://public.xdi.org/=twylite], see idcommons.net
How is an ASP different than any other service which utilizes GPL software? Does this mean that any individual or company which makes a change to GPL'd software and provides a service using it will have to release any changes they make?
Now, technology has allowed people to circumvent the GPL and diminish freedom again. I want to see that fixed.
By fixing it, you will in turn be diminishing the freedom to actually USE software. When people use v3 GPL'd software, they will have to provide any changes to legally use the software. This hits the ASP much like Microsoft's EULA requiring NT Server to provide services instead of NT Workstation.
I don't see here any "diminishing of the scope". Basically, if you want to use GPLed code (and Stallman regards "use" as "do anything with it that is of use to your application"), your code must be GPL (or GPL-compatible license) too. No other open-source license applies, let alone closed-source. So GPL is just as restrictive as Microsoft EULA, only it benefits the other side of the deal. But to say it's "more free" on every front would be plain wrong - it's more free on hacker side, but less free on business side. For hacker it's good, for business - well, it not so good as if GPL was not so restrictive, but stil better that common commerical license.
-- Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
This seems unrealistic, at the very least. As long as some types of communication between license-incompatible program elements are allowed, there will be a GPL loophole. And the GPL cannot disallow all such communication because that would make everybody on the internet a GPL violator.
But this means that copyright holder will control not only how I copy/distribute software, but actually how do I run it. Isn't this exactly the case of DVD where so much fighting was? Isn't this exactly what liberty advocates is struggling against when they criticize restrictive EULA's? Now comes Stallman and says "Guys, let's make control on program runs common and OK". I don't really like it, and I don't consider it to be a wise move - it will hurt people's freedom much more than improve it. Now every corporate lawyer can refer to Stallman when he assures public that the program usage is copyright-controlled and is out of the filed of the fair use.
-- Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
But the GPL license gives you the ability to use it the software under the distributed license, or any later version.
Here's the relevant line:
So it could be an issue if the license was changed.
treke
The ASP loophole exists because the ASP provider never distributes a copy of the application to the user. In general, copyright law covers the creation and distribution of copies of works, but for certain kinds of works, there is also a restriction on perfomance of the work.
Take for example the play "Cats". Cats as literary work is copyrighted. You can't make copies of the script and sell them unless you're licensed to do so by the copyright holder. However, you also can't put on an independent production of the play and charge admission, even though the audience would not be actually receiving a copy of Cats, they would be perceiving a performance of it. That's controlled by copyright law.
What RMS is trying to do is to equate ASP to a performance of the software. It's a good analogy. The consumer never gets a true copy of the work, but they perceive all that is important about it. If ASP can be equated with a performance, then it can be controlled within the existing framework of U.S. copyright law.
Then, what was the big concern of the QPL vs. the GPL. Why is the Mozilla project changing to being dual liscensed under the MPL and the GPL when then MPL alows almost as much as the GPL?
I watch how things happen, and it looks like companies release things under Open Source liscenses, get swarmed on by people saying that somehow this makes their product impossible to ship in this way or that way because of a GPL violation, and then they end up re-releasing under the GPL.
I know this is all pretty vague. It's based on an intuitive feeling I've gotten from reading Slashdot stuff for a long time. It most distinctly isn't based on criticism that any Open Source liscense aside from the GPL is impure. People seem to be finding specific legal incompatibilities that I can't remember the exact nature of just now.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Here's an example of the GPL being ineffective with respect to MMORPGs and other online games.
Assume WorldForge creates a good GPLed MMORPG. Any proprietary company can grab all the server source code to run their own game, thus taking advantage of free software, without having to contribute any code back to the community.
The GPL version 2 only applies when you are distributing software. Unlike most other types of programs, ASP-style server-side software can be used and exploited without having to give everyone a copy of it. If someone makes a Linux derivative, they can't both make it proprietary AND exploit it commercially, since that requires distribution. On the other hand, they CAN do that with any server-side programs, and get around the GPL by simply not releasing their code!
Game engine licenses typically run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. MMORPG-type games take years of effort and run into the millions of dollars. It would be very tempting for a proprietary company to use GPLed code. As it stands, they can do this, and grab all your updates, bugfixes, new features, etc., etc. from your CVS repository. By simply refraining from giving anyone a copy of their server source/binaries, they are not distributing, and therefore any improvements/updates/features/fixes they create are unavailable to the community. This undermines the code-sharing intent of the GPL and most programmers who use it. Proprietary companies thus avoid having to contribute either dollars _or_ code!
