Posted by
ryuzaki0
on from the gnu-news-is-good-news dept.
An AC sent in this: "The FSF has posted a new FAQ at gnu.org covering the GPL. It explains their perspective on a lot of the issues discussed on Slashdot in the last couple of days."
217 comments
WTF?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
I would like to release a program I wrote under the GNU GPL, but I would like to use the same code in non-free programs.
To release a non-free program is always ethically tainted, but legally there is no obstacle to your doing this. If you are the copyright holder for the code, you can release it under various different nonexclusive licenses at various times.
Is the developer of a GPL-covered program bound by the GPL? Could the developer's actions ever be a violation of the GPL?
Strictly speaking, the GPL is a license from the developer for others to use, distribute and change the program. The developer itself is not bound by it, so no matter what the developer does, this is not a "violation" of the GPL. However, if the developer does something that would violate the GPL if done by someone else, the developer will surely lose moral standing in the community.
So tommorow Linus could take the Linux kernel along with all the changes others have contributed to it and start selling it without releasing the source? Isn't this the exact opposite to what the GPL is for?
Re:WTF?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
So tommorow Linus could take the Linux kernel along with all the changes others have contributed to it
and start selling it without releasing the source?
No. Linus could do this with the Linus-copyrighted code. But the Alan-copyrighted code, and the Andrea-copyrighted code, ad infinitum, cannot be relicensed by Linus. Also, as noted elsewhere, everything currently released will still be under the GPL, and thus anyone who already has a copy can continue to redistribute under those terms.
So tommorow Linus could take the Linux kernel along with all the changes others have contributed to it and start selling it without releasing the source?
If he has only been accepting patches for which the patch creator signed the copyright over to Linus, then yes, he can do that.
If he's not the sole copyright owner, then he would have an extremely difficult time doing this, since it would require him to reach an agreement with a lot of different people who own the parts of the code. Or he would have to remove/replace their stuff, sorta like the BSD people did with AT&T's code.
Isn't this the exact opposite to what the GPL is for?
The only people that would be effected by such a decision on Linus' part, would be people who decided to purchase a non-free release of Linux. Yes, those purchasers would not get the benefits of GPL. So what? Having to think before you write a check isn't a new phenomenon.
---
-- As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
So tommorow Linus could take the Linux kernel along with all the changes others have contributed to it and start selling it without releasing the source? Isn't this the exact opposite to what the GPL is for?
Yep. But he can't take back any already-released source. Thus, an open fork could be immediately started. This is part of the reason for the restrictions on revoking individuals' licenses on already-distributed software; once the GPL is applied to a piece of code, that particular piece of code is open forever, even if all future revisions are kept closed. Nothing can stop someone from taking that last open piece of code and improving it forever.
tommorow Linus could take the Linux kernel along with all the changes others have contributed to it and start selling it without releasing the source?
No. If Linus had written _everything_ in the kernel, then yes he could do this. The only way this could ever happen to linux is if every person who ever contributed a line of code agreed to do this. Linus doesn't hold the copyright to the code...well not all of it. And, in fact anything that he wrote years ago has probably been tweaked and enhanced by so many other people that any given piece of code would require many? dozens? of people agreeing to release under another license. What Linus could do is change the copyright on his old old old versions back when he was working by himself. But, who would use those when the software has gone so far beyond that point?
Benevolence, my ass.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
If so, is there any chance I could get a license of your program under the Lesser GPL?
You can ask, but most authors will stand firm and say no. The idea of the GPL is that if you want to include our code in your program, your program must also be free software. It is supposed to put pressure on you to release your program in a way that makes it part of our community.
"put pressure on you"
"part of our community."
Next time someone says the GPL is all about freedom, bust out this part of the FAQ to educate them. The GPL isn't about freedom. It's about forced openness, right in the FSF's own words.
I think I'll start releasing software under a license that isn't written to put pressure on anyone, a license that doesn't have a political motive behind it. BSD, here I come...
How is it forced - has anyone required you to use GPL'd code? If you don't like the terms of the GPL, then by all means don't use it and don't use GPL'd software. The GPL is a legal tool for enforcing the mostly common-sense and commonly acknowledged standards of the free software community. If you don't want to be part of that community, that's fine. But if you do want access to the community's hard-earned code, then you're expected to play by the same rules as anyone else. You're free to join or not join the community, and once you're in you're free to use others' code as long as you grant the same freedom to others.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
"I think I'll start releasing software under a license that isn't written to put pressure on anyone, a license that doesn't have a political motive behind it. BSD, here I come..."
Fine, but no one wants to hear any trollistic whinging if your software needs a GPL piece to be easily written. Let's review fundamentals shall we?
1. No one is forcing you to write GPL software.
2. No one is forcing you to use GPL software.
3. No one is forcing you to distribute GPL software.
4. If you want to link against, or redistribute some GPL software but don't like the GPL then refer to the first three fundamentals.
Yeah, kinda like we (in the US) "forced" people to stop having slaves. That must have sucked...people ought to have the freedom to make others their slaves.
--------
--
-------
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
While I generally agree that the GPL is suckage, keep in mind that one person's concept of freedom is not the same as another person's. The GPL/is/ about freedom - the FSF's idea of what freedom should be. In this case, the means justify the ends: forcing you to make your software open will eventually mean that all software is open.
Re:RMS as inflammatory as ever.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, reasonable and friendly, 100% positive information using neutral language.
At least it's better than a certain company's press releases, speeches, and 'news' articles...
This guy makes us all look like fruitcakes.
You do a perfectly good job of it yourself.
Found a Huge Hole and a Contradiction
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
I'm writting a Windows application with Microsoft Visual C++ and I will be releasing it under the GPL. Is dynamically linking my program with the Visual C++ run-time library permitted under the GPL?
Yes, because that run-time library normally accompanies the compiler you are using.
If a program released under the GPL uses plug-ins, what are the requirements for the licenses of a plug-in.
If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, so plug-ins must be treated as extensions to the main program. This means they must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license.
In one case, dynamically linking to external code is permitted. In the other case, the same thing is not permitted. The GPL contradicts itself in two different areas. It will never hold up in court. In addition, this essentially forbits the creation of Windows software. If I make an API call (a function call), then I am dynamically linking to external code; the GPL explicitly forbids this.
Re:Found a Huge Hole and a Contradiction
by
anichan
·
· Score: 1
In one case, dynamically linking to external code is permitted. In the other case, the same thing is not permitted. The GPL contradicts itself in two different areas. It will never hold up in court. In addition, this essentially forbits the creation of Windows software. If I make an API call (a function call), then I am dynamically linking to external code; the GPL explicitly forbids this.
To quote from another section of the FAQ:
If the libraries that you link with falls within the following exception in the GPL:
However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not
include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or
binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of
the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that
component itself accompanies the executable.
then you don't have to do anything special to use them. In other words, if the libraries you need come with major parts of a proprietary operating system, the GPL says people can link your program with them.
In your example, the API is probably part of the Win32 API set, which is distributed in every copy of Windows 9x/NT/2000. Since it's part of the operating system the source doesn't have to be released.
The case where the function call would *not* be permitted, is if you used propritary library 'FOO' that provides some functionality that is not part of the o/s or compiler. An example whould be an mp3 decoding library. Since this isn't part of the compiler used and isn't part of the o/s, if the library's code could not be distributed, you'd have to either make an exception in the license, or use something else.
I don't really think this is a hole, only a misunderstanding. <g>
--
karma is for the weak >)
Re:Found a Huge Hole and a Contradiction
by
anichan
·
· Score: 1
So, I can produce a (non-GPL) dll which is linked to your Windows GPL program whenever the program makes a system API call on a machine with my dll installed. So, your GPL program now uses propritary library 'FOO' that provides some functionality that is not part of the o/s or compiler... but that (as you say) is not allowed...
Yes, but if I had written it so that it uses a standard Win32API or COM object that is normally shipped with Windows and your component replaces that, at what fault am I? I intended it to use the o/s lib, but you, the user, decided that you wanted to use some other. You (the user) can't make me (the developer) break the GPL.
--
karma is for the weak >)
Re:Found a Huge Hole and a Contradiction
by
ray-auch
·
· Score: 1
the API is probably part of the Win32 API set, which is distributed in every copy of Windows 9x/NT/2000. Since it's part of the operating system the source doesn't have to be released.
However, almost all windows programs use Windows APIs for which the implementation does not ship with the OS (or at least, not always). There is no libc provided as standard with Windows - you have to ship it with your executable, but the GPL says you can use the OS exception unless that component itself accompanies the executable, so you can link to it but you have to rely on your user getting it from somewhere else in order to make your.exe run. At least that is what I think it says.
Second problem is that the Win32 API is itself extensively based on dynamic linking (via COM) and API calls may result in third party installed dlls being dynamically linked into your executable. This includes dlls you (the author) have never seen or used, that may not even have existed when you wrote your program - this is what dynamic linking means.
So, I can produce a (non-GPL) dll which is linked to your Windows GPL program whenever the program makes a system API call on a machine with my dll installed. So, your GPL program now uses propritary library 'FOO' that provides some functionality that is not part of the o/s or compiler... but that (as you say) is not allowed...
Re:Found a Huge Hole and a Contradiction
by
ray-auch
·
· Score: 1
Yes, but if I had written it so that it uses a standard Win32API or COM object that is normally shipped with Windows and your component replaces that, at what fault am I?
My component does not replace the API, it is a plugin which extends it. Since the API is designed to be extended in this way, by using it you are effectively linking your program to arbitrary libraries. Now, according the FSF interpretation of the GPL, the GPL does not allow you to do this. the only logical conclusion is that you cannot therefore use such an API in a GPLed program... which pretty much means you cannot distribute a GPLed windows program.
You (the user) can't make me (the developer) break the GPL.
The FSF would say that you, the developer, cannot hide behind the actions of the user, and that if you write code which links GPL & proprietary code when the user runs it, then you are in violation.
Still no answer to my question
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2
"Does gnu.org have a GPL FAQ?"
err, doh!
Re:Still no answer to my question
by
Merk
·
· Score: 2
And in the spirit of truly recursive acronyms (GNU -> GNU's Not Unix), they should have the answer to that be "Yes, there is a FAQ on the GPL, you can read it at [this link]". Of course that link would be a self-referential link...
Re:Why isn't the GPL more specific?
by
Trepidity
·
· Score: 2
I think the problem is that there are limits on what contracts are legal. It's perfectly valid to make claims on "derived works" or works that are "part of the same program," but it's unclear whether it'd be valid to make claims on "dynamically linked modules" if a court later determines that dynamically linked modules are in fact completely separate programs. I'm not an expert in contract law, but generally you can't write anything you want into your contract (as with the question in the FAQ about non-free input/output - even if you want to say your program's GPL covers output, you cannot legally do that).
I am an attorney, but this is not legal advice. Ifyou need legal advice, contact an attorney licensed in your own jurisdiction.
We regularly see arguments based upon what the FSF or RMS claims. Keep in mind, though, that there are about 5 billion people on the planet whose opinion counts more . . .
Put aside the ideology, and whether you lvoe or hate the GPL. I'm talking about rules of legal construction. The author of a document had a full opportunity to make it say what it means. The author's view on interpretation just plain doesn't count, and has no legal weight. While there are situations in which the author *might* be called to testify (perhaps for "state of mind" evidence), ambiguities or doubts are construed *against* the author.
This doesn't necessarily mean that the FSF comments are useless. If a point is not arguable, the FSF explanation could be useful. But if the purpose is to *resolve* the meaning, the opinion of the FSF, and RMS in particular, is worth less than the paper it isn't written on . . .
It's a very simple disconnect. In the first case, the GPL gives you the freedom to charge money for the program - this is what allows vendors like CheapBytes to sell Linux distribution CDs composed entirely of free software and turn a profit.
What is disallowed is a viral licensing fee, like that used by shareware authors ("You can try this program and redistribute it, but if you use it for more than 30 days, you owe me $20."). You can't require that anyone who receives the software (not necessarily from you!) has to pay you money. The difference is that you might agree only to send the software to someone if they pay you money (CheapBytes would quickly go out of business if they were required to give away CDs for free), but you can't control what they do with the software afterwards. Imagine what would happen if CheapBytes required everyone who redistributed code from the CDs they sell to pay them a fee for the privlege of doing so!
The GPL does not enforce that software be available at no cost, but the market forces inherent in free software do (would you buy a Red Hat CD for $50, without any manuals or support, if you could get the same for about five bucks with shipping or download it off the Net for pennies?)
Re:Quick Question thats not in the FAQ
by
David+Price
·
· Score: 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.
If the FSF did try to pull such a stunt, a strong argument could be made that the 'any later version' clause can be ignored: the software author would have a promise in writing that the new GPL would not contain any such backdoors, and the FSF would have violated that promise.
Re:possible confusing part in FAQ
by
Jason+Earl
·
· Score: 2
The good news is that you are allowed to charge for sending floppies in the mail. The FSF made money for years selling tapes of GNU software. The fact of the matter is that Anonymous FTP is the only method of transport that should actually lose you money.
The actual text of the GPL is actually fairly short. The entire document is less than 2989 words and the actual legalese in the Terms and Conditions section is a mere 2031 words long.
Unfortunately the GPL is written using legal terms and wording that most developers don't understand, and so it is that over the years a lot of false beliefs about the GPL have cropped up. I, for one, am glad to finally see a comprehensive FAQ that is intelligible for people who aren't legal experts.
Your post is a good example of why this sort of FAQ was necessary. Using GPLed software on a proprietary system has never been a violation of the GPL, nor are you in violation if you distribute GPLed software alongside proprietary software, and the FSF has never stated that the output of GPLed programs was covered by the GPL (except in the case of Bison where large parts of the Bison source are actually what is output by Bison). And yet, over the years many people, either out of ignorance or malice, have made claims like the ones in your post. In the past the only way to refute those claims was with the text of the GPL itself (which, being a legal document, is hard to parse). Now there is a much clearer FAQ. This FAQ, however, is not a legal document. It is simply an explanation of the legal document. These mythical "clauses" that you state that the FSF has added are merely explanations of what the actual legal document states.
However, if you allow your software to be modified freely to take input and give output in any format, distributed freely with proprietary software, and run on proprietary systems, you allow it to be incorporated into proprietary systems. Any attempt to prohibit this can only prohibit certain direct methods, unless you want to either cripple it for end-users or open up the "intent" can of worms and make any case a chess game between lawyers (if it doesn't invalidate the contract altogether).
First of all the GPL does not allow GPLed software to be distributed "freely." In fact, distribution is the one thing that a copyright holder is allowed to control. GPLed software can only be distributed under the terms of the GPL (meaning it must come with source code). You can include proprietary programs on the same CD, and they are not covered by the GPL.
As for the rest of your argument. The GPL doesn't cover "using" the software at all. You are free to "use" it on proprietary systems, or free systems, or to not use it at all. What you aren't allowed to do is "distribute" the software without following the terms of the GPL.
In other words, it isn't the GPL that has problems, it is merely your understanding of what the GPL does and does not allow. As a practical example Vidomi would be perfectly within their rights to "use" VirtualDub however they want, including extending it with their own software. However, the second they try to "distribute" software that links with the GPLed VirtualDub they are violating the GPL.
As for whether or not the GPL will stand in court, remember the FSF gets to pick and choose the case that they use to set a legal precedent on the GPL. In other words they are looking for a stupid, underfunded software company with a clear violation of the GPL (Vidomi fits this perfectly). Also remember that organizations with very well paid lawyers (Apple, Microsoft, IBM) have already caved to FSF demands. Those folks, at least, are acting like the GPL had teeth. And also remember that there are several groups that have vested interest in making sure that the GPL is enforceable. The FSF certainly fits this bill, but many other companies have put large pieces of software under the GPL (Sun's StarOffice for example).
I wouldn't count on the GPL not being enforceable.
Re:Problem with the FAQ...
by
Bruce+Perens
·
· Score: 2
They would much rather have you assign copyright, but PD is a workable fallback strategy if you don't want to do that. They are assuming that the majority of the resulting work is not public-domain and thus they can still enforce the license.
Re:RMS as inflammatory as ever.
by
Bruce+Perens
·
· Score: 2
I'm not saying he doesn't have a platform, and I never would expect him to use neutral language. If he made us all look like Fruitcakes, he wouldn't get the invitations he gets. We both lectured at Cambridge (the one in England) a few months ago. Dinner in the great hall and everything.
Re:Things RMS didn't forsee in 1984
by
Bruce+Perens
·
· Score: 2
I should have said "outside of the research lab". I think we didn't have them on VAX Unix or the Sun workstation in '84, and that's what Free Software ran on at the time. But RMS was at MIT and no doubt did have experience with Multics, so you have made your point.
Things RMS didn't forsee in 1984
by
Bruce+Perens
·
· Score: 4
When the GPL was being written, nobody was using DLLs or object brokers and "linking" was much more straightforward than it is today. This must be better addressed in a future version of the GPL.
Re:Things RMS didn't forsee in 1984
by
Felinoid
·
· Score: 1
Could you give a date?
Unix dates back to the 1960s..
In any case the exact issue is the GPL (1980s)...
Not Unix...
So you don't need to consern yourself with predating Unix.. just predate the GPL.
I myself first learnned of shared librarys in the late 1980s. Long after the GPL had been drafted.
-- I don't actually exist.
Re:Things RMS didn't forsee in 1984
by
James+Lanfear
·
· Score: 3
Multicians.org
lists Dynamic Linking as one of Multics' features. A quick Google search turned up a number of pages referring to Multics having DLL-style shared libraries, and at least one claims that it was essentially nothing but shared libraries. Since Multics pre-dates Unix by ~4 years ('65 vs. '69), I think this counts.
Re:Things RMS didn't forsee in 1984
by
JordanH
·
· Score: 1
When the GPL was being written, nobody was using DLLs or object brokers and "linking" was much more straightforward than it is today.
Object brokers may not have been in use yet, but shared libraries (DLLs) predate Unix by quite a few years.
Re:Things RMS didn't forsee in 1984
by
JordanH
·
· Score: 2
I've always thought that dating Unix back to "the 60s", like you often hear, is ridiculous.
As you can read here, they were just designing Unix in the Summer of 1969. The first programs were written using an Assembler on a GECOS system in 1970. C didn't exist, even as a concept, until 1972. Pipes came along in 1972, also. Unix was fairly unrecognizable until 1972-1974 or so.
Dating Unix "back to the 1960s" is like dating heavier-than-air flight to Michaelangelo.
But, you're right, the issue is should Stallman have anticipated this problem in the early 80's. And the answer is a resounding yes.
Multics had Shared libraries in the mid 60s. The DEC operating system that Stallman first developed Emacs on (TOPS-10) had them in the mid 70s. They were already old-hat by the 80's, regardless of when you first learned of them.
Re:Things RMS didn't forsee in 1984
by
sadr
·
· Score: 1
Actually, you can't ship the library, or use the header files for the library, or anything else without making copies on your own system.
Copying these files without a license from the author is a violation of the copyright on these files.
To use these files, you must have a license, which in this case is the GPL. If the GPL puts certain restrictions on your own code as terms of that use, you must agree to it, or refrain from using the library.
Re:Things RMS didn't forsee in 1984
by
blakestah
·
· Score: 3
When the GPL was being written, nobody was using DLLs or object brokers and "linking" was much more straightforward than it is today. This must be better addressed in a future version of the GPL.
It won't matter.
These things are all governed by whether the work is or is not a derivative work in the copyright sense, and it does not matter in the slightest what the GPL or RMS' lawyers say about it.
Recall, the GPL does not extend copyrights by engaging the user in a contract before use, as would be the case in an EULA.
