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.
I don't have a good answer for this yet - I think it will take a new license.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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
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]
Thanks
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.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
- 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.
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
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.
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.
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
Once you tell anybody your idea or show anybody your work, you've already given it away, and can't prevent them from giving it to anyone else. That's just the way it is. No matter how many attempts you make to erect societal walls to keep it from happening, it will, and short of totalitarianism, you can't do anything at all about it.
I would prefer that this fundamental truth be realized, and people start basing their actions on it. It's much more healthy and sane than continually trying to make everybody conform to a set of rules that just aren't the way things are.
Likening GPL to communism and BSD to socialism is quite flawed. Communism and socialism are both about physical property. Neither a copyright, nor a patent are physical property. Both are mere societal conventions we follow in the hopes of achieving certain ends.
The fact that these conventions have largely come at no cost to society from ignoring what the real laws are is an accident of history. Those costs now loom large, and it's time to revisit our conventions and decide what would better further our goals.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
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.
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 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?
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.
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