Additionally, proprietary game companies generally have draconian IP agreements that essentially give them ownership of their employees' brains. All their work and ideas (for starters) are exclusively owned by the company, so one pointy-hair at the top can just decide not to distribute server code and toss the GPL out the window. There's no way an individual employee can decide he wants his work added to the public GPLed project.
On the client end, they can write their own proprietary software and wrap it up with EULAs that have all sorts of rules and restrictions. And it's okay for these client programs, totally proprietary, to talk to _your_ GPLed server code -- it's not "linking".
Part of the reason programmers contribute to GPLed projects is that they feel they won't be exploited; they will be compensated with improvements from people who use it.
Companies also feel secure that with the GPL, they don't have to worry about a competitor snapping up their work and releasing a special binary-only version. This one of the big reasons why we are seeing so much corporate participation in Linux. It keeps the playing field level.
Unfortunately, the usefulness of the GPL version 2 is severely limited with respect to ASP-type applications. For these, the GPL can be gotten around and becomes effectively like the BSD/X licenses. If you are working on an online game, and want the GPL to work as intended for your project, changes need to be made.
I suspect that this is a troll, but just in case it isn't, I'll inform you.Apple is about to release a new OS, MacOS X, which is based on FreeBSD. But there's no bash. Why? Because the OS isn't GPL. So the user (or developer) has to manually install it afterwards.
So? How does this destroy business and hurt people? If you want it, install it yourself. If Apple falls apart and goes bust, it won't be because of the GPL.
I'm a software developer. I need to get money from my programs. But I can't develop for Linux because of the GPL.
Nothing in the GPL prevents you from charging for your software. I mean, the FSF charges an incredible amount for their stuff. Secondly, how does writing software for Linux force you to use the GPL? Plenty of people release non-GPLd software for Linux.
Well, it's really more than that. It's the difference between the concept of "free" and "copyleft".
Works placed in the public domain or under a BSD-style license are unquestionably free, but they are not copyleft.
Copyleft aims to take a work, make it free, and keep it free. The GPL is a form of copyleft because once code is under the GPL, you can't change the terms of the license, it's free forever.
The BSD license is not a copyleft because additional restrictions may be added which make it non-free. This is why the GPL does not allow relicencing under another license, even if that license is free, because if you could get from GPL to BSD, then non-free is just one more hop away.
Do you think it is possible to GPL an XML DTD, XSchema, or RELAX (really all the same thing, a way to define the structure of your XML) document?
I ask because I'd like to be able to GPL a DTD (or equivilent) and make sure that no dervitive structural definitions were created without being passed back.
This is especially vital because in many areas XML is starting to replace other technologies like CORBA and RMI as a way to call into other programs (see SOAP). It would be good if a Free program/service I had written could not have a non-Free version developed with a slightly modified DTD.
Another take on this question I have: is it possible to keep what is essentially an API Free, even if underlying applications or services based on that API were not Free. Would use of a GPL'ed DTD (or interface in Java, come to think of it) mean the program using the API had to be GPL'ed as well?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Yes, you are correct. I was leaving implied that one of the requirements would be that any other liscense be of a similarily 'viral' nature.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Generally, from what I heard the official position is "GPL or nothing". Meaning, you cannot mix GPL-ed software with software under non-GPL-compatible license. You can insert non-GPL code into GPL project, but not vice-versa. Needless to say, it's very hurting to the open source projects that for various reasons can not or want not to use GPL. Needless to say, that's not exactly what you might think about "free software" term when you first hear it - it's more of "free software iff you understand freedom in the exactly same way as FSF does".
-- Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
Everything can be regarded as a derived work. For example, GNU pages clearly state, when explaining readline case, that I cannot use this library in non-GPL program. Even that my work is in no way related to readline, I just want to provide user with comfortable way of typing in. It's still "derived work" and it still should be GPL or nothing.
-- Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
I think any attempt to close the ASP loophole (while it may be unfortunate) is just going to put the GPL on shakier legs.
Its one of those slippery slope problems, really...At what point do you determine that the ASP has to comply with the GPL and release modifications? When the web server they are using is GPLed? That one seems clear...When the backend database they are using is GPLed? Less clear. When the filesystem that the database stores its data files on is GPLed? pretty muddled. When the OS its all running on is GPLed? who knows?