Instead, the GPL removes some rights that are held intrinsically by the author of copyright. In particular, it allows redistribution as long as the source is redistributed and GPLd, and it allows redistribution of derivatives as long as the derivative is GPLd.
But, if it is determined than dynamic linking, or component plug-ins, are NOT derivative works, then the GPL library or component architecture is irrelevant wrt the licensing of a calling program or plug-in.
Copyright protects expression, not ideas, methods, or function. To protect those, you need patent level of protection, or you need to supercede copyright by entering a contract with the user (such as an EULA or NDA). The GPL is not a contract - it is a specific waiver of some rights normally held by authors of copyright.
To re-iterate - the issue is what constitutes a derivative in computer systems in the copyright sense, and this sets bounds on what the GPL can cover.
Re:Things RMS didn't forsee in 1984
by
i0lanthe
·
· Score: 1
the GPL removes some rights that are held intrinsically by the author of copyright.
Um, no. The author of copyright is granting specific limited rights to other people, e.g. the right to create derivative works provided that some funky restrictions are obeyed. The author of copyright still has his original rights, e.g. the right to create derivative works without obeying the restrictions he imposes on what he's granted to others; and, indeed, the right to grant other people the ability to do things which are otherwise his own exclusive rights.
This is irrelevant to your main point but worth noting because most questions people ask have obvious answers (e.g., can I take code that I wrote single-handedly, and reuse it in a closed-source program?) but, if a person starts reasoning from the "my rights have been removed" perspective, he will tend to arrive, with unshakeable conviction, at the wrong obvious answers. heh heh.
-- "The Crystal Wind is the Storm, and the Storm is Data, and the Data is Life"
Re:Things RMS didn't forsee in 1984
by
janpod66
·
· Score: 2
It won't matter. These things are all governed by whether the work is or is not a derivative work in the copyright sense, and it does not matter in the slightest what the GPL or RMS' lawyers say about it. [...] Recall, the GPL does not extend copyrights by engaging the user in a contract before use, as would be the case in an EULA.
I don't see what makes you say that the GPL is "not a contract". It's not just a "waiver of rights" on the part of the author, it's a list of rights and obligations for both the author and the user of the GPL'ed software.
As far as I can tell, the GPL is a contract, no different from the MS EULA, shrink-wrap, or click-through agreements. Recent legislation has, in fact, strengthened these kinds of contracts. And as a contract, it can require you to do certain things unrelated to "derived software", like place some of your software under the GPL. Many other software licenses, in fact, make claims on something you have that's definitely not a derivative work: your money.
Re:Things RMS didn't forsee in 1984
by
ray-auch
·
· Score: 1
DLLs and object brokers perhaps not, but there were a lot of non-unix systems where linking was significantly different (eg. think TSRs and overlays on DOS, or cooperative-multitasking on Macs).
I think the main problem is that RMS wrote the GPL for the GNU system which was to be
1980s-unix-like, and it makes sense for such systems, but taken outside of them it starts to become unclear.
It doesn't help matters that even today when issuing information like the recent FAQ, the FSF still explains the GPL only in the context of (80s) unix systems. Clarifying what constitutes a separate program in terms of "fork/exec" or separate memory spaces is no use on systems which don't have fork/exec or per-process memory spaces, even before we get into dynamic linking, location-transparency etc.
In the end the courts may have to decide what is or is not a separate program in the context of the GPL on each operating system. The way Microsoft describe and implement their licensing for dlls/COM components indicates that they view them as separate entities (not derivative works) wrt. copyright, and, since they wrote the OS, that view would seem to me to be rather important when deciding what constitutes a "program" on that OS (I believe it is a Windows dll that is at issue in this case).
RMS is on the right track here
by
Bruce+Perens
·
· Score: 5
MS is trying to paint FSF and the GPL as dangerous, and RMS responds with a sensible, calm, reasonable, and friendly document that is 100% positive information. Knowing Richard, this has to be an extremely frustrating time for him. There have been times when he hasn't been able to rise above the frustration as he has with this document. I'm very happy to see it.
Re:RMS is on the right track here
by
s20451
·
· Score: 1
MS is trying to paint FSF and the GPL as dangerous, and RMS responds with a sensible, calm,
reasonable, and friendly document that is 100% positive information.
On the contrary. The FAQ defines the GPL in as broad language as possible, defines proprietary software as "ethically tainted", and encourages developers to pressure others to release under GPL. I read this as fanning the flames, possibly giving MS ammunition.
Re:Some people always want what they don't have ..
by
Howie
·
· Score: 2
Yep, although not all that often.
I added a BJ10ex driver to Ghostscript. Start of a GEM driver for GNUplot (never finished that). Tweaks to GD to make it work more how I expected.
Mostly tweaky things, rather than big chunks of functionality.
-- "don't fall into the fallacy of believing that Perl can solve social problems. Maybe Perl 6 can, but that's a ways off"
Re:why the GPL is, strangely enough, not a contrac
by
jeffry_smith
·
· Score: 1
OK, first IANAL, but I did have one term of Contract Law in college. Based on that:
1. There is offer and acceptance. They offer (in the license) certain rights to you in exchange for certain restrictions on your use of those rights. You accept when you redistribute works (since nothing else gives you the right).
2. Consideration. Consideration does not have to be cash. Example from my course: you offer to give your buddy a week skiing if he doesn't drink for a year. Is that an exchange of consideration? Yep. The courts assume you gain something from the fact he doesn't drink (maybe the knowledge he didn't get into any drunk driving accidents). So, the consideration here is that you get to redistribute, but you give your source code changes.
Re:Some people always want what they don't have ..
by
BuzCory
·
· Score: 1
So here's a question that's kind of rolling
around inside my head: how many of you have
actually looked at and modified the source
code of 2 or more open source products?
I have, twice (at least), but not recently
and not distributed.
Lynx had a fixed -> float and a
float -> fixed conversion
(unneeded and unused as Float) for
every character.
RCS has irritating behaviour
regarding acceptable flags and the
environment variable shared by all
the RCS programs.
I have long since lost the lynx patch, and
it may no longer be relevant;
but if anyone wants details on the RCS patch
(rationale and the actual patch), let me
know by
email
and I will post them on my website.
There may be a few other minor changes, but
if so I can't recall them offhand.
There have been quite a few other times that
I looked at the source but gave up on
doing anything because not only were they in
(ugh!!) C but the style is execrable. These
would take a complete rewrite (and
preferably in Ada) just to be readable.
Re:Selling but not demanding payment
by
Gromer
·
· Score: 2
It is far from purely academic. Yes, it does mean that I cannot follow the proprietary software business model of forcing people to pay to get software, but it does mean I can charge people, for example, for the convenience of the software in a box with a manual, etc. The obvious example is RedHat- I can download a RedHat distro for free, but I can also buy it from a store, as I have on at least one occasion. And, to judge from the shelves at my local electronics store, I'm not the only one. So yes, people do pay for GPLed software, they just don't have to.
There is also the scenario of a piece of software which has never been distributed. In that case, I can force my first customer (and only my first customer) to buy the software from me at my price without violating the GPL. Every subsequent customer, however, has (at least in theory) the option of getting it from my prior customers at a price of their chosing. I will grant you that this scenario, however, is more or less "purely academic".
-- "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" -Salvor Hardin
Re:Selling but not demanding payment
by
Gromer
·
· Score: 2
Yes, but that's entirely beside the point. We're talking about GPL license terms, not the economics of open source. The fact is that the GPL permits the selling of the software (unlike a lot of other freeware licenses). Whether or not it is economically workable in the long run, a large number of companies have made a significant amount of revenue doing it. More importantly, a lot of people have benefitted from the convenience of a boxed distribution- Linux never would have approached its current popularity if you could not sell it. Take a look at the Linux shelf at your local electronics store- all those boxes aren't going away, whether Red Hat goes under or not.
In short, the success of Linux is built in part on this "purely academic" distinction.
-- "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" -Salvor Hardin
Re:Selling but not demanding payment
by
Gromer
·
· Score: 2
Er, no. Charging a monthly fee requires a licensing agreement or contract of some sort enforcing the payment of the fee. This would constitute an additional restriction on the software, which the GPL does not allow. The copyright holder could, of course, release it under a modified GPL which allowed this, but that would be such a severe change that it would no longer be the GPL.
-- "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" -Salvor Hardin
Re:Selling but not demanding payment
by
Gromer
·
· Score: 2
Regarding point 1, I earlier understood you to mean that you would require the buyer of the software to also buy the service contract. If this is correct, my point still stands, because that requirement in and of itself violates the spirit of the GPL. If I misunderstood, and you meant the service contract to be optional and separate from the software, then you are correct.
Regarding point 2, this is pretty irrelevant to the discussion, but I can't resist. The passage you quote does not suggest that assigning copyright to the FSF is equivalent to putting the software in the public domain. Read that passage again, and notice the use of the word "or". They are describing two options, one of which is to assign copyright to the FSF, and the other of which is to put the code in the public domain. Either one ensures a relatively simple copyright status for potential defense of the GPL.
Also, they aren't explicit enough about this, but they are only talking about contributions to FSF-copyrighted GNU software, not GPLed software in general.
-- "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" -Salvor Hardin
Re:Selling but not demanding payment
by
Gromer
·
· Score: 2
You're right, it's not "free speech." It's free software. I fail to see how it's worse than a standard closed-source license, though- the rights granted by the GPL are a strict superset of the rights granted by a normal closed-source source license.
-- "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" -Salvor Hardin
Re:Selling but not demanding payment
by
Gromer
·
· Score: 2
First of all, I agree with you- corporations are a necessary and important part of modern society, and a key driving force for technological development. However, they are not the only ones.
Specifically, you slipped up on your examples, badly. The WWW was invented by Tim Berners-Lee as an academic information-sharing tool, while he was at CERN, an entirely non-corporate particle physics research lab. As for "all the cool technologies" that we see today, the computer sort of springs to mind (ENIAC and its predecessors were the product of government and university, not corporate, research). I'll grant you the second point.
Like you, I detest the neo-communist drivel which occasionally springs up in the Slashdot forums, but you're setting up a straw man. I seriously doubt that more than a small minority of Slashdotters would seriously contend that the world would be a better place without corporations. I can't speak for the FSF, but there's nothing explicitly anticorporate in their agenda (though they do explicitly oppose the software industry status quo), and the section of the GPL which launched this thread was placed there specifically to allow the making of money, hardly a resounding blow for the end of capitalist society.
As for the "how does one make money" question, I've already addressed that elsewhere, and I will pause only to note that RedHat is making money, so it is clearly possible.
-- "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" -Salvor Hardin
Re:Selling but not demanding payment
by
Gromer
·
· Score: 2
RedHat just reached break-even, and its revenues are continuing to grow. Get your facts straight.
-- "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" -Salvor Hardin
So what if I take GPL'd code (which is EXEC'd in its own memory space and isn't hosted by MTX) and convert it to process memory mapped files and shared memory, and from my main application I read/write to this shared memory to communicate? What if it hosts a socket port and processes that way?
Re:Some people always want what they don't have ..
by
ergo98
·
· Score: 1
In general I have found that the popular open source products have above average quality and have many useful features. Having access to the source code is nice, but for me it generally hasn't been needed.
On the other hand, I've found that popular commercial software products tend to have lower than average quality, but are feature rich. For these products, I would love to have the source code so that I could fix the one or two showstoppers that just irritate the f*ck out of me.
I would love to see some metrics on open source code quality because from personal experience I've found the general quality of open source to be lacking. Of course my general anecdotes are no more credible than yours, but I see the exact opposite of what you see.
Indeed sometimes it seems that a lot of software is released under open source in an apologetic manner to try to make lemonade out of lemons: "Ooops, my program is a POS and doesn't do anything good? Well RTFM and scratch your own itch! It's the spirit of open source! Oh and after you fix it give the code back so I can take credit for it.". "Closed Source" software has to make something functional and usable, and there is no fallback of saying that the user should just go in there and fix that code up.
Best reply to Mundie yet.
by
MAXOMENOS
·
· Score: 2
I suspect that the GNU people didn't intend the FAQ as a response to Mundie. That having been said, this FAQ is the best reply to Mundie's FUD that I've seen yet. It is succinct, informative, non-inflamatory, and talks in terms that people can understand without an extensive legal background.
We should distribute this far and wide. We should put this on T-shirts and posters. We should make folders and notebooks with this stuff on it. We should take out full page ads in the Technology section and put this in there. We should put it on cerial boxes if we possibly can.
It won't promote the GPL much, but it will allow people to make informed opinions about the GPL, which is as good as a victory in my book.
Re:Best reply to Mundie yet.
by
spectecjr
·
· Score: 1
I suspect that the GNU people didn't intend the FAQ as a response to Mundie. That having been said, this FAQ is the best reply to Mundie's FUD that I've seen yet. It is succinct, informative, non-inflamatory, and talks in terms that people can understand without an extensive legal background.
We should distribute this far and wide. We should put this on T-shirts and posters. We should make folders and notebooks with this stuff on it. We should take out full page ads in the Technology section and put this in there. We should put it on cerial boxes if we possibly can.
Certainly, that's a great idea!
You know why? Because if developers point out to their bosses that linking to GPL'd libraries in any way forces them to release their code under GPL, they'll stop using it. (see the FAQ)
Re:Best reply to Mundie yet.
by
Malcontent
·
· Score: 2
"You know why? Because if developers point out to their bosses that linking to GPL'd libraries in any way forces them to release their code under GPL, they'll stop using it. (see the FAQ) "
Well that was the original intent of the GPL no?
If you are not willing to release your code under the GPL don't go near it. Write your own code or use other code. I think most people who write GPLed software do so because they don't want companies to profit from their code.
--
War is necrophilia.
Re:Best reply to Mundie yet.
by
Malcontent
·
· Score: 2
are you sure that's true? It seems like it ought to be doable from my reading of the GPL. Do you have any links that talk about this?
--
War is necrophilia.
Re:Best reply to Mundie yet.
by
Malcontent
·
· Score: 2
Well it does not forbid them entirely and it seems to be dependent on the interface.
--
War is necrophilia.
Re:Best reply to Mundie yet.
by
jovlinger
·
· Score: 2
Unfortunately, the GPL also has the crappy restriction that I (as the non-copyright holder) can't add my closed source plugin to it.
This would seem to me to be completely valid thing to do: Say I write a great plugin for the GIMP that requires a slightly enhanced pluging API. I release my changes to the source code (people can merge or fork), and then allow people to buy the plugin if they want it. Others can recreate my plugin in an open manner, if they care enough, and everyone can use the better API.
However, the GPL would seem to make it nigh impossible to get a third-party plugin market started for the GIMP in the same way that Bryce et. al. sell plugins for Photoshop.
I see how you could argue that closed software should not be allowed to depend on open, as this would only enable closed source people to piggy-back on open software, but I just can't understand the converse situation.
What is the GIMP and open source in general gaining from not having commercial plugins? Absolutely nothing. Instead, professionals are locked into using closed source. Great! good one FSF! That worked really well, now didn't it?
This just seems like a stupid argument, so I'm probably missing something.
What?
Re:Best reply to Mundie yet.
by
jovlinger
·
· Score: 2
It's not that they don't want companies to profit from their code -- after all, that's what distros do. The real reason I GPL my code is because I don't want it to be used by someone who will just take it and close up the source after they modify it -- which is the biggest flaw of the BSD-style licenses in my opinion.
Re:Best reply to Mundie yet.
by
d_engberg
·
· Score: 1
Actually, it seems like a pretty bad response, with all of its talk of all non-GPL software as "tainted". Microsoft (et.al.) would like nothing more than to paint an impression of free software as a haven for ideological, birkenstock-wearing academics out to prevent anyone from creating and selling intellectual property for any purpose and any length of time.
I don't think Stallman's philosophy reflects the majority of free software authors or users. When most of us get out of college, we realize we may like to give some of our work away and also get paid (in revenue, not just linux VC funds) for other works we create.
A blanket statement that all non-GPL software products are "tainted" just harms programmers in relation to other professions (writers, artists, journalists) that can feed their families through controlled distribution of their original works.
Re:Selling but not demanding payment
by
MAXOMENOS
·
· Score: 2
It is a purely academic distinction. Honestly, people simply DON"T pay for GPLed software.
Well that depends, doesn't it? I paid three bucks for a copy of Mandrake 8.0 GPL edition from Cheapbytes. Am I paying for the software, or am I paying Cheapbytes for the service of putting it on a CD-ROM?
If I buy a copy of Mandrake 8.0 from Mandrake herself, for $50 (or whatever), am I paying for the GPL software AND the proprietary software (and other stuff), or just for the proprietary software (and other stuff)?
You might be right; maybe people don't pay for the GPL software; instead they're paying for services rendered or for documentation or for the pretty packaging or something else. But they're paying for something, and that says a lot in my mind.
Re:Lawyer: Keep in mind . . .
by
IntlHarvester
·
· Score: 2
Thanks for your response, which as usual is very well stated.
IANAL, but as Bruce Perens has repeatedly pointed out, intent goes a long way into making the linking situation more clear, at least until you hit the network interface.
But it's entirely unclear what the intent of the "major component of the operating system" clause is once you get past a typical 1980s-style Unix system. Having built in object brokers (COM+) and virtual machines (Java) and add-on compilers (VC) and API personalities (Interix) don't help. And I'm really just throwing logs into the GPL v3 fire on that issue alone. --
Still, a GPL program that says "obtain MSVCP70.DLL somehow" on it's face seems to defy the licence. As does a GPL program that requires the Borland compiler, or a Java 2 program on a platform which doesn't ship with Java 2.
Generally the way the GPL has dealt with this has been to require a specific exception from the author in addition to the licence. If this exception is missing (see KDE), people freak, and it also prevents the author from using standard GPL code without the exception.
And if an implied or explicit compiler library exception is OK, why isn't one for "Money Guzzler Inc."'s libraries?
Likewise, does it really help the cause of Free Software to (say) prohibit GPL plug-ins for Netscape?
Saying "this is effectively that" probably doesn't hold contract law water, so hopefully GPL3 will deal with these issues in a flexible manner. --
I'm writting a Windows application with Microsoft Visual C++ and I will be releasing it under the GPL. Is dynamically linking my program with the Visual C++ run-time library permitted under the GPL?
Yes, because that run-time library normally accompanies the compiler you are using
So even though the VC runtimes aren't "a major component of the operating system", because they are distributed seperately, according to this I can still use them.
Can I use the GPL for a plug-in for a non-free program?
If the program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate programs, so the license for the main program makes no requirements for them. So you can use the GPL for a plug-in, and there are no special requirements.
OK, so I can't turn VirtuaDub into COM component. But if I register it with COM+ and run it in a seperate process, then it's OK?
I'd like to modify GPL-covered programs and link them with the portability libraries from Money Guzzler Inc. I cannot distribute the source code for these libraries, so any user who wanted to change these versions would have to buy those libraries. Why doesn't the GPL permit this?
So I can use operating system runtimes, and Visual C++ runtimes, but I can't use 3rd party runtimes that don't happen to ship with a compiler. I take from this I probably could write a J2SE GPL application (using included libraries) but not a J2EE version (which might be from a 3rd party). So, the question is -- Is Microsoft's GPLed software shipping with Interix legal?!? --
"So even though the VC runtimes aren't "a major component of the operating system", because they are distributed seperately, according to this I can still use them. "
When you bought VC you got the right to distribute these runtimes royalty free. It's up to as the copyright holder to dictate the terms of their use.
"But if I register it with COM+ and run it in a seperate process, then it's OK?"
A tougher call. I think the intent of the fork and exec was to pipe to other stand alone programs. RMS did not intend to hold you to the GPL if you did shell and executed a program and then capture the results. My take is that a COM object is not really a stand alone program and therefore might not fit under description. It's a close call though.