Does anyone else understand this gibberish?
-- Nick "Hallo this is Beel Gates, und I pronounce weendows as
People can always use an old version.
Restrictions can give freedom. The freedom to murder someone is not a provision that society wants so therefore society gains freedom by restricting what citizens can do (well, legally).
Closing the ASP loophole is an excellent move. The intention of the GPL is to open the source code of public deritive works. But if source code is never distributed in a binary form and instead uses thin clients (the web) then this is a loophole. If one were to modify Slash they could make public use of it without breaking the GPL, this makes clear the intentions of the GPL.
--Giving to trolls for the benefit of us all
With intellectual property- there is no analogy. You can make as many copies of my "river" and do whatever you want with them- and it will never affect me in any way.
As for the forcing thing? Give me a break. It doesnt force you to do anything- except not impose restrictions on what others can do. As for what you can do yourself- Free licenses say nothing about that.
There is a large body of free IP that you can use- and nobody will say you cannot- Even if you never contribute anything at all back- Even if you write disparaging articles/comments about it, Even if you encourage others to avoid it, but Not if you want to disallow other's to use it as well as you have. It costs no-one nothing that you have your copy. You should cost no-one that you do.
So just take advantage of the parts you like- then live and let live. Noone will force you to give anything back. Just remember that you dont own any of it- other people "own" it (in the sense of artifical laws), and you will do fine.
License conflict occur when you mix two different, incompatible licenses in the same program. Not all licenses are incompatible.
The GPL requires that all works derived from works distributed under the GPL also be distributed under the terms of the GPL.
If I'm writing an application, and I want to include some code in it which I received under the terms of the GPL, I can do that as long as I license my work under the GPL. If I want to include some code which I received under the QPL, I can do that, but then I have to use the QPL or some other compatible license. I cannot satisfy both of these requirements at the same time, so I cannot distribute a work which is simulateously derived from code I received under the GPL and code I received under the QPL.
However, if I write two different programs, and one used GPL'd code and one uses QPL'd code, I can GPL the first, QPL the second, and distribute them both on the same CD if I like. That's allowed.
There is a way for creators of knowledge/art to profit from it without artificially restricting it.
Proprietary licenses are about control, restricting who can do what; much like Authoritarian governments such as communism or fascism.
Free software licenses emphasize allowing people to share. The GPL is the most free- because it restricts you from losing your freedom. This is akin to free governments like Democracies.
You are narrow minded.
IP != phsical property. Its obvious that the only way to make it seem like it is is with artificial constraints. Artificial scarcity is stupid. Its like burning crops so that the farmers will benefit more. Or restricting the production of a simple object to a single factory- so that the owner of it can get wealthy while the inventor starves, and the musician get nothing. Thats what patents and copyrights are about. Face it.
I said the exact opposite. The OS isn't GPL and Apple can't ship GPL software with it.
Not true at all, see above.
You need libraries to develop for an OS effectively. But nearly all libraries for Linux are GPL, and I don't have the time nor the money to develop everything myself (readline for example, icqlib for example).
If I'd be a troll, I'd post as AC.
So? How does this destroy business and hurt people? If you want it, install it yourself.
Installing = time = money = hurting people
Nothing in the GPL prevents you from charging for your software.
AFAIK the person that buys my product is allowed to modify my code and redistribute it. That's not acceptable.
One of the more interesting points I thought from the article is how the ASP closure is really a lot more business friendly - basically before if a company relesed source and a competitor used an altered version in a web based application, the original company (or OS project) could do nothing about it.
Under the new license, they stated that businesses should be lot more willing to release source knowing that any changes made externally would have to be made availiable to them, which they could of course sue to get if a violation was suspected.
Hard to enforce? Sure! How easy would it be in most cases to be sure the service on the other end was really yours? Pretty rough (though you could probably tell quite a bit from output in a lot of cases, but I digress).
All of those things are true, but do not really matter (at least for the case of companies releasing source - of course it matters a lot more for real OS projects) - the important thing is that it makes it a lot easier for me as an employee to ask for permission to release source.
If the company feels like it CAN sue violators, then I think it would be comfortable enough to release source even if the practical matter of tracking down eventual violators and suing them never came up.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That's not true. Aggregation does not trigger the GPL. Please read section 2 of the GPL.