As in most legal disputes intent plays a major role. The intent of the copyright holder and the intent of the supposed violator will be a huge factor when the case goes to court.
I would think that it would depend on how tightly the two were integrated. Clearly the intent of the GPL is that if you use GPL software to build your product and you distribute it then you have to GPL your stuff. If you are building a COM object because you want to circumvent the license then a court might find against you. According to the FAQ it will be up to a judge to decide what constitutes extension and integration.
So you mean VC has a viral aspect of it too. It's impossible to create GPLed software using VC and quite possibly it's impossible to create GPLed software for windows.
Most of the C runtime DLLs are distributed with the OS (with the exception of the C++ STL stuff on Windows 95...grrr...but that's just because it wasn't around back then.).
Do a "dir c:\winnt\system32\MSV*.*" on a fresh install and you'll see them there.
Since they ship with the OS, obviously Microsoft considers them an OS component.
The way they have worked in the past is to include the dlls in every damn application and/or service pack they release, and to keep them backward compatible enough (yeah, right) to, in theory, allow programs to work with older versions.
Sometimes they introduce a new one, like the C++ STL runtime that was introduced after Win95. In such cases, they are so aggressive at getting it out in other applications that it is near impossible to find a machine without it. Installing nearly any Microsoft product will put it there.
I'm not so sure that COM objects fall into the category of a dynamic library. Granted, the code lives in DLL's, but it is a wholly individual package. The object could be used from almost any Windows scripting language and almost any Windows compiled language. Its execution is therefore independent, more like the allowed fork & exec, than a function call.
Furthermore, what about SOAP calls? If a program used a remote SOAP method from an object that may have been placed under GPL, it is unreasonable to say that the program using the remote object must be GPL as well. Again, it fits the fork & exec model more than a function call in to a dynamically loaded library.
Here's the thing I think many/.ers are missing: When you get a compiler the liscence gives you explicit rights to make use of the inclided libraries in your programs. For example, I have a copy of Inprise C-Builder and they have 2 different liscences for the different DLLs. Some of the DLLs, they permit unlimited use of. You may distribute them with your programs with no royalites. However some DLLs, like many of the database DLLs you may NOT distribute freely. The idea is that you're using the C-builder to write a database interface taht is only going to run on the server. So you can send off your executable code, but you can't pack the DLLs with it. If someone wants to use it, they'll need to install C-builder (or maybe just Interdev) on the box they intend it for. They also have some other restrictions on what you can and can't do. For example, most if not all of the compiler libraries also come with their full source code, incase you want to change them around. However you may NOT distribute the source, even for the DLLs that you can distribute.
This is no different than most other libraries. For example, Microsoft gives you permission to use and distribute the DirectX libraries without royalties. However some companies have DLL/ActiveX controls that they want royalties for. You have to pay a one time fee, a per copy sold, or both. So what it all boils down to is that the copyright holder (the programmer) has the right to make just about any rules they like for their program. The only right you have by default is to use all the code/DLLs for your personal use. If they grant you additional right, the so be it, however if restrictions come with those you have to take them too.
So, how does this apply to the GPL situation here? Well basically if you decide to use GPL'd code in your program, you need to release the code to your program. The reason is, of course, you do not have permission to distribute the program otherwise. If you distribute the program without distrubiting the source, you've violated teh GPL. Since you've done that you now have nothing that grants you the right to distribute the software, and you're violating copyright law.
So, yes this does mean that Microsoft could decide to charge ryaloties for any and all programs made with Visual C++. However if they did, you'd jsut see everyone jump ship to an alternate compiler like CBuilder.
Now, of course this is just my take on thing, the courts may decide differently.
OK, so I can't turn VirtuaDub into COM component. But if I register it with COM+ and run it in a seperate process, then it's OK?
I think this is where the GPL really starts to break down. If you create something as an out of process COM server then it lives in its own exe and its own process space. This seems to me to be closer to the fork()/exec() model and not covered under the GPL. The interesting part of this is the client doesn't notice the difference between an in-process COM server and an out of process server. The Windows COM libs take care of all the details. Given that inproc/out of proc are the same in the client it seems somewhat pointless to distinguish between them in the GPL. Also there is the fact that if the COM server has a type library built in to it your app never needs to see any headers from the GPL'd code. Visual Studio has a wizard to extract the info from a type library and create the headers on the fly for you.
The GPL doesn't force anyone to give anything away for free. If you honestly believe this, and you've actually *read* the GPL, than you're just stupid.
I'm going to assume that you're not stupid and just haven't read the GPL. So, the abridged version:
You can charge whatever you want for distributing a GPL'd program, you just can't restrict those people from redistributing it (under the GPL).
Moreover, you can charge someone whatever you want to write a GPL'd program.
Also, a tip about how the world works: programmers don't, in general, get paid for re-inventing the wheel over and over again. Once one programmer invents the wheel, he writes it in library form for others to use, and they then have to do things like put wheels together to make mobile vehicles.
So the fact that software that does a particular task exists for free isn't relevant. If the software exists, it will probably be used in preference to custom-written software anyhow.
Custom-written software is for when something doesn't exist quite the way that someone wants it to. Then they find a programmer and pay them to make it work the way that they want it to.
The fact that afterwards they might release it for free doesn't change anything.
This basically all hinges on the fact that there are an almost infinite number of problems available for humans to try to solve. Once they solve some problems, it's just made other problems accessable now. Once those problems are solved, more have become accessable, and so on into infinity.
Programmers get paid because people want these new problems solved. Once the world runs out of new problems to solve, programmers will be out of work and no amount of proprietary licensing is going to change this.
-- They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
Re:Some people always want what they don't have ..
by
ethereal
·
· Score: 1
I've submitted modifications to two open source products, but unfortunately my changes have only been picked up by one:(.
That's one of the reasons that I don't use the other product now - if a maintainer rejects an (IMHO at least) perfectly reasonable bug fix just because "hardly anyone will see that error", then what other useful bug fixes have they rejected? I can't tell anyone else how to run their projects, but if I can't get a good explanation for why a submitted bug fix wasn't accepted, then I acknowledge that I'm probably not a valued contributor to such a project, and I move on to more productive pursuits.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
their "ethical position" is that selling people
useful software is evil.
Not at all - AFAIK, RMS et al. have no problems with RedHat, SuSe, or Debian selling people useful free software. As has been wisely pointed out above, their position is that providing software without the source code and the right to make and distribute changes is unethical.
The GPL is not about gaining some consideration for use, but denying a certain use to a certain group. It is
designed purely as a deliberate attack on proprietary software developers.
It denies a certain use, which would by default be denied anyway under a normal software license, to a certain class of developers who are only interested in profiting off of the free software community. Any software developer who is willing to give back to the community is allowed additional rights to GPL'd software that would not be otherwise available to them.
they deliberately
prohibit the use it's wanted for.
TANSTAAFL (look it up). Heaven forbid we deny proprietary software developers anything that they want...
By traditional contract standards, this is not at all reasonable.
That's good, because the GPL isn't a contract, it's a license. You don't even have to accept the license in order to use the software, so it's still a more open licensing scheme than almost all proprietary software.
It's not an offer of contract in good faith, it's an attempt to place something essentially in the public domain, except
restricted from the use of people and businesses they are politically opposed to. The other party can hardly be
blamed for not treating it as a sincere attempt at a mutually-agreeable arrangement.
If the FSF feels politically opposed to someone using their work without contributing back something of their own, then they are entirely within their rights to take that position - a position which isn't particularly unreasonable, either. The other party can hardly bitch if they were planning to pull a fast one using GPL'd code, and are now being required to give back something in exchange for all the benefits they've gained from using other peoples' code. The GPL enforces a mutual exchange of code as opposed to what would otherwise be a unilateral taking code without giving anything back. "Our code for your code" sounds pretty mutually even-handed, but if you don't like those terms, don't use our code and quit whining about it.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Re:How the FSF gets around the GPL...
by
Sloppy
·
· Score: 2
Why does the FSF require that contributors to FSF-copyrighted programs assign copyright to the FSF?
If I hold copyright on a GPL'ed program, should I do this, too?
They do it so that there is a single copyright owner, so that owner can enforce.
If you own the copyright to a GPL program and want to incorporate other peoples' patches into it and rerelease it, then you should have everyone sign the copyright to those patches over to you. (Or have everyone, including you, sign their code over to FSF.) The idea is to have one owner of the program.
Our lawyers have told us that to be in the best position to enforce the GPL in court against violators, we should keep the copyright status of the program as simple as possible. We do this by asking each contributor to either assign the copyright on his contribution to the FSF, or disclaim copyright on it and thus put it in the public domain.
It sounds like you're not doing what your lawyers suggested. Having a program where parts of it are owned by you, parts are owned by FSF, and parts are public domain, doesn't seem like a "simple as possible" copyright status.
---
-- As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Just suppose the outrage here on/. if MS snarfed up some of the GCC code, and slammed it together with some Beowulf supporting software, modified the mess to make it taste better and started running Windows XP compile farms on it.
If the compile farm was for Microsoft's internal use, I don't think there would be a significant amount of outrage.
If the compile farm was available to other parties (e.g. anyone on the Internet) then you do indeed get into the interesting case of "public performance." It's coming up a lot with ASPs. This does appear to be one of the things on RMS' mind that will be addressed somehow in GPL version 3. IMHO, there is no elegant way to handle this and I think RMS is going to have a hard time.
A company contracts to write software for another firm. The copyright of the software is specified by contract to reside with the hiring firm. The hiring firm desires the software for internal use (perhaps a bank is hiring a software company to develop its transaction system). The software company is perfectly able to use GNU GPL'd source in this application, modify it, AND NOT RELEASE IT. There is never a release of the software since the copyright holder is a legal entity, no more so than if I modify software for my own use and never give it to anyone.
There is nothing wrong with this scenario, and it should not generate outrage. The purpose of GPL is maximize the rights of users. In the your scenario, the user's rights are indeed maximized, since the bank has the source code.
It is ok that the bank does not release the source code to anyone else, because there isn't anyone else being "held hostage" by their dependence on the binary.
---
-- As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
why the GPL is, strangely enough, not a contract
by
sethg
·
· Score: 2
I don't see what makes you say that the GPL is "not a contract". It's not just a "waiver of rights" on
the part of the author, it's a list of rights and obligations for both the author and the user of the
GPL'ed software.
At least two things make the GPL not a contract (at least, not according to the US legal system's definition of "contract"):
A contract requires an explicit offer and acceptance. For example, if you go to a restaurant and see "Hamburger, $10.00", and you tell the waiter, "I'll have a hamburger", you and the restaurant have entered into a contract; they offered a hamburger for ten bucks, and you accepted the offer. You don't have to accept the terms of the GPL -- or even read them -- in order to receive a GPLed program. But if you violate the terms of the GPL and then try to claim, "I didn't know this was GPLed software, I never read the LICENSE file", the judge can say, "Even if you didn't know it was GPLed, you should have known it was copyrighted, and you should have known that if you didn't have some kind of permission from the copyright-holder, you weren't allowed to distribute copies or derivative works at all. Guilty!"
A contract requires an exchange. If I say, "I promise to give you $20 next week, on the condition that you spend $10 of it on a hamburger", and you say "OK", there is no contract between us, because you have not actually given me anything in exchange. The conditional waiver of rights in the GPL is like this. When the FSF says "if you write a work based on GCC, you must distribute it with a GPL-compatible license", it feels like you are giving something to the FSF by distributing your GCC derivative under the GPL instead of locking up the source and selling binaries for thousands of dollars a copy. However, from a legal point of view, it's the other way around: since the copyright holder has the right to control derivative works, the FSF is doing you a favor by letting you distribute your GCC derivative at all. Since you're not giving anything that the FSF doesn't have the legal right to take, there's no exchange and no contract.
--
--
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
Re:Problem with the FAQ...
by
alienmole
·
· Score: 1
Why can't the author of GPL'd software assign power of attorney (or something similar) over their copyright to the FSF? That would seem to better retain the spirit of credit where credit is due, not to mention allow the author to retain control over use of her code for other purposes.
The Difference Between a Contract and a License
by
Royster
·
· Score: 2
A contract has to have several elements in order to be a contract. These are (a) a 'meeting of the minds' or an agreement, (b) consideration (c) offer and acceptance and (d) mutuality of obligations.
From the FindLaw Legal Dictionary Contract: an agreement between two or more parties that creates in each party a duty to do or not do something and a right to performance of the other's duty or a remedy for the breach of the other's duty.
License: a grant by the holder of a copyright or patent to another of any of the rights embodied in the copyright or patent short of an assignment of all rights.
A license is different from a contract. It is a grant of rights which dosn't need to be made for consideration. Implicit in a license is that the rights granted are rights reserved to to grantor.
The GPL is a license and not a contract. There is no consideration, the rights granted are gratis even though they come with limitations.
-- I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
GPL is not about technology, it is about social change.
And this comes as a surprise to you? It says right in the license itself that it's all about freedom, and that this goal represents a change from the standard proprietary practices.
Some believe this freedom will lead to technical excellence, because the code that one person writes can be studied, improved, and built upon by others without restriction. "We stand on the shoulders of giants" is the goal. Others disagree, as you seem to. This is an arguement for another thread.
BTW, your reply here has nothing to do with the parent post. Freedom IS the added value under consideration, regardless of possible or real technical merits. Go to your local bookstore and buy a book to learn how to properly refute a point.
As for your original post, the scenario makes perfect sense to me. If you want to require payment from every user or whatever, then don't use the GPL because it grants distribution rights you'd rather keep. If you want to require payment from every subsequent user of something you recieved under the GPL, then you're screwed up in the head. The GPL doesn't care about you making money. If that's all you care about, look elsewhere.
-----
--
--
perl -e'$_=shift;die eval' '"$^X $0\047\$_=shift;die eval\047 \047$_\047"' at -e line 1.
You can do this just fine..
by
mindstrm
·
· Score: 2
It says right in the GPL, if you are distributing unmodified binaries from someone else in a noncommercial fashion, you don't have to do anything.
So it's safe to give cousin in Yemen a copy of the software, and he can get the source himself.
This is permisive rather than restrictive
by
Hugonz
·
· Score: 1
You have to taake into consideration the main purpose of the license, which is to produce free software that stays free. One of the best stimulus for spreading software is to allow someone to profit from it.
This aspect of the GPL should not be viewed in the restrictive sense, but taking into consideration that "this software must stay Free, however, we do not keep anyone from making commercial use and distribution" They could as well have included a "non-commercial only clause" and so "Linux" distributors could not make a living by selling CD's, they would have to give them away, which prevents success for Free Software.
I don't see why people are afraid of the GPL. It's a COPYRIGHT license. It uses copyrights, not patents. If you see a piece of GPLed code that you like, rewrite it, that'll make it yours.
I can see a point where 95% of the software is GPLed, because it's so damned easy to write an application when you can borrow code. But that last 5%? That'll be by people who don't like the GPL, or who for some reason want or need closed source software.
They'll still be able to write closed-source software, by not using any GPLed code. It's only a problem if they feel they have to use someone else's code.
But, really, I don't care that some company can't copy GPLed code - wah... (I don't really care about them copying my GPLed code, I write (when not at work) silly fractal zoomers and filesystems for emulators... Not exactly big-buck stuff.)
Re:Copyright holder question
by
Webmonger
·
· Score: 2
In order to retain copyright over the program, you should request bug-fixers to assign their copyright to you.
On the other hand, if it's more like a collaboration than accepting a bug-fix or two, then you probably shouldn't have the right to dual-license it-- imagine how many people would be pissed if Linus dual-licensed the Linux kernel. IIRC, Linus doesn't ask collaborators to assign their copyright to him, so he doesn't have the right to dual-license it.
Then, of course, there's the grey bits in between.
The GNU GPL requires a enourmous FAQ just to lay the ground rules. I think many people sign up using the GNU GPL without thinking of the implications - it's less a license and more a social movement. There should be a question in that FAQ, "What will the world be like if all software is GNU GPL?" (which is the intent of the GNU GPL given it's virus-like design). And, anyone applying the GNU GPL to their code is implicity agreeing with the philosophy and conclusions of that question. A pervasive GNU GPL would affect our freedom of choice, freedom of expression, and privacy - and the conclusions may not be what you expect. So, at a minimum, users of the GNU GPL should at least think through those issues. And, most don't.
The BSD license, on the other hand, is just that, a license and not a forced social movement. It doesn't try to modify behavior. Because it has fewer overall social implications, it's easier to understand. Consequently, it requires only the most trivial FAQ.
Question 1:
Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?
Answer: Yes
And anyone can do this; otherwise, the more commercially-oriented Linux distributors would be s-c-r-e-w-e-d. I can sell, say, GNU tar and some related utilities to my bud Roger for $10, with the source.
Question 2:
Does the GPL allow me to require that anyone who receives the software must pay me a fee and/or notify me?
Answer: No
In short, if I give a copy of GNU tar to Roger, the FSF can't go after Roger for money, especially if I made certain modifications to GNU tar that I didn't hand back to the FSF, but I did make available under the terms of the GPL should the FSF care enough to incorporate them on their own. Once again, the concept behind the GPL is to promote and enforce the availability of the code to users, forever. Allowing the copyright holder to run around to every user of the software, even those who received the software from a completely different source, would go a long way to closing code back up by attaching financial requirements to all users of the software, not to mention a bureaucratic nightmare for everyone involved.
It is simply silly to allow people to sell software but prohibit them from trying to enforce payment for that software. However you look at it simply doesn't make sense.
You're looking at this from a purely commercial perspective. A company may wish to sell a GPL'd piece of software they wrote, and include a value-add to encourage people to get the software from them - exclusive on-site tech support, fridge magnets, bonus copies of proprietary software, something, anything. The developer, individual or company, may wish to make some money where they can, but still make it possible for users to spread and improve the software. And again, remember that the GPL is written with the primary intent of keeping source code available at all times, not with helping create the next Cisco or Microsoft. Not everyone's driven purely by the desire to make a buck at any cost:)
--
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Re:These are not contradictory
by
__aaahtg7394
·
· Score: 1
In short, if I give a copy of GNU tar to Roger, the FSF can't go after Roger for money, especially if I made certain modifications to GNU tar that I didn't hand back to the FSF, but I did make available under the terms of the GPL should the FSF care enough to incorporate them on their own. Once again, the concept behind the GPL is to promote and enforce the availability of the code to users, forever.
Also, keep in mind that you don't have to give the code to the FSF under the GPL, only to Roger. What Roger then does with it is nobody's business but Roger's under the GPL. You are required to give the code to _users_(licensees, actually), but not to the world at large. You must also give your users the freedom to do what they will with it, including releasing it to the world.
-jbm, who has spent far too much time staring at the GPL for a layman.
Re:Some people always want what they don't have ..
by
harlan
·
· Score: 1
The reason the free software doesn't need fixing is because someone already scratched the itch you would get -- because they could.
No one was able to stratch the itches when the source wasn't availible, which is why you feel the need to.
There is nothing wrong with improving the wording of your contract as the legal and technological landscape changes. I would rather have this situation then to have a useless license that is obselete because someone invented a new technology.
Reading the GPL and taking into account the context of it being written in 1984, it seems that RMS was wanting to allow "standalone" component software which was GPL'd to be called from a non-GPL program (by the example given in the license of piping and capturing stdout).
From this you could make a pretty convincing legal argument that a COM/KOM/CORBA/Whatever component is separate from it's calling program for the purposes of the GPL. As a quick example, many non-free tools may break if sed and awk are not available on the system because they use them as components in their processing line - note that they are not optional but necessary for the nonfree program to run.
In a similar way if I pipe the output of an MP3 from my proprietary program through a command line mp3dec to get the audio stream out the other end then I am not breaking the GPL. The mp3dec program is just a component in my system.
Now if I use different middleware (COM) instead of pipes then I'm doing effectively the same thing - separate processes, no break of GPL.
Of course the real question now is where do you draw the line. If COM decided to load the component in the same process as my proprietary application then my INTENT is exactly the same: I'm simply using the features of the program in the same way a dev tool uses sed and awk. The technicalities are different, but I'd be surprised to see it being different in a legal sense - in both cases one set of code is simply using (and critically depends on) features of another set of code. The free code could be replaced by non-free code if required with NO modification to the original (not even a recompile) and so it would be hard to assert the proprietary code being a derivative work.
What does this mean? Ultimately it could mean that linking through middleware is ok, hence linking via COM is ok, hence running in the same process is ok, which effectively reduces the GPL to the LGPL.
THAT is scary. As many people have pointed out, what really matters is the INTENT and not the technical details. This may indeed be the downfall of the GPL!
[Of course IANAL and in the end, I am often prone to attacks of stupidity so slap me down if I need it]
--
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
Re:This may be obvious but...
by
mark.odonohue
·
· Score: 1
It's interesting and I agree with the variety and don't see these licences as conflicting but as complementary.
I personally subscribe to the GPL not because I subscribe to the social change thing (that's a bit much to ask of software) but as a self protection thing so my code, and code derived from my code remains in the public domain rather than picked up and exploited by someone like BILL$, LARRY$ or the millions who would like to emulate them.
The GPL isn't about freedom. It's about forced openness, right in the FSF's own words.
Freedom to live in peace => forced non-violence.
Freedom to use, modify and distribute software => forced non-closedness.
The only way you can ever guarantee some freedoms is by restricting other, hopefully more unreasonable, freedoms.
--
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Where to place copyright messages in code?
by
otterfish
·
· Score: 1
One thing I am unsure of is how to credit everyone 's work with copyright messages when there are multiple contributers?
The "How to use the GPL or LGPL" says:
If you have copied code from other programs covered by the same license, copy their copyright notices too. Put all the copyright notices together, right near the top of each file.
But if I modify some GPL'ed code how do I indicate which bit of the code is copyright to me without going nuts with//s everywhere. Is it important to show which bits of code belong to who?
If it were a small change or a simple bug fix I really wouldn't care but on a major change/addition to another author/programmer's work I think it would be important to distinguish who did what.
Any ideas?
Re:Why isn't the GPL more specific?
by
QuantumG
·
· Score: 1
I think all the concessions should be removed and simple replaced with the statements:
You must distribute source code with binaries to this program.
All software distributed with this program must be licensed under this license.
You may not restrict the distribution of this software in any other way.
EOF.
-- How we know is more important than what we know.
Re:Copyright holder question
by
QuantumG
·
· Score: 1
fuck that, you just close it and if anyone complains you buy them off, and if they refuse to be bought off you reverse their bug fix, wait for someone to complain about the bug and fix it yourself. Bug fixes, pfft. Now if someone has done significant functionality then you're fucked.
-- How we know is more important than what we know.
Re:A Simple Business Model
by
QuantumG
·
· Score: 1
winzip is the most popular piece of shareware on the net and it contains nag features that no-one even bothers to crack (and a lot of people pay for, dont ask me why). Modify it, yes, re-release it, maybe to their friends, but not to the world.
-- How we know is more important than what we know.
Re:A Simple Business Model
by
QuantumG
·
· Score: 1
great. So why cant something similar be open source?
-- How we know is more important than what we know.
Re:With slight modification...
by
QuantumG
·
· Score: 1
Well I was going for intent, and I was following the Christian commandments. No 10 is stated here, and in the context of licenses I think it is analogous.
-- How we know is more important than what we know.
You dont even have to put it on an anonymous ftp site. Hell, if you distribute the source code on the cds that you sell you dont even have to supply an alternative way to distribute the source. I see absolutely no problem with selling GPL software on CD. Sure, some people will put your software on an anonymous ftp site and allow downloads, but there are plenty more people who will pay for the CD.
-- How we know is more important than what we know.
Hmm. I just had a brainstorm. You know shareware, or should I say nagware. You get a program, it constantly bugs you to register (ie, pay money). It bugs you day and night but you just ignore it. A few people actually get sick of this and pay the money to make it go away. I hear some people even feel guilty about this little box popping up and pay to make it go away. So if that is a valid business model (and I'm not saying it is) then what's wrong with doing the same thing with Free Software. You cant say "you have used this product for 30 days, you must now pay me" but you can say "you are getting a lot of use out of this product, please fork me cash".. you are not demanding money, you're just requesting it. Sure, people are gunna get pissed off and go and grab the source code and take out the annoying nag box, but so what? Isn't it developers that we specifically want to grab the source? If you can fix the source so the nag box doesn't come up then surely you can fix a few bugs, implement some new features, whatever, and contribute that back to the project. Developers have paid for the software with their contribution of code, and end users (well, at least some of them) have contributed with cash. Isn't that the best of both worlds?
-- How we know is more important than what we know.
Re:A Simple Business Model
by
mghiggins
·
· Score: 1
> But all it takes is one developer to remove the nag box, then everyone gets the program from that developer.
In principle, yes, but in practise people will still want to get a program directly from its (relatively) trusted developers, not some random ftp site.
The people who'd download it from that one developer are probably the same people who could hack the nag box out of the code anyway.
-- All opinions expressed herein are not my own; I haven't had free will since last year when aliens ate my brain.
Re:A Simple Business Model
by
Boiled+Frog
·
· Score: 1
I think that the reason that people buy WinZip is that it's a very sophisticated piece of software that people can get a lot of use from and it doesn't cost too much money.
This is an interesting idea, but I sure hope it never happens. It just doesn't seem to fit with the spirit of free software.
And I refuse, (when humanly possible) to use nagware/shareware. Dealing with popup boxes and "shareware delays" just plain sucks. If your software nags users then it sucks and people aren't going to use it or they'll just modify it and re-release it.
With slight modification...
by
QuantumG
·
· Score: 5
While we're at it, let's toss out the legal system and switch over to the ten commandments. Ok......
This is your license, you shall have no other licenses before it.
You shall not make binaries without accompanying it with source.
Do not take the name of the GPL unless you really mean it.
Remember the source and value it above all things.
Honor your source and your freedom to modify it.
Do not close the source.
Do not link with unfree source.
Do not rip code without due credit.
Do not break the license or try to weasel out of it.
Respect other people's licenses as they respect yours.
-- How we know is more important than what we know.
Re:With slight modification...
by
GeneOff
·
· Score: 1
Hey....Commandment 10 is actually the Golden Rule!
Shouldn't the last one be:
10. Do not covet the porches of thy rich neighbor who works for Microsoft, do not covet his swimsuit model wife, or his butler or his daughter's pony or anything of your rich neighbor's just be cause you are lowly paid Open Source programmer.
Then do not release the program under the GPL. I got the impression from the faq that:
a) you could definitely release the program under different licenses.
b) non-free software is bad.
Well, if you really want to sell it, release it under GPL after you collect your fee. Make sure you allow that you may release it under GPL in the original license. In a way, you are then charging for the first crack at it. It does not seem like a problem to release it under a non-gpl license (that maintains your right to GPL it later.)
if you want to receive financial retribution from the distribution of your software, don't use an open source license, heh. all this says is you are allowed to sell what you've GPL'd without going against the GPL, makes perfect sense to me.
Re:C/C++ gurus need help here
by
ReconRich
·
· Score: 1
I think you mean LGPL'ed code:-) The LGPL contains a specific exclusion for this, allowing you to include the LGPL'ed headers into non--GPL code. If you really do mean GPL, then no way, no how can you include it in ANYTHING other than GPL'ed code, not even LGPL'ed code.
-- Rich
-- Free your mind and your Ass will follow
-- George Clinton
Problem with the FAQ...
by
psychonaut
·
· Score: 3
From the FAQ:
Why does the FSF require that contributors to FSF-copyrighted programs assign copyright to the FSF? If I hold
copyright on a GPL'ed program, should I do this, too? If so, how?
Our lawyers have told us that to be in the best position to enforce the GPL in court against violators, we should keep
the copyright status of the program as simple as possible. We do this by asking each contributor to either assign the
copyright on his contribution to the FSF, or disclaim copyright on it and thus put it in the public domain.
They seem to be missing an important point here. If everyone's contribution is placed in the public domain, then the GPL licence cannot be enforced. Anybody who wanted to could take the public domain code and incorporate it into their proprietary system without legal repercussions. What they are suggesting works only for relatively tiny public-domain contributions to a relatively large GPLed project.
If everyone's contribution is placed in the public domain, then the GPL licence cannot be enforced.
Indeed. In fact, that very thing is said right here:
The simplest way to make a program free is to put it in the public domain. Then people who get it from sharers can share it with others. But this also allows bad citizens to do what they like to do: sell binary-only versions under typical don't-share-with-your-neighbor licenses.
Strange.. almost like they didn't read their own philosophy pages.
Ryan T. Sammartino
--
Ryan T. Sammartino "Ancora imparo"
possible confusing part in FAQ
by
Freedom+Bug
·
· Score: 2
RE: I want to distribute binaries of a GPL-covered program without accompanying sources. Instead of sending source code later to users who order it, can I just put the source on an Internet server?
I assume that this doesn't apply to the case where I put the binaries & source on the Internet, Jane Doe downloads it off of the internet, gives it to her brother John who lives at the north pole without internet access. It's Jane who has the responsibility to get John the source, not me, right?
Basically, I believe it means that you should probably be prepared to distribute source every way you distribute binaries. If you ship floppies full of binaries in the mail, expect to ship floppies full of source. If you don't, don't worry about it.
This answer should be clarified, I think.
Re:possible confusing part in FAQ
by
djmurdoch
·
· Score: 1
I assume that this doesn't apply to the case where I put the binaries & source on the Internet, Jane Doe downloads it off of the internet, gives it to her brother John who lives at the north pole without internet access. It's Jane who has the responsibility to get John the source, not me, right?
I think your assumption is wrong. The answer to that FAQ says so:
You are welcome to make the source code for any version of GPL-covered software available by anonymous FTP, but this is not sufficient to satisfy section 3 of the GPL.
When a user says he wants the source, you have to make sure to get the source to that user.
What this means is that you do have an obligation to send the source to the north pole. However, you are allowed to charge reasonable costs for doing so. It shouldn't be a financial burden, but it is an obligation.
Re:OT, was Re:Selling but not demanding payment
by
fanatic
·
· Score: 2
Yeah, as if cars had seatbelts back in the 1940s.
It's a quote from "The Matrix" - DUH!.
BTW, if you're going to go offtopic and flamey at someone's sig, don't do it at score 2.
OT was intended to show Off topic (too bad the moderators were too dumb to catch that one. Oh well....). And I post at 2 because that's where slashcode puts me, based on my Karma, tho as an AC you probably wouldn't know about that.
--
-- "that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
Why does the FSF require that contributors to FSF-copyrighted programs assign copyright to the FSF?
If I hold copyright on a GPL'ed program, should I do this, too? If so, how?
Our lawyers have told us that to be in the best position to enforce the GPL in court against violators, we should keep the copyright status of the program as simple as possible. We do this by asking each contributor to either assign the copyright on his contribution to the FSF, or disclaim copyright on it and thus put it in the public domain.
So, what the FSF is saying is that if you contribute to our software, you give up your rights to whatever you write. This does not seem in line with Free Software. In fact, in the FAQ it states that you should get credit for what you have written and include a copyright notice.
The closer I read this FAQ, the more I think about releasing my software under a different license.
Consider this situation:
X releases V1 of a project under the GPL.
Y contributes to the development of V2 with changes and new code based on V1.
X wants to switch to a non-GPL license.
Does X need Y's permission?
Yes. Y was required to release its version under the GNU GPL, as a consequence of basing it on X's version V1. Nothing required Y to agree to any other license for its code. Therefore, X must get Y's permission before releasing the code under another license.
Of course, if X is the Free Software Foundation, they wouldn't ask for Y's permission. Instead they would request that Y give up all rights they have to the software they wrote.
No, because the FSF are doing exactly what they suggest, ie getting the permission of contributors to FSF code before making changes to the licence. In this case, the permission part is done by making a condition of having contributions be a part of the "official" FSF release have their copyrights transfered over to the FSF.
...which is probably the only viable way of making sure the licence control remains with the maintainer of the code for any large project, as it should be.
Also be aware that there is a different between FSF/GNU code and GPL'd code. If you release something under the GPL, it is your code. You may do with it whatever you want, including change the licence. You can choose whether or not to accept modifications to your officially maintained version of the code, and if so what restrictions to place on such modifications - ie should the author of the modifications give up their copyrights, keep in touch with you, etc, etc.
If a contributor doesn't want to transfer the copyright to you, they have the right, because the GPL allows it, to release their own version of your program with their modifications. They don't have to submit the changes to you.
For a real life example of this happening, which involves the FSF and GNU software, see the history of XEmacs (formerly Lucid Emacs.) The original program, GNU Emacs, was copyrighted by the FSF, and Stallman wanted to make sure all modifications were also copyrighted by the FSF to make it easier to protect the copyrights of the entire package. The authors of the modifications that begat Lucid Emacs didn't want to give up those rights, so they released, and are maintaining, their own version. That version is GPL protected, and if the FSF were, erm, bought by Microsoft-AOL-Time-Warner-Fox-Worldcom tomorrow and told that no new versions of EMACS should be released under the GPL, it wouldn't affect XEmacs in the slightest.
(Which is somewhat ironic as I know both parties in the XEmacs/GNU Emacs saga are unhappy about the situation, but it does have the side effect of making it much more difficult for up-to-date versions of EMACS to ever be removed from free circulation.)
--
If you ask that all bug fixes have the rights signed over to you/the company you create to hold the software copyright, then you/your firm hold the rights to re-license later.
Otherwise, you have to track down EACH bug-submitter, and ask for permission. If you don't, you might get a 'violate the GPL' post here on/. Or, perhaps an actual, real live lawsuit, is one of the submitters has the balls to do that.
No. It makes it more difficult to sell shrink-wrapped style software for money, especially commodity goods.
I own none of the rights to any of the software I have ever written. But I've been able to make plenty of money writing software. My current company usually does not hold the rights to the software it develops.
Most of the companies I've written code for do not sell software. They sell hardware, provide consulting services, or use the applications internally.
Most of the code written by all developers is not for shrink-wrapped products. Most of the code written is for business specific applications, frequently by a team of in-house developers who get paid quite handsomely. And if the company does not re-sell that software, the issue of the GPL is moot to them.
But yes, commodity software, such as the Unix OS and supporting utilities, CD rip and burn software, web browsers, etc. will eventually have very low profit margins (regardless of the GPL.) It's too easy for someone to reimplement and undercut your prices if you have significant margins. Because distribution costs are so low for software, once someone has developed the product, there is little incentive to not compete on price.
But again, contrary to the impression you get by walking through the software aisle of your favorite computer store, that isn't what most software engineers are doing for a living. And for many of categories of developers, the GPL does not significantly limit their freedoms.
Re:RMS as inflammatory as ever.
by
santeri
·
· Score: 1
This is the same-old I Can't Believe It's Not Communism bullshit...
So IMHO there would be no harm even if FSF would be a Marxist organisation (which it just doesn't seem to be).
______________
-- ______________
OTTERS RULE.
Re:RMS as inflammatory as ever.
by
Steeltoe
·
· Score: 1
No source is unbiased. The trick is to extract what truth you can find, happily ignoring what you think of as biased. This is possible because you know WHO wrote it and WHAT they stand for. A little propaganda never hurts you if you think, and it might even give you some new insights either way.
Re:Copyright holder question
by
he-sk
·
· Score: 2
I have a question. If I am the copyright holder of a program I created, and I accept bug fixes to this program from other people, can I release this program under a dual license later? Do I still own the whole copyright after accepting bug fixes?
Now, I'm certainly no expert on any of the varieties listed, but perhaps there is one that allows the author to collect on profitable usage and distribution of his/her work.
Not sure about that. Looking at the Open Souce Definition you find just at the beginning:
1. Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
Rationale: By constraining the license to require free redistribution, we eliminate the temptation to throw way many long-term gains in order to make a few short-term sales dollars. If we didn't do this, there would be lots of pressure for cooperators to defect.
So, with _any_ OSI-approved licence, you can certainly sell your program, but you cannot prevent others from doing the same, and you cannot
force these others to give you part of what they get by selling your software.
You can _ask_ for money, however, hoping that enough distributors and final users consider honorable and/or convenient feed you with some cash so that you can continue work on your program.
The various 'foundations' behind large software suites/programs get money in this way, I think. OTOH Eazel just tried it at the end of its history and failed (possibly because they did not have an established product yet?).
-- Ciao
----
FB
Re:How to screw the GPL and get away with it
by
bockman
·
· Score: 2
Not really...
--- ACT ONE ---
Here I am, a developer with free time to devote to open source. Ah, what a good DLL you have, and it is GPL, too. Pity the GUI is crap. Let's start a new open-source project for a better GUI, to use your nice DLL.
--- ACT TWO ---
Uhm, if would be nice to change this interface in the DLL, to make it work better with my open-source GUI. What ? This would screw the integration with your own proprietary GUI? Well, that is your problem, not mine. Others open source developers are with me, this is the RIGHT THING(tm) to do. Ah, your company developers will not support this? OK, let's fork the project right now. Good bye!
The only way to control where a piece of free software goes is by owning the majority of the work gone into it. But then, this is just fair.
-- Ciao
----
FB
Re:Selling but not demanding payment
by
-brazil-
·
· Score: 1
That scenario is far from "purely academic", it is in fact, a lot more common than the "Microsoft scenario" of making millions of people pay for the same piece of software.
The majority of programmers work on software built to customer specifications, which is used internally by big companies for things such as work-flow support. Such software is typically relatively useless for everyone but that company. There is never a "licensing system" in such a case - the customer is always given complete ownership rights to the software.
it is not completely unrealistic to release the code under the GPL in such a case, since nobody else is going to pay for it anyway.
--
The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer. --Henry Kissinger
Wrong. It just makes it close to impossible to make money from making software and trying to sell it to many people. If you can get one person (or company) to pay you enough money to sustain you for the software, it works quite well.
--
The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer. --Henry Kissinger
Well, having something on the market , even without any chance of other people learning about inner-workings of this product, is already a contribution for you and millions of other people are able to enjoy benefits of using it.
Pointing out that the public gets something out of the deal is not the same thing as proving that the deal is fair, or the deal that was agreed to. In particular, we the public are not getting from the deal the eventual return to the
public intellectual commons of more than was taken from it. That is not, as you seem to suggest, an element of the equation which we should just shrug and forget about, since companies seem disinclined to honor it; it is highly likely that had that provision not been part of the patent and copyright laws the Founding Fathers instituted, that the US would have had no intellectual property laws.
Unfortunately, it so often happens that what was once accepted grudgingly, as a necessary evil, is with the passage of time mistaken for the point of the enterprise. The notion that it is still allowable for companies to fence off the intellectual commons because at least we have the opportunity to buy it back is... let's just call it an exercise in Advanced Point-Missing.
Why this suspicion and negativity about private enterprise?
Because experience has so often justified it.
Demanding proof that private enterprise has abused the law and the public for its own benefit is like proving that you're surrounded by air: if you can't notice it for yourself, I'm not sure what I could possibly do to make it clearer.
Remember, so far all other attempts at implementing social and economical system different than capitalism failed rather terribly (or in this context, they all turned out to be much less effective at stimulating progress.)
Funny, that's exactly what I don't remember.
-- If people are to respect the law, perhaps the law should begin by respecting the people.
It is simply silly to allow people to sell software but prohibit them from trying to enforce payment for that software. However you look
at it simply doesn't make sense.