Readline is an enhanced facility that's not a standard part of POSIX. Everything you need to develop for any other POSIX-compatible operating system (libc and the like) is LGPL. So if you can develop for any other POSIX-compatible system, you can develop for Linux just as well.
The thing that really gets me about most of the anti-GPL rants is that the basic attitude is "I really want to use all this good stuff, but since I want to make money, I should be entitled to use this without giving anything back," as though making money is somehow the highest calling in life and other people should respect that desire and allow you to use their sweat for your proprietary program. That's precisely what the GPL is all about; if you want to use GPL'ed code, you have to play by the same rules.
I would be willing to give up the GPL and copyleft if it also meant losing copyright altogether. In that case, I couldn't copyleft my code, but someone else also couldn't forbid me from using their code, they could only make it harder.
IANAL. Apple legal says that this is not allowed, this is a fact. There's been a lot of discussion on Apple mailing lists about this issue.
That's one hell of an exaggeration. Readline is basically the only major GPLed library.
I haven't searched for more, but this is an important one.
As for icqlib, show me a free icq library for any operating system. Don't have one? Then I'm afraid you don't have a reason to choose other operating systems over Linux.
I'm sorry to disappoint you:
The library of Gerry's ICQ is freely available (Mac only).
>License conflict occur when you mix two different, incompatible
>licenses in the same program.
Yes, but keep in mind what "incompatible" means when speaking of the GPL:
"X is incompatible with the GPL" means that "the license of X cannot be replaced with the GPL"
It's not so much that licenses are incompatible with the GPL, but that the GPL is incompatible with just about everything except itself.
hawk
Bruce, I find your comment on linking puzzling: "The GPL[2] concept of 'linking' has aged." The GPL derives its force from copyright law. Its "viral" nature comes from the legal concept of a derived work. RMS's opinion of DLLs, plugins, or daemons is irrelevant.
The GPL is an instance of copyleft--an attempt to diminish, not extend, the scope of copyright.
Its also important to note that the GPL has never been tested in court, and even current versions might be found to be completely illegal.
In this case you are distributing binaries that link with the GPLed library, not just bundling two pieces of software together on the same CD, which the original post stated was a violation. I quote from the GPL:
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
regardless of whether a new GPL says you can't modify a GPL'd app as a web service or web app without releasing code, how would you discover violations?
Can you get a company to release its source code with a court order suspecting it to be using modified gpl software?
This loosening of the definition of linking. It sounds as if RMS would like to extend the definition of linking to more generic terms...sounds almost as if he wants the definition to include any working together of code.
Here's my concern. Let's say I write a neat little utility called "foo" and I decide that, since it's so neat and useful, and because I percieve a great need for the thing in the business world, I exercise my freedom to license my software under whatever license I want and license it under a "non-Free" free-for-non-commercial-use license. My neat little hypothetical util likes to dump a lot of useful information to standard out, and does so non-interactively so that the user can filter the output in whatever format they need. The simplest case for this hypothetical case will be:
foo | less
Whoa whoa whoa! I see a pipe there. That's IPC. What if the particular less we're communicating with here is GPL3? Is this something that will be made "illegal" by the new GPL? Would I have to distribute my own filtering utils? Will I have to provide my *own* functionality (probably gleaned from BSD;-)?
I only bring up this hypothetical situation because it seems to me that RMS firmly believes that businesses will not consider releasing code under the GPL because of the possibility of a competitor circumventing the GPL to write a closed-source wrapper. What about those who simply want a different license?
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
What would happen if the next GPL was declared invalid by the courts? How would this effect those pieces of software which have the "any later version" clause?
Say gnufoo is licensed under GPL 2, or "any later version", and GPL 3 is declared unenforceable after some legal struggle, would this mean that I could choose to license gnufoo under an unenforcable license (with whatever consequences that has), or would I have to use GPL 2, since "any later version" is invalid?
Readline is needed if you want to program an interactive command line program. I'd never program a command line-only app for any OS except Linux (I'd use NSTextField for that kind of task).
The thing that really gets me about most of the anti-GPL rants is that the basic attitude is "I really want to use all this good stuff, but since I want to make money, I should be entitled to use this without giving anything back," as though making money is somehow the highest calling in life and other people should respect that desire and allow you to use their sweat for your proprietary program. That's precisely what the GPL is all about; if you want to use GPL'ed code, you have to play by the same rules.