Yes, it does, but it doesn't if you can't let go of the cathedral model.
What you're implying is that an honor system, where people take free software and understand their obligations to repay with money, is doomed to failure.
If this is so, then what chance does the other honor system, where enterprises make improvements to the intellectual commons but then contribute back to it, have? At least our culture is such that people thoroughly understand the idea that goods and services are exchanged for money, and that an obligation exists whether or not it's enforced.
But between ridiculously incompetent and venal administration of the patent system and constant overhaul of the copyright system at the direction of moneyed interests, the companies are not only successfully crippling enforcement of their obligation, they're managing to sell the Big Lie that such an obligation never existed.
And that is why the GPL is necessary in the first place: if you claim individual consumers cannot be trusted under an honor system to pay a price they know they owe, how can conglomerates trying to steal a march on their competitors be trusted with a more abstract obligation to contribute to the intellectual commons?
-- If people are to respect the law, perhaps the law should begin by respecting the people.
Quick Question thats not in the FAQ
by
hitchhacker
·
· Score: 1
> 'Why should programs say "Version 2 of the GPL or any later version"?'
Could the FSF add an exception to the GPL at a later date that said something to the effect of: "Microsoft is granted permission to distribute modifications however they chose"?
That would suck...
If its possible, FSF could make tons of money.
From the FAQ:
"Does all GNU software use the GNU GPL as its license?
Most GNU software packages use the GNU GPL, but there are a few programs (and parts of programs) that use looser licenses, such as the Lesser GPL. When we do this, it is a matter of strategy."
copyright, copyleft, copycenter
by
hubertf
·
· Score: 1
I find it mildly disconcerning that I have to read through and (worse) need to understand a 18k file to know what the GPL is about. Looking at the length and complexity of topics covered by the GPL FAQ make me wonder if people putting all their code under the GPL really know what they do.
I'll stick to the Berkeley "go down to the copycenter and make as many copies as you like" license.
- Hubert
Re:copyright, copyleft, copycenter
by
ffub
·
· Score: 1
well seeing as it's a legal document the GPL needs to be clear what you can and cannot do. simply read the above discussions and you will see many attempts at finding loopholes in the license. in order for the license to be very clear about what it is aiming at i think it is justified that it is complicated to an extent.
does it really take that long to read over the license when releasing your software? programmers tend to be quite bright and thus shouldn't find it hard to understand. i managed to read it whilst drinking a cup of tea and understood what the license was about. i think this is time worth taking when ensuring the way my software is used.
OK, so I can't turn VirtuaDub into COM component. But if I register it with COM+ and run it in a seperate process, then it's OK?
This would require COM+ to be GPLed since it uses a "Plugin", say a dynamically linked library which is not executed or forked (the COM+ component is executed)
Since COM+ is not GPLed, registering a GPLed library to COM+ is in violation of the GPL and thus not allowed
There is no way of circumventing the GPL. No Way
Think about it
Re:The Problem With Abbreviations ...
by
DeeKayWon
·
· Score: 2
But it links to a discussion by Richard Stallman, where it's "Library GPL".
From that discussion:
Since the name "Library GPL" conveys the wrong idea about this question, we are planning to change the name to "Lesser GPL."
bullshit. capitalism in it's truest sense is the moral code that promotes individual rights not only in the availability of choice in buying/selling products, but also in the choice available to us in creation. I find it highly unlikely that the GPL would ever have been developed in a socialist state, and in fact the way that the Chinese government breaks the terms of the GPL constantly with their so-called red star linux lends credence to that notion.
Invoking John Galt as a model for self-interested capitalism, as the original poster did, presents a scheme where the accent is on the rights of the creators, not the rights of the parasitic embracers (bill gates / orrin boyle) who, while possibly rich now, can hardly be said to be perfect models of capitalism.
The GPL presents a set of alternate choices allowing the 'motive power of humans' to be more finely directed through the rational choice of the actual individual creator and not some over-arching collective. In that sense, it's highly supportive of the core freedoms that have historically only existed in capitalist societies.
Giving away something is perfectly in line with capitalism. Having it stolen/appropriated from you is what you actually mean by socialism.
This raises an interesting question: Can the owner/developer/hacker of an original code that he previously released under normal copyright, change that to GPL and/or release an update to that same code/functionality under GPL (for whatever reason)?
Wouldn't that pull the rug out of a few previous customers, who paid for version 1.0 but now can get 2.0 for, er, free??
Hmmm, my head hurts, now, great...
-- SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
If I want to go ahead and design a really cool lawn mower and publish it on the web, or put circulars in people's mailboxen, then I certainly do have that right, don't you agree?
I disagree that it would not be in the companies' best interest to hire the guy who wrote the neat sorting algorithm. If that were true guys like Torvalds would be penniless.
I actually believe that we need a new paradigm here. One that doesn't pre-suppose that corporations are the only ones who control where the money flows; that programmers Must get hired by big sw firms as a preliminary first step in their career. You are defending the 'rights' of corporations to make money. I am saying that that isn't a right. Developers could choose to do just what Lawnmower Man did and give away their stuff for free, and there had better be no law to prevent that, because it would be antithetical to the concept of a free society and a laissez-faire government. Which I had previously supposed Conservatives such as yourself fawned over so much. Er, not the freedom part but the lack of regulations part.
-- SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
It's interesting to see that, as more people become aware of the concept of GPL, and the difference between LGPL and GPL, how they are startled by the simplicity and the power of it. I'm not saying you just figured it out, but I sure remember when I did.
Now, you immediately take a position that is the polar opposite of mine, and I suspect that it's because I am not a programmer dependent on software to make a living. Taken from your side, and given the fact that any change that threatens the status quo is a bit frightening, the GPL could be perceived as a threat. It represents a potential sea-change in the software industry. It says that sw will not be dominated, as it has in the past, by large (er, monolithic), pyramidal corporations where wealth funnels to the top and guys like yourself would be guaranteed a nice salary with perks and maybe a stock option or two, but certainly no glory.
It points to a genuine New Economy, albeit intrinsically in the fabric of a Free society all along, that values software solely on the basis of its utility and merit, and not on the proprietary nature of er, IP (cringe). It de-commodifies software and commodifies it at the same time: the actual text of a program is now free, but the person who developed that killer-app is now worth more; the software is now commodified, but the coin is not gold, it is more and better software.
Who knows where this would lead? But it should be an attractive alternative to all programmers who are willing to assume the risks involved with such an undertaking (lawsuits seem to be one crag in the ocean, but that should disappear if the courts support the letter of the GPL).
Okay, let me address your single statement...
It just makes it impossible to make money by making software.
By what I just said, I think I explained how that can happen. The difference is that the coders and only the coders stand to gain. Shareholders in xyz.com must figure out a way to merely package and support thier product. I admit that the temptation to want to keep proprietary the product you just linked to a GPL program is strong when there is a direct bottom line impact, but you need to know that when your company enters into a bargain with the GPL devil.
Muahahahahaha!
-- SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
Re:Selling but not demanding payment
by
kz45
·
· Score: 1
that's why any corporation using the GPL has to give the software out for free, and require it's users to pay a monthly free for service. Getting a monthly free from everyone who gets your software is a lot better than a one time fee.
This is not a troll, just the voice of truth.
Re:Selling but not demanding payment
by
kz45
·
· Score: 1
Here is another problem with the slashdot's idealisms:
if they are not enforcing payment, advertisements are bad, and tech. support is optional, how does one make money?
realistically, they can't. In the FSF perfect world, money would be taken out of the equation (or placed into their own pockets). Corporations are BAD (except if it's about linux or something OPEN-Source related). Where would we be, without coporations?
1) WWW wouldn't have been invented.
2) the internet would consist of about 4 university computers
3) all the cool technologies that we see today would never have been invented
Money is the main reason many developers (not all) strive to create new technology. Do you actually think we would see a 1.4 GHZ without corporate involvement? I will answer this question for you: NO.
Re:Selling but not demanding payment
by
kz45
·
· Score: 1
Taken from the GPL FAQ:
1) Does the GPL allow me to require that anyone who receives the software must pay me a fee and/or notify me?
No. In fact, a requirement like that would make the program non-free. If people have to pay when they get a copy of a program, or if they have to notify anyone in particular, then the program is not free. See the definition of free software.
The GPL is a free software license, and therefore it permits people to use and even redistribute the software without being required to pay anyone a fee for doing so.
This is allowed, because the end-user is getting charged a fee under my own license (in addition to the GPL), which is solely for the purpose of tech support. The software and source is still given away FREE of CHARGE.
2) Our lawyers have told us that to be in the best position to enforce the GPL in court against violators, we should keep the copyright status of the program as simple as possible. We do this by asking each contributor to either assign the copyright on his contribution to the FSF, or disclaim copyright on it and thus put it in the public domain.
giving the FSF copyright to a program is NOT placing it in the public domain. This is like giving all of your worldly possessions to a religious cult, and saying: "God owns my possessions now".
Re:Selling but not demanding payment
by
kz45
·
· Score: 1
that just proves my point on how closed the GPL actually is, not for "free speech", as many think. It's even worse than a standard close source license
Re:Selling but not demanding payment
by
kz45
·
· Score: 1
only to note that RedHat is making money
that is the biggest joke. All corporate redhat companies (including redhat) are losing money. Please I would like to hear of a REAL example, which I don't think actually exists.
Re:Selling but not demanding payment
by
bob+x+johnson
·
· Score: 1
the rights granted by the GPL are a strict superset of the rights granted by a normal closed-source source license.
This is not true, at least when it comes to libraries. The GPL, when applied to a library, is much, much worse than any other license I've seen.
Using the Evil Empire as an example, some libraries that come with development tools like Visual C++ are redistributable and have licenses which make no attempts to control how you license code you develop using them.
On the other hand, using a library licensed under the GPL requires that you apply the GPL to your own code (or so they claim - I personally find the distinction between fork/exec and shared address space dubious.)
2 or more open source products?
by
i0lanthe
·
· Score: 1
Yep, but they were all fairly small programs, so I don't know if they count as "product".
-- "The Crystal Wind is the Storm, and the Storm is Data, and the Data is Life"
I can just see the customers now. "Curse you for releasing the source! See if I ever pay for an upgrade of this software again!" Actually, if I were such a customer, it would irritate me a lot less than the possibly more common announcement "New major version! Registration fee is $39.95, or FREE for all customers who purchased the old version within the past year. Too bad about you early supporters who forked over the dough for that same version 14 months ago."
-- "The Crystal Wind is the Storm, and the Storm is Data, and the Data is Life"
Trolls have points sometimes
by
abe+ferlman
·
· Score: 4
But this post is just FUD. Freedom is a funny thing. Ever hear the phrase "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose"? Maximizing liberty means restraining certain actions, i.e., those which take away liberty. Otherwise we have nothing but the rule of the strongest/most monopolistic. You could say "the GPL is coercing me to be free" much like you could say "these murder statutes inhibit my god-given right to kill people", but that's just silly.
Re:Trolls have points sometimes
by
dinivin
·
· Score: 1
I think saying "the GPL is coercing me to be free" is much more like saying "You have the right to free speech as long as you don't speak against the right to free speach."
Dinivin
Re:I just realized I'm in infraction
by
anichan
·
· Score: 1
That's fine, it's just not okay if a) the binaries and source are different version, or b) the code is there today and gone tomorrow.
I doubt you'd have to mirror the gcc source, unless you think that the FSF is going to drop their server in the near future. <g>
--
karma is for the weak >)
Re:The Problem With Abbreviations ...
by
anichan
·
· Score: 1
IIRC, it was originally named the "Library GPL", but was changed to "Lesser GPL" because it could be applied to things besides libraries.
--
karma is for the weak >)
Re:There it is, Sony is definately in violation!
by
TooTallFourThinking
·
· Score: 1
But are they GPL'ing the code? You didn't mention that. If they are, then you would be correct. If they aren't and are releasing it under another license, it doesn't violate the GPL because it isn't.
The Problem With Abbreviations ...
by
beanyk
·
· Score: 2
So tell me this: what does LGPL stand for? The FAQ says
"... there are a few programs [...] that use looser licenses, such as the Lesser GPL."
But it links to a discussion by Richard Stallman, where it's "Library GPL".
Does this matter? Perhaps not; geekspeak, with its morass of TLAs, is a language unto itself. All we need is an emergency vowel drop, and it'll be ready for verbal use...
The FAQ is filled with great information, but, not to be a troll or anything, IMO it's still to complicated for Joe User to understand. Other than that, it's very informative.
I loved this line, though: "My program will have liberty, or never be born."
GPL is not about technology, it is about social change.
What I already said:
The reason you can sell GNU software (provided it includes source code) without breaching the license is simply that the GNU-License developers don't mind if you make a few bucks as long as you're supporting their cause, namely distribution of GNU source code.
Now, please tell me why you thought that statement said the GPL is about technology. True, later in my post I also mentioned technology... but I purposefully separated that point since I understand it is more an effect of the GPL and not it's purpose (And the effect idea is fairly debatable; Ever compare GCC's performance with commercial compilers?)
Well, I think it's important to also consider the other Open Source Licenses that there are out there.
Now, I'm certainly no expert on any of the varieties listed, but perhaps there is one that allows the author to collect on profitable usage and distribution of his/her work.
I know that if I wrote some significant piece of Linux software I would very likely wish to release the source in the public domain, however I would like to also share in the profit if someone else is making money from my work.
However, looking at it from another angle (the one the GNU people likely look at it from,) I would submit that while not being able to enforce payment on a product that may be sold may not be in the best interest of profitable commerce, it is in the best interest of adding value to the product for a target audience, in this case Hackers. The goal of GNU-Licensed software is not to produce profit, but to produce further development of a free *NIX-like OS and applications for it. The reason you can sell GNU software (provided it includes source code) without breaching the license is simply that the GNU-License developers don't mind if you make a few bucks as long as you're supporting their couse, namely distribution GNU source code.
An example of why open source is good (even if it's not free!): I happen to like Outlook Express quite a bit. Being a Microsoft product, it is most certainly closed source. However it is also freely distributed, despite Microsoft's typical draconian EUA's and legal stuff like that.
Essentially it's freeware. Nontheless, I like it enough that I would pay for it... provided I could fix those GD-*#%! bugs in the IMAP code and perhaps add some features (and subtract others). As a developer, I am sure I would be perfectly capable of affecting those desired changes... and I would prefer to not have to wait for microsoft to do it for me... What I'm saying is that opening the source code adds something very valuable to the product. If it wasn't already available for free, I'd gladly pay for a copy of the source code if it allowed me to modify the program for my own personal use. Even better would be if I could even sell my enhanced version and simply pay microsoft a small royalty. Open source can certainly be profitable, but profit is not the intention of the GPL. That is left to other Open Source Licenses.
I intended to put in my $.02 but think I just overpaid!
Some of these changes oddly seem to imply that they plan on going after AOL in its violations. Particualry the clarifications on including a copy of the modified source code as well as the restirctions on including GPL'd software in propiratary devices. They also mention that a URL to the GPL is not enough because there is no ware to assure that a URL will be vaild in the future. Pretty interesting.
about time. I was beginning to think the GNU people wrote some shell utilities, a compiler, and a license and just stopped doing things. Nice to see response!
Hi, what license should I use when I want
the world and their mother to be able to
download/modify/hack/whatever it, but, I
want anyone using it commercially (any non
government, profit orginisation) to pay
for it?
tx ^_^
Satisfying initial costs
by
fibonacci8
·
· Score: 1
You're confused that a owner/developer/hacker would take the time to write a program, and after justifying the costs, maybe even turning a profit, improves/refines it and frees it to the public? This sounds vaguely like the original intent of U.S. copyright laws. The owner/developer/hacker had limited term exclusive rights to his/her/their product, and later, after they've gotten monetary compensation for his/her/their efforts, GPL's it so that he/she/they can retain credit for having done the work.
P.S. Is there a provision in the GPL for passing on a sponsor list (i.e. people who've paid for previous versions)?
I have written an application that links with many different components, that have different licenses. I am very confused as to what licensing requirments are placed on my program. Can you please tell me what licenses I may use? - To answer this question, we would need to see a list of each component that your program uses, the license of that component, and a brief (a few sentences for each should suffice) describing how your library uses that component.
This is just silly. For a lot of these little programs peoplem ay as well just post their source and say "have at it!". ---
-- ___ The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin
What is the matter with you moderators???
by
kalleanka2
·
· Score: 1
Why is the parent modded down? Really? Answer the question instead of modding this down.
It IS silly to permit people to sell something but forbid any attemt to enforce payment.
I can't believe I'm reading this. You are joking, right?
The GPL forced programmers to give away their work for free. Why would anyone pay people to develop software that they can get developed for free? And how could they if it's developed else ware for free?
How can you even possibly call it "individualist" oriented when it's all about giving your work away to the community (the word communism comes from the fact that in those society the community comes first and the individual doesn't own anything)?
It's very true that most programmers don't make their income on selling software, but that doesn't matter one bit. No one can pay you to develop software when it must be given away for free or when others develop the same kind of software and give it away. It would be an insane business model!
Please explain what you are talking about.
Why would anyone pay you $25?
by
kalleanka2
·
· Score: 1
1: They download a free copy.
2: They buy it from Redhat who is synonym with Linux in the public's eyes. They have a strong trademark, you do not.
"Open Source is a very savvy capitalistic move in a chess game between the centralists (e.g. Microsoft) and the individualists (John Galt, RMS, and a lot of/.); "
It is not capitalist or individualist oriented to give things away...EVER!
"You can charge whatever you want for distributing a GPL'd program, you just can't restrict those people from redistributing it (under the GPL). "
So, lets take an example...
If five programmers work on a project for one year the cost for this is about 5*3500*2*12. Those figures come from: 5 people each making $3500/month. The typical cost for a person is twice the salary (vacation, sickness and some unchangeable time makes this typical). And they work for 12 month. This makes a total sum of 420 000 for the year.
That money has to be made in order for those people to be able to pay their bills and be able to put food on their tables, right?
Now, you say I can charge anything I want, right? Ok, lets say we charging $50 for each copy we distribute, this makes it an absolute must to distribute at least 420000/50 copies. This requires that 8400 individuals or organisations buy it for this figure.
But, anyone can redistribute it. Either for free or for basically the cost of the media. Now, you see, we can't do that since we have spent 420000 on developing it, the others who distribute it do not have this cost and can distribute it allot cheaper. Say some other (like redhat) includes it on their CDs or sells it for $10/copy.
Is it really THAT hard to understand that the unrestricted rights for anyone to redistribute it makes it impossible to charge for it in reality?
Who the hell is going to buy the CDs from us? You tell me.
Your post shows exactly why geeks have to broaden their narrow sight.
Why isn't the GPL more specific?
by
janpod66
·
· Score: 2
I don't understand why the GPL itself can't be more specific. The FAQ already lists some concrete cases where the GPL applies and doesn't apply to a program that uses GPL'ed code. Why can't a number of those explicit cases be defined in the GPL itself? For concreteness, the cases could be defined in terms of GNU/Linux software terminology with the additional clause "or analogous mechanisms on other operating systems or platforms". Static linking, dynamic linking, dynamic loading, invocation as a standalone program, and invocation through a system like CORBA could all be clarified that way.
I can only think that the FSF likes to be a bit vague about what can and cannot be done with GPL'ed software. But I think that makes the GPL less useful than it could be: authors placing their software under the GPL deserve the clearest license possible.
They chose the former, making the GPL nearly meaningless, rather than choosing the latter, and scaring off everybody even thinking of touching GPL'd software. Now it's just a matter of who gets better lawyers and the quirks of the judge.
If that is the intent, it would represent both bad faith and bad judgement. If two parties enter into a contract in good faith, they should aim to clarify each other's rights and obligations. And except perhaps for some clueless companies, anybody with legal counsel will get the advice that if it isn't clearly permitted by the license, they should not do it. That is, in my opinion, also the ethically correct position.
I hope that you are wrong and that the FSF merely hasn't gotten around to incorporating these clarifications into the next version of the GPL. Being deliberately vague would, I think, undermine their ethical position and be quite harmful to the GNU project.
The GPL is not about gaining some consideration for use, but denying a certain use to a certain group.
Of course, the GPL is about gaining consideration: it's your potential contributions for your ability to use the software. That's an equitable trade, and it isn't denying you anything. If you don't like it, don't enter into the contract.
They have no willingness to negotiate, and despite offering it to proprietary software developers, they deliberately prohibit the use it's wanted for.
It's not offered to "proprietary software developers". And, as you should have learned as a child, not all your wants are met by the world. Other people have wants, too.
By traditional contract standards, this is not at all reasonable.
By your reasoning, I should be able to copy Microsoft Windows freely and widely. After all, their EULA is keeping me from doing what I want with it, and Microsoft won't negotiate their EULA with me.
"If GPL'd software can't be distributed or stored alongside proprietary Oops! Put in a clause for it!"
Should be:
"If GPL'd software can't be distributed or stored alongside proprietary software, people will have to either go full-GNU or never touch GPL'd software. How will anyone get started? Oops! Put in a clause for it!" --
What the FSF really wants is to decide on a case by case basis what uses are and aren't good for promoting Free Software. This is impossible.
If GPL'd software can't be used on a proprietary OS, we lose a lot of bootstrapping potential. Hmm... we'd put some a clause in to allow that.
If GPL'd software can't be distributed or stored alongside proprietary Oops! Put in a clause for it!
If the GPL makes any claim on the output of GPL'd software, only full-fledged FSF fanatics will use it. We'd better make sure not to do that.
However, if you allow your software to be modified freely to take input and give output in any format, distributed freely with proprietary software, and run on proprietary systems, you allow it to be incorporated into proprietary systems. Any attempt to prohibit this can only prohibit certain direct methods, unless you want to either cripple it for end-users or open up the "intent" can of worms and make any case a chess game between lawyers (if it doesn't invalidate the contract altogether).
So they can either have a license with proprietary incorporation loopholes, or they can have a license with "legitimate use" litigation loopholes. They chose the former, making the GPL nearly meaningless, rather than choosing the latter, and scaring off everybody even thinking of touching GPL'd software. Now it's just a matter of who gets better lawyers and the quirks of the judge.
I've never believed that the GPL would survive a direct court challenge. I certainly don't think it'll be used successfully to sue someone who segregates their proprietary and GPL'd source, though anything is possible in court. --
"good faith" and "GPL" don't even belong on the same page, and their "ethical position" is that selling people useful software is evil. Not inefficient, not annoying, not less than ideal, but baby-eating evil.
The GPL is not about gaining some consideration for use, but denying a certain use to a certain group. It is designed purely as a deliberate attack on proprietary software developers.
They have no willingness to negotiate, and despite offering it to proprietary software developers, they deliberately prohibit the use it's wanted for.
By traditional contract standards, this is not at all reasonable.
It's not an offer of contract in good faith, it's an attempt to place something essentially in the public domain, except restricted from the use of people and businesses they are politically opposed to. The other party can hardly be blamed for not treating it as a sincere attempt at a mutually-agreeable arrangement. --
This doesn't make sense. If you don't want to GPL your software, don't use someone else's GPLed software. How is that an attack?
The GNU project, which the GPL was written for, is an attempt to clone existing proprietary systems. Not to produce something new, but to legally create freely redistributable copies of existing works which the creators restrict to secure a profit to fund their development efforts. The only restriction on these copies is that the proprietary developers may not incorporate them into their work.
This is an attack. A deliberate, carefully designed attack.
So is the propaganda campaign characterizing proprietary development as evil and urging other programmers to participate in such cloning projects. --
"good faith" and "GPL" don't even belong on the same page, and their "ethical position" is that selling people useful software is evil. Not
inefficient, not annoying, not less than ideal, but baby-eating evil.
Their position is that selling people software without giving them access to the source code is unethical.
It is designed purely as a deliberate
attack on proprietary software developers.
This doesn't make sense. If you don't want to
GPL your software, don't use someone else's GPLed
software. How is that an attack?
Failure is its own reward.
-- Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
The GPL is not about gaining some consideration for use, but denying a certain use to a certain group. It is designed purely as a deliberate attack on proprietary software developers.
An attack on developers? I'd laugh in your general direction, but that would be redundant. How can anything that is entirely opt-in be construed as an attack? Don't like the license? Write your own code. Don't like the philosophy of the FSF? Use a different license. No one here is trying to ram RMS doctrine down your throat so stop trying to ram Microsoft's down mine.
They have no willingness to negotiate, and despite offering it to proprietary software developers, they deliberately prohibit the use it's wanted for.
I hate to point this out, but no one's forcing proprietary software developers to use code licensed under the GPL. The contract isn't intended to be reasonable and why should it be? Remember, just because developers of GPLed software don't want to hand over all rights to a company doesn't mean they're "bargaining" in bad faith.
By traditional contract standards, this is not at all reasonable.
By traditional contract standards, providing services without payment is generally considered rare. Any company attempting to enforce such a contract would probably be seen as unreasonable. Why is this case any different?
So we recommend that you approach them when the program is only half-done, saying, "If you will agree to releasing this as free software, I will finish it." Don't think of this as a bluff. To prevail, you must have the courage to say, "My program will have liberty, or never be born."
To release a non-free program is always ethically tainted,
I'd like to modify GPL-covered programs and link them with the portability libraries from Money Guzzler Inc. [...]
A major goal of the GPL is to build up the Free World [...]
In general, proprietary software projects hinder [...] the cause of freedom.
Yeah, reasonable and friendly, 100% positive information using neutral language.
This is the same-old I Can't Believe It's Not Communism bullshit, with weighted words and little digs at every opportunity, and always The Cause. This guy makes us all look like fruitcakes. --
--
Re:RMS as inflammatory as ever.
by
dinivin
·
· Score: 1
If he made us all look like Fruitcakes, he wouldn't get the invitations
he gets. We both lectured at Cambridge (the one in England) a few months ago.
That could just as easily mean that you were both invited by fruitcakes:-)
Dinivin
Re:RMS as inflammatory as ever.
by
plethoran
·
· Score: 1
Not everyone here really cares what RMS has to say. He's a bright enough guy, and he's certainly contributed to the development of free software, but you don't have to agree with him to like the GPL. I happen to like it because it means that my program won't be used by someone trying to save time and making a good deal of money in the process. If I want to make something available to everyone, I use the BSD license. Different strokes and all that...
You must distribute source code with binaries to this program.
If someone spends 1 day downloading the binaries for your linux distro, but stops the download before the 2-day download of the sources is done, you have to hunt him down and forcibly copy the source code onto his computer.
All software distributed with this program must be licensed under this license.
Yeah, no putting any non-GPL software on the same internet!
You may not restrict the distribution of this software in any other way.
So you may not restrict others from taking and distributing your hard-drive containing this software, however, any derivative works of this software may be restricted at will.
While we're at it, let's toss out the legal system and switch over to the ten commandments. --
--
Copyright holder question
by
TornSheetMetal
·
· Score: 2
I have a question.
If I am the copyright holder of a program I created, and I accept bug fixes to this program from other people, can I release this program under a dual license later? Do I still own the whole copyright after accepting bug fixes?
So tell me again, what is capitalistic about working together for the common good?;-)
The Marxist slogan "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" -- also sounds a lot like free software to me.
Before my brain overloads here I'd say we need a more reliable defintion of what is 'capitalistic'!!
In particular, there is the theory of 'Rational Choice Marxism' (as in the rational choice axioms of economics), which defines marxist concepts mathematically through game theory.
e.g. if you have two coalitions C1 and C2, and C1 would be worse off if C2 acted for itself, and C2 would be better off, then C1 is said to exploit C2 (if C2 doesn't act for itself, despite it being materially better then C1 is said to dominate C2 or something like that). I don't remember all the details and theorems right now.... it is heavy stuff.
C1 and C2 might be bourgeosie/proletariat, princes/serfs, or proprietary software shareholders/software developers. And you need to consider all possible coalitions, equilibrium points, etc. Anyway IIRC the theory leads to a more rigorous way of determining what is capitalistic. Maybe someone could work that out for free software and let us know the answer to three decimal places.
Re:Selling but not demanding payment
by
warmiak
·
· Score: 1
It is a purely academic distinction. Honestly, people simply DON"T pay for GPLed software.
-- The only way liberals win national elections is by pretending they're
not liberals.
Correct. It almost sounds like an advice "sure you can sell it but , huhuh, since you can't demand payment for it... good luck"
All I am saying this clause is there to discourage any sort of monetary payment.GPL advocates might claim otherwise but anyone with any common sense will admit that it is incredibly hard to sell stuff when people are not required to pay for it.
More important issue here is that, in my opinion, widespread use of GPL will simply destroy any sort of commercial interest in developing software. Of course, this is highly unlikely since I firmly believe most software dev. professionals are not about to commit professional equivalent of a suicide.
-- The only way liberals win national elections is by pretending they're
not liberals.
Re:OT, was Re:Selling but not demanding payment
by
warmiak
·
· Score: 1
Hmm. Trying to simply slow down growth of the government ( not cut down, just slow down) is considered extremist these days...
BTW. He did no hide his plans for a tax cut, nor his plans for various reforms.
-- The only way liberals win national elections is by pretending they're
not liberals.
Re:Selling but not demanding payment
by
warmiak
·
· Score: 1
"True, but many of us (including RMS, myself, and a few hundred thousand other nerds out there) have built quite a structure on such distinctions. It's what technocrates do; or at least, it's what I do: In a very real sense, I pick nits for a living."
Fine with me. Just don't forget that all this freedom ( and means) to enjoy your small utopian world is brought to you courtesy of commercial IT industry where most of us go to earn our living.
Don't bite the hand that feeds you until you are 100% sure that there is something to replace it.
-- The only way liberals win national elections is by pretending they're
not liberals.
Re:Selling but not demanding payment
by
warmiak
·
· Score: 1
". Yes, it does mean that I cannot follow the proprietary software business model of forcing people to pay to get software, but it does mean I can charge people, for example, for the convenience of the software in a box with a manual, etc. "
Of course you can. What are we talking here is promotion of completely new and unproven system of selling goods.
Sure, there is RedHat and perhaps couple other companies like that but , imho, they have been on this market definitely too short to pass any sort of positive judgment on this new model.
In other words, while we KNOW FOR SURE that there are companies that did make tons of money using old and true system , we have no clue if what RedHat is attempting to do will work in the long run.
-- The only way liberals win national elections is by pretending they're
not liberals.
"I would submit that while not being able to enforce payment on a product that may be sold may not be in the best interest of profitable commerce, it is in the best interest of adding value to the product for a target audience, in this case Hackers. "
Are you sure ? Remember, we are talking here about social goal which has little to do with any technical issues (browse thru ww.gnu.org and tell me if it is more about technical excellence or "freedom"?)
After all, there are excellent Unix like operating system available which were and still are working just fine ( Solaris, IRIX etc..) The only problem with these is that you have to PAY for the product and even then you don't get the same rights as people who created that software have.
GPL is not about technology, it is about social change.
-- The only way liberals win national elections is by pretending they're
not liberals.
"it is in the best interest of adding value to the product for a target audience, in this case Hackers."
I was trying to refute this part of his post where he claims that GPL is not about money but about technical excellence ( if we talk about adding value for a hacker audience one can safely assume we are in technical waters now.)
-- The only way liberals win national elections is by pretending they're
not liberals.
"However, looking at it from another angle (the one the GNU people likely look at it from,) I would submit that while not being able to enforce payment on a product that may be sold may not be in the best interest of profitable commerce, it is in the best interest of adding value to the product for a target audience, in this case Hackers. "
Adding value to the product directed at hackers is very much about technical excellence. After all, I suspect that 99% of them are much more interested in technology and achieving excellence there than anything else.
Remember, this is Slashdot , a forum for people interested in technology.
-- The only way liberals win national elections is by pretending they're
not liberals.
"If this is so, then what chance does the other honor system, where enterprises make improvements to the intellectual commons but then contribute back to it, have? "
Well, having something on the market , even without any chance of other people learning about inner-workings of this product, is already a contribution for you and millions of other people are able to enjoy benefits of using it.
Why this suspicion and negativity about private enterprise?
Remember, so far all other attempts at implementing social and economical system different than capitalism failed rather terribly (or in this context, they all turned out to be much less effective at stimulating progress.)
-- The only way liberals win national elections is by pretending they're
not liberals.
"...be guaranteed a nice salary with perks and maybe a stock option or two, but certainly no glory."
Why then limit this to software developers. I am sure engineers who design cars or even lawn movers would love to have their jobs glorified just like you are attempting to do it here.
"It de-commodities software and commodifies it at the same time: the actual text of a program is now free, but the person who developed that killer-app is now worth more; the software is now commodified, but the coin is not gold, it is more and better software. "
Well, GPL simply does not provide enough protection in some specific cases.
Image you develop new sorting algorithm. Sure your value as a professional will go up but if you publish this new stuff under GPL you will not be able to directly benefit from it.
On the other hand, if this new software is available for free (GPL) with no restriction attached what kind of incentive commercial entities have to hire you? None. Having you on board provides NO direct benefit for them since whatever you publish will be available to everybody else. They might as well join everybody else in scavenging whatever new stuff you come up with.
-- The only way liberals win national elections is by pretending they're
not liberals.
The GPL does not enforce that software be available at no cost, but the market forces inherent in free software do (would you buy a Red Hat CD for $50, without any manuals or support, if you could get the same for about five bucks with shipping or download it off the Net for pennies?
It just makes it impossible to make money by making software.
What is "release" of the software? The new FAQ collection contains the following quote:
*begin quote*
Does the GPL required that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?
The GPL does not require you to release the modified program. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them.
But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the users, under the GPL.
Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.
*end quote*
Now then. Here is what I can see as a reasonable definition of "release".
When the entity holding the copyright on the derivative work makes the derivative work available to an entity or entities not holding the copyright.
However, this has implications that are not clear.
For instance, the copyright holder may be an institution utilizing the derivative work internally (think any GPL derived tools used by a major corporation, developed by that corporation and not released to any other entity in any form).
That scenario isn't terribly frightening, but I guarantee that it goes against the spirit of community involvement. Just suppose the outrage here on/. if MS snarfed up some of the GCC code, and slammed it together with some Beowulf supporting software, modified the mess to make it taste better and started running Windows XP compile farms on it.
Now imagine a second possibility.
A company contracts to write software for another firm. The copyright of the software is specified by contract to reside with the hiring firm. The hiring firm desires the software for internal use (perhaps a bank is hiring a software company to develop its transaction system). The software company is perfectly able to use GNU GPL'd source in this application, modify it, AND NOT RELEASE IT. There is never a release of the software since the copyright holder is a legal entity, no more so than if I modify software for my own use and never give it to anyone.
this by the way provides a possible model for incorporating use of GPL'd software into business.
I know this will be a controversial view, it goes against the spirit of the GNU GPL; however, it appears to be supported by the wording of the license....
Nietzsche on Diku: sn; at god ba g :Backstab >KILLS< god.
UID magnitude as a veracity test
by
MarkusQ
·
· Score: 1
AC asks: Why should I listen to someone who has a UID over 400,000?
Good question. Of course, it begs generalization. Why should I listen to someone born after 1920?
-- MarkusQ
Re:Selling but not demanding payment
by
MarkusQ
·
· Score: 1
Just don't forget that all this freedom ( and means) to enjoy your small utopian world is brought to you courtesy of commercial IT industry where most of us go to earn our living.
I beg to differ. At least when I started, it was a profession, not an industry (if you wish to use radiojargon dating to gauge when this was, we had "Personell" instead of "Human Resources") and we got along just fine. I think converting to an industry (as with health care and music) has benefited a lot of ancillary players at the cost of the practitioners.
I have no objection to biting the hand that tries to steal my lunch, no matter how hard it tries to pretend that it is feeding me.
-- MarkusQ
Re:Selling but not demanding payment
by
MarkusQ
·
· Score: 2
It is a purely academic distinction.
True, but many of us (including RMS, myself, and a few hundred thousand other nerds out there) have built quite a structure on such distinctions. It's what technocrates do; or at least, it's what I do: In a very real sense, I pick nits for a living.
Honestly, people simply DON"T pay for GPLed software.
Again true, though they do pay for handy CDs, and for customization, and troubleshooting, and so forth. The key is that the FSF doesn't object to us making money aiding the spread of GPLed software, but doesn't want anyone to profit by restricting its spread.
-- MarkusQ
Selling but not demanding payment
by
MarkusQ
·
· Score: 3
It's not quite as silly as it may sound. You may say
"I will send you a copy of program X for N units of currency;"
you may not say
"Hey, I see you got a copy of program X from somewhere--you now owe me N units of currency."
Hardly. Open Source is a very savvy capitalistic move in a chess game between the centralists (e.g. Microsoft) and the individualists (John Galt, RMS, and a lot of/.); the net effect of this move is to forestall the collective from locking us out of our chosen profession. Both sides are playing to win, just like all good capitalists. They were willing to risk our stake to assure their gain. Rather than whining like marxists, we countered with an offer to put their stakes at risk to protect our livelihoods.
Very few programers make mounds of cash selling software. But we do make a nice living in a world where there is lots of source code. Open Source tilts the scales in our favour.
Sounds a heck of a lot like enlightened self-interest to me!
--MarkusQ
This may be obvious but...
by
cyberlync
·
· Score: 2
The GPL and BSD style licenses represent to basic differences in thought. Mr. Stallman and those who support the GPL are trying to make a social change. The other side of the coin, the BSD style licenses, are simply trying to provide software that people will use. Generally both sides code for the love of coding, it's just the GPL supports want an additional end result beyond that (social change). This not a bad thing, it just produces variety.
I personally subscribe more to the BSD style of licenses then the GPL. I could care less about social change (hey I'm a programmer), but I do want people to use and improve my code. I generally avoid using any GPLed code in my own projects because I do not want to have to release code under the GPL.
That being said, to each his own.
-- I'm a programmer, I don't have to spell correctly; I just have to spell consistently
I say linking, you say derivitive work
by
Obelisk1010
·
· Score: 3
So the distinction comes down to which process the GPL'd componant is run. This distinction isn't a grand as it once was... in fact it's a throw-away architectural issue in many cases. It would be very easy to argue that such a distinction is moot [COM+/shared memory]. The key distinction becoming the separation of the code into distinct files.
I'd bet against the FSF on this issue if it actually gets to court.
And, I'll bet the judge's head will explode when the experts put up block memory diagrams to 'illustrate' the differences.
Re:Confusing bits - COM+
by
GnulixRulz
·
· Score: 1
Don't think so. GPL covered code can be linked to
non-free libraries (like vendor's libc) when the
GPL code is of higher level.
Some people always want what they don't have ...
by
nicodaemos
·
· Score: 2
The basis of the open source movement is providing the source code along with the binaries. A couple of the main reasons for doing this is to allow people to make bug fixes and add new features.
In general I have found that the popular open source products have above average quality and have many useful features. Having access to the source code is nice, but for me it generally hasn't been needed.
On the other hand, I've found that popular commercial software products tend to have lower than average quality, but are feature rich. For these products, I would love to have the source code so that I could fix the one or two showstoppers that just irritate the f*ck out of me.
I find it nicely ironic that in the times I need access to the source code, it is unavailable to me. And the times that it is easily accessible, I don't really need it.