That's not my philosophy. I think it's perfectly ok that you have to redistribute the source if you alter an opensource-program.
But linking to a lib or calling it via exec() is IMO not altering the GPL'ed code.
If someone asks me a question about my app, I answer. If someone asks me to release the source of my app, I probably do that too. But I certainly won't dictate others what license they have to use for their own program!
I often make the mistake to believe what layers say.
I'd think this says that you're right. But again, IANAL. And that bash is missing from MacOS X Public Beta because of this issue is a fact.Yes, and the authors decided to place it in what amounts to a permanent public domain. If you don't like that, then use something else.
Yes, I don't use Linux. It's that easy.
It's a shame that your application will be restricted to just one operating system, though. And that the development of Gerry's ICQ looks a lot slower than icqlib's, and that your application will have far less features.
Then don't complain about me stating that it will hurt users.
btw, I find it very interesting that "fuck you" or "first post" is equal to "GPL is bad, because... example 1...example 2..." at slashdot. This is a discussion board after all, not a GPL-praising camp.
While I very much support the ideals of the FSF, I have a problem with the current GPL.
The current GPL makes it very hard to distribute GPL and non-GPL programs together, even if the non-GPL programs have a liscense I would generally find perfectly acceptable.
This tends to have the 'rolling GPL' effect, which I'm sure Stallman is very happy about, but I find mildly worrisome. I think this makes it harder for a business to decide to release software under terms that are non-GPL, but still free. In the long run, this undermines the goals of the FSF.
Is there anything being done in GPL v3 to address this?
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
This is because I believe the existence of these free toolkits encourages software developers to write portable code that runs on Linux and other free systems. I very much disagree with Stallman's opinion that LGPL is bad. In my experience proprietery software developers will give up and use MFC or other MicroSoft solutions when the alternative is GPL. This hurts much worse than not having their source code.
I hope that despite Stallman's lack of support, the LGPL will continue to exist and be enhanced.
My specific question is that the current wording of the LGPL makes use of my software or any other small LGPL library very difficult. This is because it effectively requires dynamic linking. Dynamic linking is very bad, as it requires that the resulting program be "installed" before the user can run it. It also strongly discourages modifications to the library (to avoid version incompatabilities) which imho defeats the whole reason for free software! In my opinion dynamic linking causes my software to be so nearly useless that nobody would want it.
I have explicitly stated on my web pages that static linking with fltk is allowed and even encouraged, no matter what the LGPL says. But is there any legal way to do this, or any way to fix the LGPL, or make a LLGPL (lesser lesser gpl?) that explicitly allows this? I would prefer to reuse the careful legal work done for the LGPL rather than risk writing my own.
Just goes to show that the FSF's name itself is misleading propaganda. The licensing it advocates makes software non-free, intentionally, for the purpose of hurting creative people and their businesses.
Stallman has stated his intention to do this for more than 20 years, starting with The GNU Manifesto, in which he advocates reducing programmers' salaries so that they'll be forced into low-paying jobs in academia.
Bruce Perens, on the other hand, will do anything that will make the license more viral, and therefore more harmful to the companies that compete with the ones on whose boards he serves.
Lots of lies and hypocrisy here, but no real freedom at all.
Under current law, my code is my property. Thus, you have no right to distribute it without me allowing it.
Correct. That's Capitalism. In fact, if you're a practicing programmer, it's much more likely that your code is your employer's property. That's really Capitalism. Marx understood that, and advocated turning the "means of production" over to those who did the producing.
Just because GPL software is distributed with full source code doesn't mean it's public domain.
Correctomundo! It it were public domain, it couldn't be GPL'ed - GPL derives its teeth from U.S. Copyright law, and public domain is copyright's anthithesis. Copyright is all about use of force and coercion, it's just that the GPL uses them to advance an agenda many of us approve of.
This isn't communist. I'm not forcing you to give anything away.
Au contraire, mon amis! The GPL is exactly communist, and it is forcing me to give something away. It forces me to give away any changes I make to your GPL'ed code when I deliver the binary form of those changes to someone. Marx would be proud: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Free Software is Communism, and that's just fine.
Things could be worse - wanna try out Software Maoism?