So here's a question that's kind of rolling around inside my head: how many of you have actually looked at and modified the source code of 2 or more open source products?
Slashdot Mirror
I would like to release a program I wrote under the GNU GPL, but I would like to use the same code in non-free programs.
To release a non-free program is always ethically tainted, but legally there is no obstacle to your doing this. If you are the copyright holder for the code, you can release it under various different nonexclusive licenses at various times.
Is the developer of a GPL-covered program bound by the GPL? Could the developer's actions ever be a violation of the GPL?
Strictly speaking, the GPL is a license from the developer for others to use, distribute and change the program. The developer itself is not bound by it, so no matter what the developer does, this is not a "violation" of the GPL. However, if the developer does something that would violate the GPL if done by someone else, the developer will surely lose moral standing in the community.
So tommorow Linus could take the Linux kernel along with all the changes others have contributed to it and start selling it without releasing the source? Isn't this the exact opposite to what the GPL is for?
If so, is there any chance I could get a license of your program under the Lesser GPL?
You can ask, but most authors will stand firm and say no. The idea of the GPL is that if you want to include our code in your program, your program must also be free software. It is supposed to put pressure on you to release your program in a way that makes it part of our community.
"put pressure on you"
"part of our community."
Next time someone says the GPL is all about freedom, bust out this part of the FAQ to educate them. The GPL isn't about freedom. It's about forced openness, right in the FSF's own words.
I think I'll start releasing software under a license that isn't written to put pressure on anyone, a license that doesn't have a political motive behind it. BSD, here I come...
At least it's better than a certain company's press releases, speeches, and 'news' articles...
This guy makes us all look like fruitcakes.
You do a perfectly good job of it yourself.
Yes, because that run-time library normally accompanies the compiler you are using.
If a program released under the GPL uses plug-ins, what are the requirements for the licenses of a plug-in.
If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, so plug-ins must be treated as extensions to the main program. This means they must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license.
In one case, dynamically linking to external code is permitted. In the other case, the same thing is not permitted. The GPL contradicts itself in two different areas. It will never hold up in court. In addition, this essentially forbits the creation of Windows software. If I make an API call (a function call), then I am dynamically linking to external code; the GPL explicitly forbids this.
err, doh!
I think the problem is that there are limits on what contracts are legal. It's perfectly valid to make claims on "derived works" or works that are "part of the same program," but it's unclear whether it'd be valid to make claims on "dynamically linked modules" if a court later determines that dynamically linked modules are in fact completely separate programs. I'm not an expert in contract law, but generally you can't write anything you want into your contract (as with the question in the FAQ about non-free input/output - even if you want to say your program's GPL covers output, you cannot legally do that).
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
We should put this on T-shirts
I take it you wear rather large T-shirts?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
We regularly see arguments based upon what the FSF or RMS claims. Keep in mind, though, that there are about 5 billion people on the planet whose opinion counts more . . .
Put aside the ideology, and whether you lvoe or hate the GPL. I'm talking about rules of legal construction. The author of a document had a full opportunity to make it say what it means. The author's view on interpretation just plain doesn't count, and has no legal weight. While there are situations in which the author *might* be called to testify (perhaps for "state of mind" evidence), ambiguities or doubts are construed *against* the author.
This doesn't necessarily mean that the FSF comments are useless. If a point is not arguable, the FSF explanation could be useful. But if the purpose is to *resolve* the meaning, the opinion of the FSF, and RMS in particular, is worth less than the paper it isn't written on . . .
hawk
What is disallowed is a viral licensing fee, like that used by shareware authors ("You can try this program and redistribute it, but if you use it for more than 30 days, you owe me $20."). You can't require that anyone who receives the software (not necessarily from you!) has to pay you money. The difference is that you might agree only to send the software to someone if they pay you money (CheapBytes would quickly go out of business if they were required to give away CDs for free), but you can't control what they do with the software afterwards. Imagine what would happen if CheapBytes required everyone who redistributed code from the CDs they sell to pay them a fee for the privlege of doing so!
The GPL does not enforce that software be available at no cost, but the market forces inherent in free software do (would you buy a Red Hat CD for $50, without any manuals or support, if you could get the same for about five bucks with shipping or download it off the Net for pennies?)
The good news is that you are allowed to charge for sending floppies in the mail. The FSF made money for years selling tapes of GNU software. The fact of the matter is that Anonymous FTP is the only method of transport that should actually lose you money.
The actual text of the GPL is actually fairly short. The entire document is less than 2989 words and the actual legalese in the Terms and Conditions section is a mere 2031 words long.
Unfortunately the GPL is written using legal terms and wording that most developers don't understand, and so it is that over the years a lot of false beliefs about the GPL have cropped up. I, for one, am glad to finally see a comprehensive FAQ that is intelligible for people who aren't legal experts.
Your post is a good example of why this sort of FAQ was necessary. Using GPLed software on a proprietary system has never been a violation of the GPL, nor are you in violation if you distribute GPLed software alongside proprietary software, and the FSF has never stated that the output of GPLed programs was covered by the GPL (except in the case of Bison where large parts of the Bison source are actually what is output by Bison). And yet, over the years many people, either out of ignorance or malice, have made claims like the ones in your post. In the past the only way to refute those claims was with the text of the GPL itself (which, being a legal document, is hard to parse). Now there is a much clearer FAQ. This FAQ, however, is not a legal document. It is simply an explanation of the legal document. These mythical "clauses" that you state that the FSF has added are merely explanations of what the actual legal document states.
First of all the GPL does not allow GPLed software to be distributed "freely." In fact, distribution is the one thing that a copyright holder is allowed to control. GPLed software can only be distributed under the terms of the GPL (meaning it must come with source code). You can include proprietary programs on the same CD, and they are not covered by the GPL.
As for the rest of your argument. The GPL doesn't cover "using" the software at all. You are free to "use" it on proprietary systems, or free systems, or to not use it at all. What you aren't allowed to do is "distribute" the software without following the terms of the GPL.
In other words, it isn't the GPL that has problems, it is merely your understanding of what the GPL does and does not allow. As a practical example Vidomi would be perfectly within their rights to "use" VirtualDub however they want, including extending it with their own software. However, the second they try to "distribute" software that links with the GPLed VirtualDub they are violating the GPL.
As for whether or not the GPL will stand in court, remember the FSF gets to pick and choose the case that they use to set a legal precedent on the GPL. In other words they are looking for a stupid, underfunded software company with a clear violation of the GPL (Vidomi fits this perfectly). Also remember that organizations with very well paid lawyers (Apple, Microsoft, IBM) have already caved to FSF demands. Those folks, at least, are acting like the GPL had teeth. And also remember that there are several groups that have vested interest in making sure that the GPL is enforceable. The FSF certainly fits this bill, but many other companies have put large pieces of software under the GPL (Sun's StarOffice for example).
I wouldn't count on the GPL not being enforceable.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Yep, although not all that often.
I added a BJ10ex driver to Ghostscript. Start of a GEM driver for GNUplot (never finished that). Tweaks to GD to make it work more how I expected.
Mostly tweaky things, rather than big chunks of functionality.
"don't fall into the fallacy of believing that Perl can solve social problems. Maybe Perl 6 can, but that's a ways off"
OK, first IANAL, but I did have one term of Contract Law in college. Based on that:
1. There is offer and acceptance. They offer (in the license) certain rights to you in exchange for certain restrictions on your use of those rights. You accept when you redistribute works (since nothing else gives you the right).
2. Consideration. Consideration does not have to be cash. Example from my course: you offer to give your buddy a week skiing if he doesn't drink for a year. Is that an exchange of consideration? Yep. The courts assume you gain something from the fact he doesn't drink (maybe the knowledge he didn't get into any drunk driving accidents). So, the consideration here is that you get to redistribute, but you give your source code changes.
I have, twice (at least), but not recently and not distributed.
-
Lynx had a fixed -> float and a
float -> fixed conversion
(unneeded and unused as Float) for
every character.
-
RCS has irritating behaviour
regarding acceptable flags and the
environment variable shared by all
the RCS programs.
I have long since lost the lynx patch, and it may no longer be relevant; but if anyone wants details on the RCS patch (rationale and the actual patch), let me know by email and I will post them on my website.There may be a few other minor changes, but if so I can't recall them offhand.
There have been quite a few other times that I looked at the source but gave up on doing anything because not only were they in (ugh!!) C but the style is execrable. These would take a complete rewrite (and preferably in Ada) just to be readable.
It is far from purely academic. Yes, it does mean that I cannot follow the proprietary software business model of forcing people to pay to get software, but it does mean I can charge people, for example, for the convenience of the software in a box with a manual, etc. The obvious example is RedHat- I can download a RedHat distro for free, but I can also buy it from a store, as I have on at least one occasion. And, to judge from the shelves at my local electronics store, I'm not the only one. So yes, people do pay for GPLed software, they just don't have to.
There is also the scenario of a piece of software which has never been distributed. In that case, I can force my first customer (and only my first customer) to buy the software from me at my price without violating the GPL. Every subsequent customer, however, has (at least in theory) the option of getting it from my prior customers at a price of their chosing. I will grant you that this scenario, however, is more or less "purely academic".
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" -Salvor Hardin
Yes, but that's entirely beside the point. We're talking about GPL license terms, not the economics of open source. The fact is that the GPL permits the selling of the software (unlike a lot of other freeware licenses). Whether or not it is economically workable in the long run, a large number of companies have made a significant amount of revenue doing it. More importantly, a lot of people have benefitted from the convenience of a boxed distribution- Linux never would have approached its current popularity if you could not sell it. Take a look at the Linux shelf at your local electronics store- all those boxes aren't going away, whether Red Hat goes under or not.
In short, the success of Linux is built in part on this "purely academic" distinction.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" -Salvor Hardin
Er, no. Charging a monthly fee requires a licensing agreement or contract of some sort enforcing the payment of the fee. This would constitute an additional restriction on the software, which the GPL does not allow. The copyright holder could, of course, release it under a modified GPL which allowed this, but that would be such a severe change that it would no longer be the GPL.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" -Salvor Hardin
Regarding point 1, I earlier understood you to mean that you would require the buyer of the software to also buy the service contract. If this is correct, my point still stands, because that requirement in and of itself violates the spirit of the GPL. If I misunderstood, and you meant the service contract to be optional and separate from the software, then you are correct.
Regarding point 2, this is pretty irrelevant to the discussion, but I can't resist. The passage you quote does not suggest that assigning copyright to the FSF is equivalent to putting the software in the public domain. Read that passage again, and notice the use of the word "or". They are describing two options, one of which is to assign copyright to the FSF, and the other of which is to put the code in the public domain. Either one ensures a relatively simple copyright status for potential defense of the GPL.
Also, they aren't explicit enough about this, but they are only talking about contributions to FSF-copyrighted GNU software, not GPLed software in general.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" -Salvor Hardin
You're right, it's not "free speech." It's free software. I fail to see how it's worse than a standard closed-source license, though- the rights granted by the GPL are a strict superset of the rights granted by a normal closed-source source license.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" -Salvor Hardin
First of all, I agree with you- corporations are a necessary and important part of modern society, and a key driving force for technological development. However, they are not the only ones.
Specifically, you slipped up on your examples, badly. The WWW was invented by Tim Berners-Lee as an academic information-sharing tool, while he was at CERN, an entirely non-corporate particle physics research lab. As for "all the cool technologies" that we see today, the computer sort of springs to mind (ENIAC and its predecessors were the product of government and university, not corporate, research). I'll grant you the second point.
Like you, I detest the neo-communist drivel which occasionally springs up in the Slashdot forums, but you're setting up a straw man. I seriously doubt that more than a small minority of Slashdotters would seriously contend that the world would be a better place without corporations. I can't speak for the FSF, but there's nothing explicitly anticorporate in their agenda (though they do explicitly oppose the software industry status quo), and the section of the GPL which launched this thread was placed there specifically to allow the making of money, hardly a resounding blow for the end of capitalist society.
As for the "how does one make money" question, I've already addressed that elsewhere, and I will pause only to note that RedHat is making money, so it is clearly possible.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" -Salvor Hardin
RedHat just reached break-even, and its revenues are continuing to grow. Get your facts straight.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" -Salvor Hardin
How ridiculous a set of rules.
So what if I take GPL'd code (which is EXEC'd in its own memory space and isn't hosted by MTX) and convert it to process memory mapped files and shared memory, and from my main application I read/write to this shared memory to communicate? What if it hosts a socket port and processes that way?
In general I have found that the popular open source products have above average quality and have many useful features. Having access to the source code is nice, but for me it generally hasn't been needed.
On the other hand, I've found that popular commercial software products tend to have lower than average quality, but are feature rich. For these products, I would love to have the source code so that I could fix the one or two showstoppers that just irritate the f*ck out of me.
I would love to see some metrics on open source code quality because from personal experience I've found the general quality of open source to be lacking. Of course my general anecdotes are no more credible than yours, but I see the exact opposite of what you see.
Indeed sometimes it seems that a lot of software is released under open source in an apologetic manner to try to make lemonade out of lemons: "Ooops, my program is a POS and doesn't do anything good? Well RTFM and scratch your own itch! It's the spirit of open source! Oh and after you fix it give the code back so I can take credit for it.". "Closed Source" software has to make something functional and usable, and there is no fallback of saying that the user should just go in there and fix that code up.
We should distribute this far and wide. We should put this on T-shirts and posters. We should make folders and notebooks with this stuff on it. We should take out full page ads in the Technology section and put this in there. We should put it on cerial boxes if we possibly can.
It won't promote the GPL much, but it will allow people to make informed opinions about the GPL, which is as good as a victory in my book.
ObJectBridge (GPL'd Java ODMG) needs volunteers.
Finding God in a Dog
Well that depends, doesn't it? I paid three bucks for a copy of Mandrake 8.0 GPL edition from Cheapbytes. Am I paying for the software, or am I paying Cheapbytes for the service of putting it on a CD-ROM?
If I buy a copy of Mandrake 8.0 from Mandrake herself, for $50 (or whatever), am I paying for the GPL software AND the proprietary software (and other stuff), or just for the proprietary software (and other stuff)?
You might be right; maybe people don't pay for the GPL software; instead they're paying for services rendered or for documentation or for the pretty packaging or something else. But they're paying for something, and that says a lot in my mind.
ObJectBridge (GPL'd Java ODMG) needs volunteers.
Finding God in a Dog
Dual license it - GPL for the world and a proprietary license for companies.
This is exactly how QT is distributed.
COM+ is a "major component of the operating system", so therefore you can write GPL programs that link to it.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Thanks for your response, which as usual is very well stated.
IANAL, but as Bruce Perens has repeatedly pointed out, intent goes a long way into making the linking situation more clear, at least until you hit the network interface.
But it's entirely unclear what the intent of the "major component of the operating system" clause is once you get past a typical 1980s-style Unix system. Having built in object brokers (COM+) and virtual machines (Java) and add-on compilers (VC) and API personalities (Interix) don't help. And I'm really just throwing logs into the GPL v3 fire on that issue alone.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Still, a GPL program that says "obtain MSVCP70.DLL somehow" on it's face seems to defy the licence. As does a GPL program that requires the Borland compiler, or a Java 2 program on a platform which doesn't ship with Java 2.
Generally the way the GPL has dealt with this has been to require a specific exception from the author in addition to the licence. If this exception is missing (see KDE), people freak, and it also prevents the author from using standard GPL code without the exception.
And if an implied or explicit compiler library exception is OK, why isn't one for "Money Guzzler Inc."'s libraries?
Likewise, does it really help the cause of Free Software to (say) prohibit GPL plug-ins for Netscape?
Saying "this is effectively that" probably doesn't hold contract law water, so hopefully GPL3 will deal with these issues in a flexible manner.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
I'm writting a Windows application with Microsoft Visual C++ and I will be releasing it under the GPL. Is dynamically linking my program with the Visual C++ run-time library permitted under the GPL?
Yes, because that run-time library normally accompanies the compiler you are using
So even though the VC runtimes aren't "a major component of the operating system", because they are distributed seperately, according to this I can still use them.
Can I use the GPL for a plug-in for a non-free program?
If the program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate programs, so the license for the main program makes no requirements for them. So you can use the GPL for a plug-in, and there are no special requirements.
OK, so I can't turn VirtuaDub into COM component. But if I register it with COM+ and run it in a seperate process, then it's OK?
I'd like to modify GPL-covered programs and link them with the portability libraries from Money Guzzler Inc. I cannot distribute the source code for these libraries, so any user who wanted to change these versions would have to buy those libraries. Why doesn't the GPL permit this?
So I can use operating system runtimes, and Visual C++ runtimes, but I can't use 3rd party runtimes that don't happen to ship with a compiler. I take from this I probably could write a J2SE GPL application (using included libraries) but not a J2EE version (which might be from a 3rd party). So, the question is -- Is Microsoft's GPLed software shipping with Interix legal?!?
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
The GPL doesn't force anyone to give anything away for free. If you honestly believe this, and you've actually *read* the GPL, than you're just stupid.
I'm going to assume that you're not stupid and just haven't read the GPL. So, the abridged version:
You can charge whatever you want for distributing a GPL'd program, you just can't restrict those people from redistributing it (under the GPL).
Moreover, you can charge someone whatever you want to write a GPL'd program.
Also, a tip about how the world works: programmers don't, in general, get paid for re-inventing the wheel over and over again. Once one programmer invents the wheel, he writes it in library form for others to use, and they then have to do things like put wheels together to make mobile vehicles.
So the fact that software that does a particular task exists for free isn't relevant. If the software exists, it will probably be used in preference to custom-written software anyhow.
Custom-written software is for when something doesn't exist quite the way that someone wants it to. Then they find a programmer and pay them to make it work the way that they want it to.
The fact that afterwards they might release it for free doesn't change anything.
This basically all hinges on the fact that there are an almost infinite number of problems available for humans to try to solve. Once they solve some problems, it's just made other problems accessable now. Once those problems are solved, more have become accessable, and so on into infinity.
Programmers get paid because people want these new problems solved. Once the world runs out of new problems to solve, programmers will be out of work and no amount of proprietary licensing is going to change this.
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
I've submitted modifications to two open source products, but unfortunately my changes have only been picked up by one :(.
That's one of the reasons that I don't use the other product now - if a maintainer rejects an (IMHO at least) perfectly reasonable bug fix just because "hardly anyone will see that error", then what other useful bug fixes have they rejected? I can't tell anyone else how to run their projects, but if I can't get a good explanation for why a submitted bug fix wasn't accepted, then I acknowledge that I'm probably not a valued contributor to such a project, and I move on to more productive pursuits.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Not at all - AFAIK, RMS et al. have no problems with RedHat, SuSe, or Debian selling people useful free software. As has been wisely pointed out above, their position is that providing software without the source code and the right to make and distribute changes is unethical.
It denies a certain use, which would by default be denied anyway under a normal software license, to a certain class of developers who are only interested in profiting off of the free software community. Any software developer who is willing to give back to the community is allowed additional rights to GPL'd software that would not be otherwise available to them.
TANSTAAFL (look it up). Heaven forbid we deny proprietary software developers anything that they want...
That's good, because the GPL isn't a contract, it's a license. You don't even have to accept the license in order to use the software, so it's still a more open licensing scheme than almost all proprietary software.
If the FSF feels politically opposed to someone using their work without contributing back something of their own, then they are entirely within their rights to take that position - a position which isn't particularly unreasonable, either. The other party can hardly bitch if they were planning to pull a fast one using GPL'd code, and are now being required to give back something in exchange for all the benefits they've gained from using other peoples' code. The GPL enforces a mutual exchange of code as opposed to what would otherwise be a unilateral taking code without giving anything back. "Our code for your code" sounds pretty mutually even-handed, but if you don't like those terms, don't use our code and quit whining about it.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
If the compile farm was for Microsoft's internal use, I don't think there would be a significant amount of outrage.
If the compile farm was available to other parties (e.g. anyone on the Internet) then you do indeed get into the interesting case of "public performance." It's coming up a lot with ASPs. This does appear to be one of the things on RMS' mind that will be addressed somehow in GPL version 3. IMHO, there is no elegant way to handle this and I think RMS is going to have a hard time.
There is nothing wrong with this scenario, and it should not generate outrage. The purpose of GPL is maximize the rights of users. In the your scenario, the user's rights are indeed maximized, since the bank has the source code.
It is ok that the bank does not release the source code to anyone else, because there isn't anyone else being "held hostage" by their dependence on the binary.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
--
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
Why can't the author of GPL'd software assign power of attorney (or something similar) over their copyright to the FSF? That would seem to better retain the spirit of credit where credit is due, not to mention allow the author to retain control over use of her code for other purposes.
A contract has to have several elements in order to be a contract. These are (a) a 'meeting of the minds' or an agreement, (b) consideration (c) offer and acceptance and (d) mutuality of obligations.
From the FindLaw Legal Dictionary
Contract: an agreement between two or more parties that creates in each party a duty to do or not do something and a right to performance of the other's duty or a remedy for the breach of the other's duty.
License: a grant by the holder of a copyright or patent to another of any of the rights embodied in the copyright or patent short of an assignment of all rights.
A license is different from a contract. It is a grant of rights which dosn't need to be made for consideration. Implicit in a license is that the rights granted are rights reserved to to grantor.
The GPL is a license and not a contract. There is no consideration, the rights granted are gratis even though they come with limitations.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
And this comes as a surprise to you? It says right in the license itself that it's all about freedom, and that this goal represents a change from the standard proprietary practices.
Some believe this freedom will lead to technical excellence, because the code that one person writes can be studied, improved, and built upon by others without restriction. "We stand on the shoulders of giants" is the goal. Others disagree, as you seem to. This is an arguement for another thread.
BTW, your reply here has nothing to do with the parent post. Freedom IS the added value under consideration, regardless of possible or real technical merits. Go to your local bookstore and buy a book to learn how to properly refute a point.
As for your original post, the scenario makes perfect sense to me. If you want to require payment from every user or whatever, then don't use the GPL because it grants distribution rights you'd rather keep. If you want to require payment from every subsequent user of something you recieved under the GPL, then you're screwed up in the head. The GPL doesn't care about you making money. If that's all you care about, look elsewhere.
-----
--
perl -e'$_=shift;die eval' '"$^X $0\047\$_=shift;die eval\047 \047$_\047"' at -e line 1.
It says right in the GPL, if you are distributing unmodified binaries from someone else in a noncommercial fashion, you don't have to do anything.
So it's safe to give cousin in Yemen a copy of the software, and he can get the source himself.
You have to taake into consideration the main purpose of the license, which is to produce free software that stays free. One of the best stimulus for spreading software is to allow someone to profit from it.
This aspect of the GPL should not be viewed in the restrictive sense, but taking into consideration that "this software must stay Free, however, we do not keep anyone from making commercial use and distribution" They could as well have included a "non-commercial only clause" and so "Linux" distributors could not make a living by selling CD's, they would have to give them away, which prevents success for Free Software.
I don't see why people are afraid of the GPL. It's a COPYRIGHT license. It uses copyrights, not patents. If you see a piece of GPLed code that you like, rewrite it, that'll make it yours.
I can see a point where 95% of the software is GPLed, because it's so damned easy to write an application when you can borrow code. But that last 5%? That'll be by people who don't like the GPL, or who for some reason want or need closed source software.
They'll still be able to write closed-source software, by not using any GPLed code. It's only a problem if they feel they have to use someone else's code.
But, really, I don't care that some company can't copy GPLed code - wah... (I don't really care about them copying my GPLed code, I write (when not at work) silly fractal zoomers and filesystems for emulators... Not exactly big-buck stuff.)
In order to retain copyright over the program, you should request bug-fixers to assign their copyright to you.
On the other hand, if it's more like a collaboration than accepting a bug-fix or two, then you probably shouldn't have the right to dual-license it-- imagine how many people would be pissed if Linus dual-licensed the Linux kernel. IIRC, Linus doesn't ask collaborators to assign their copyright to him, so he doesn't have the right to dual-license it.
Then, of course, there's the grey bits in between.
I feel I'm raising a valid point.
The GNU GPL requires a enourmous FAQ just to lay the ground rules. I think many people sign up using the GNU GPL without thinking of the implications - it's less a license and more a social movement. There should be a question in that FAQ, "What will the world be like if all software is GNU GPL?" (which is the intent of the GNU GPL given it's virus-like design). And, anyone applying the GNU GPL to their code is implicity agreeing with the philosophy and conclusions of that question. A pervasive GNU GPL would affect our freedom of choice, freedom of expression, and privacy - and the conclusions may not be what you expect. So, at a minimum, users of the GNU GPL should at least think through those issues. And, most don't.
The BSD license, on the other hand, is just that, a license and not a forced social movement. It doesn't try to modify behavior. Because it has fewer overall social implications, it's easier to understand. Consequently, it requires only the most trivial FAQ.
Q1. Can I use the source code in any way I like?
A1. That's right.
Q2. Can I hold you responsible if it doesn't do what I expect it to do?
A2. Nope.
Q3. Fair enough, thanks.
A3. No problem.
--------
K.I.S.S.
Question 1:
Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?
Answer: Yes
And anyone can do this; otherwise, the more commercially-oriented Linux distributors would be s-c-r-e-w-e-d. I can sell, say, GNU tar and some related utilities to my bud Roger for $10, with the source.
Question 2:
Does the GPL allow me to require that anyone who receives the software must pay me a fee and/or notify me?
Answer: No
In short, if I give a copy of GNU tar to Roger, the FSF can't go after Roger for money, especially if I made certain modifications to GNU tar that I didn't hand back to the FSF, but I did make available under the terms of the GPL should the FSF care enough to incorporate them on their own. Once again, the concept behind the GPL is to promote and enforce the availability of the code to users, forever. Allowing the copyright holder to run around to every user of the software, even those who received the software from a completely different source, would go a long way to closing code back up by attaching financial requirements to all users of the software, not to mention a bureaucratic nightmare for everyone involved.
It is simply silly to allow people to sell software but prohibit them from trying to enforce payment for that software. However you look at it simply doesn't make sense.
You're looking at this from a purely commercial perspective. A company may wish to sell a GPL'd piece of software they wrote, and include a value-add to encourage people to get the software from them - exclusive on-site tech support, fridge magnets, bonus copies of proprietary software, something, anything. The developer, individual or company, may wish to make some money where they can, but still make it possible for users to spread and improve the software. And again, remember that the GPL is written with the primary intent of keeping source code available at all times, not with helping create the next Cisco or Microsoft. Not everyone's driven purely by the desire to make a buck at any cost:)
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
The reason the free software doesn't need fixing is because someone already scratched the itch you would get -- because they could.
No one was able to stratch the itches when the source wasn't availible, which is why you feel the need to.
There is nothing wrong with improving the wording of your contract as the legal and technological landscape changes. I would rather have this situation then to have a useless license that is obselete because someone invented a new technology.
War is necrophilia.
Reading the GPL and taking into account the context of it being written in 1984, it seems that RMS was wanting to allow "standalone" component software which was GPL'd to be called from a non-GPL program (by the example given in the license of piping and capturing stdout).
From this you could make a pretty convincing legal argument that a COM/KOM/CORBA/Whatever component is separate from it's calling program for the purposes of the GPL. As a quick example, many non-free tools may break if sed and awk are not available on the system because they use them as components in their processing line - note that they are not optional but necessary for the nonfree program to run.
In a similar way if I pipe the output of an MP3 from my proprietary program through a command line mp3dec to get the audio stream out the other end then I am not breaking the GPL. The mp3dec program is just a component in my system.
Now if I use different middleware (COM) instead of pipes then I'm doing effectively the same thing - separate processes, no break of GPL.
Of course the real question now is where do you draw the line. If COM decided to load the component in the same process as my proprietary application then my INTENT is exactly the same: I'm simply using the features of the program in the same way a dev tool uses sed and awk. The technicalities are different, but I'd be surprised to see it being different in a legal sense - in both cases one set of code is simply using (and critically depends on) features of another set of code. The free code could be replaced by non-free code if required with NO modification to the original (not even a recompile) and so it would be hard to assert the proprietary code being a derivative work.
What does this mean? Ultimately it could mean that linking through middleware is ok, hence linking via COM is ok, hence running in the same process is ok, which effectively reduces the GPL to the LGPL.
THAT is scary. As many people have pointed out, what really matters is the INTENT and not the technical details. This may indeed be the downfall of the GPL!
[Of course IANAL and in the end, I am often prone to attacks of stupidity so slap me down if I need it]
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
I personally subscribe to the GPL not because I subscribe to the social change thing (that's a bit much to ask of software) but as a self protection thing so my code, and code derived from my code remains in the public domain rather than picked up and exploited by someone like BILL$, LARRY$ or the millions who would like to emulate them.
Cheers
Mark
Freedom to live in peace => forced non-violence.
Freedom to use, modify and distribute software => forced non-closedness.
The only way you can ever guarantee some freedoms is by restricting other, hopefully more unreasonable, freedoms.perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
One thing I am unsure of is how to credit everyone 's work with copyright messages when there are multiple contributers?
//s everywhere. Is it important to show which bits of code belong to who?
The "How to use the GPL or LGPL" says: If you have copied code from other programs covered by the same license, copy their copyright notices too. Put all the copyright notices together, right near the top of each file.
But if I modify some GPL'ed code how do I indicate which bit of the code is copyright to me without going nuts with
If it were a small change or a simple bug fix I really wouldn't care but on a major change/addition to another author/programmer's work I think it would be important to distinguish who did what.
Any ideas?
EOF.
How we know is more important than what we know.
fuck that, you just close it and if anyone complains you buy them off, and if they refuse to be bought off you reverse their bug fix, wait for someone to complain about the bug and fix it yourself. Bug fixes, pfft. Now if someone has done significant functionality then you're fucked.
How we know is more important than what we know.
winzip is the most popular piece of shareware on the net and it contains nag features that no-one even bothers to crack (and a lot of people pay for, dont ask me why). Modify it, yes, re-release it, maybe to their friends, but not to the world.
How we know is more important than what we know.
great. So why cant something similar be open source?
How we know is more important than what we know.
Well I was going for intent, and I was following the Christian commandments. No 10 is stated here, and in the context of licenses I think it is analogous.
How we know is more important than what we know.
You dont even have to put it on an anonymous ftp site. Hell, if you distribute the source code on the cds that you sell you dont even have to supply an alternative way to distribute the source. I see absolutely no problem with selling GPL software on CD. Sure, some people will put your software on an anonymous ftp site and allow downloads, but there are plenty more people who will pay for the CD.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Hmm. I just had a brainstorm. You know shareware, or should I say nagware. You get a program, it constantly bugs you to register (ie, pay money). It bugs you day and night but you just ignore it. A few people actually get sick of this and pay the money to make it go away. I hear some people even feel guilty about this little box popping up and pay to make it go away. So if that is a valid business model (and I'm not saying it is) then what's wrong with doing the same thing with Free Software. You cant say "you have used this product for 30 days, you must now pay me" but you can say "you are getting a lot of use out of this product, please fork me cash" .. you are not demanding money, you're just requesting it. Sure, people are gunna get pissed off and go and grab the source code and take out the annoying nag box, but so what? Isn't it developers that we specifically want to grab the source? If you can fix the source so the nag box doesn't come up then surely you can fix a few bugs, implement some new features, whatever, and contribute that back to the project. Developers have paid for the software with their contribution of code, and end users (well, at least some of them) have contributed with cash. Isn't that the best of both worlds?
How we know is more important than what we know.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Then do not release the program under the GPL. I got the impression from the faq that:
a) you could definitely release the program under different licenses.
b) non-free software is bad.
Well, if you really want to sell it, release it under GPL after you collect your fee. Make sure you allow that you may release it under GPL in the original license. In a way, you are then charging for the first crack at it. It does not seem like a problem to release it under a non-gpl license (that maintains your right to GPL it later.)
Troll Like a Champion Today
if you want to receive financial retribution from the distribution of your software, don't use an open source license, heh. all this says is you are allowed to sell what you've GPL'd without going against the GPL, makes perfect sense to me.
I think you mean LGPL'ed code :-) The LGPL contains a specific exclusion for this, allowing you to include the LGPL'ed headers into non--GPL code. If you really do mean GPL, then no way, no how can you include it in ANYTHING other than GPL'ed code, not even LGPL'ed code.
-- Rich
Free your mind and your Ass will follow -- George Clinton
From the FAQ:
They seem to be missing an important point here. If everyone's contribution is placed in the public domain, then the GPL licence cannot be enforced. Anybody who wanted to could take the public domain code and incorporate it into their proprietary system without legal repercussions. What they are suggesting works only for relatively tiny public-domain contributions to a relatively large GPLed project.
Regards,
RE: I want to distribute binaries of a GPL-covered program without accompanying sources. Instead of sending source code later to users who order it, can I just put the source on an Internet server?
I assume that this doesn't apply to the case where I put the binaries & source on the Internet, Jane Doe downloads it off of the internet, gives it to her brother John who lives at the north pole without internet access. It's Jane who has the responsibility to get John the source, not me, right?
Basically, I believe it means that you should probably be prepared to distribute source every way you distribute binaries. If you ship floppies full of binaries in the mail, expect to ship floppies full of source. If you don't, don't worry about it.
This answer should be clarified, I think.
Yeah, as if cars had seatbelts back in the 1940s.
It's a quote from "The Matrix" - DUH!.
BTW, if you're going to go offtopic and flamey at someone's sig, don't do it at score 2.
OT was intended to show Off topic (too bad the moderators were too dumb to catch that one. Oh well....). And I post at 2 because that's where slashcode puts me, based on my Karma, tho as an AC you probably wouldn't know about that.
--
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
If I hold copyright on a GPL'ed program, should I do this, too? If so, how? Our lawyers have told us that to be in the best position to enforce the GPL in court against violators, we should keep the copyright status of the program as simple as possible. We do this by asking each contributor to either assign the copyright on his contribution to the FSF, or disclaim copyright on it and thus put it in the public domain.
So, what the FSF is saying is that if you contribute to our software, you give up your rights to whatever you write. This does not seem in line with Free Software. In fact, in the FAQ it states that you should get credit for what you have written and include a copyright notice.
The closer I read this FAQ, the more I think about releasing my software under a different license.
ÕÕ
ÕÕ
Consider this situation:
X releases V1 of a project under the GPL.
Y contributes to the development of V2 with changes and new code based on V1.
X wants to switch to a non-GPL license.
Does X need Y's permission?
Yes. Y was required to release its version under the GNU GPL, as a consequence of basing it on X's version V1. Nothing required Y to agree to any other license for its code. Therefore, X must get Y's permission before releasing the code under another license.
Of course, if X is the Free Software Foundation, they wouldn't ask for Y's permission. Instead they would request that Y give up all rights they have to the software they wrote.
Is this a case of "Do as I say, not as I do"?
ÕÕ
ÕÕ
Depends on HOW you accepted the bug fixes.
/. Or, perhaps an actual, real live lawsuit, is one of the submitters has the balls to do that.
If you ask that all bug fixes have the rights signed over to you/the company you create to hold the software copyright, then you/your firm hold the rights to re-license later.
Otherwise, you have to track down EACH bug-submitter, and ask for permission. If you don't, you might get a 'violate the GPL' post here on
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
Either way, it is eaiser to ask BEFORE bug patches get submitted that one should asign the patch rights back over to the project.
And if someone doesn't like that, they can always go fork themselves a new code fork.
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
No. It makes it more difficult to sell shrink-wrapped style software for money, especially commodity goods.
I own none of the rights to any of the software I have ever written. But I've been able to make plenty of money writing software. My current company usually does not hold the rights to the software it develops.
Most of the companies I've written code for do not sell software. They sell hardware, provide consulting services, or use the applications internally.
Most of the code written by all developers is not for shrink-wrapped products. Most of the code written is for business specific applications, frequently by a team of in-house developers who get paid quite handsomely. And if the company does not re-sell that software, the issue of the GPL is moot to them.
But yes, commodity software, such as the Unix OS and supporting utilities, CD rip and burn software, web browsers, etc. will eventually have very low profit margins (regardless of the GPL.) It's too easy for someone to reimplement and undercut your prices if you have significant margins. Because distribution costs are so low for software, once someone has developed the product, there is little incentive to not compete on price.
But again, contrary to the impression you get by walking through the software aisle of your favorite computer store, that isn't what most software engineers are doing for a living. And for many of categories of developers, the GPL does not significantly limit their freedoms.
Err... so, what's wrong with communism?
______________
______________
OTTERS RULE.
So IMHO there would be no harm even if FSF would be a Marxist organisation (which it just doesn't seem to be).
______________
______________
OTTERS RULE.
No source is unbiased. The trick is to extract what truth you can find, happily ignoring what you think of as biased. This is possible because you know WHO wrote it and WHAT they stand for. A little propaganda never hurts you if you think, and it might even give you some new insights either way.
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Short answer: no.
The long answer is given in the FAQ: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html#Consider.
(I take it that you released the first version under the GPL.)
Free Manning, jail Obama.
Not sure about that. Looking at the Open Souce Definition you find just at the beginning:
So, with _any_ OSI-approved licence, you can certainly sell your program, but you cannot prevent others from doing the same, and you cannot force these others to give you part of what they get by selling your software.You can _ask_ for money, however, hoping that enough distributors and final users consider honorable and/or convenient feed you with some cash so that you can continue work on your program.
The various 'foundations' behind large software suites/programs get money in this way, I think. OTOH Eazel just tried it at the end of its history and failed (possibly because they did not have an established product yet?).
Ciao
----
FB
--- ACT ONE ---
Here I am, a developer with free time to devote to open source. Ah, what a good DLL you have, and it is GPL, too. Pity the GUI is crap. Let's start a new open-source project for a better GUI, to use your nice DLL.
--- ACT TWO ---
Uhm, if would be nice to change this interface in the DLL, to make it work better with my open-source GUI. What ? This would screw the integration with your own proprietary GUI? Well, that is your problem, not mine. Others open source developers are with me, this is the RIGHT THING(tm) to do. Ah, your company developers will not support this? OK, let's fork the project right now. Good bye!
The only way to control where a piece of free software goes is by owning the majority of the work gone into it. But then, this is just fair.
Ciao
----
FB
The majority of programmers work on software built to customer specifications, which is used internally by big companies for things such as work-flow support. Such software is typically relatively useless for everyone but that company. There is never a "licensing system" in such a case - the customer is always given complete ownership rights to the software.
it is not completely unrealistic to release the code under the GPL in such a case, since nobody else is going to pay for it anyway.
The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
--Henry Kissinger
Wrong. It just makes it close to impossible to make money from making software and trying to sell it to many people. If you can get one person (or company) to pay you enough money to sustain you for the software, it works quite well.
The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
--Henry Kissinger
B) The GPL does not force you to give the the software, it merely prevents you from charging for it.
Come back when you have a clue on how most software development is done.
The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
--Henry Kissinger
Pointing out that the public gets something out of the deal is not the same thing as proving that the deal is fair, or the deal that was agreed to. In particular, we the public are not getting from the deal the eventual return to the public intellectual commons of more than was taken from it. That is not, as you seem to suggest, an element of the equation which we should just shrug and forget about, since companies seem disinclined to honor it; it is highly likely that had that provision not been part of the patent and copyright laws the Founding Fathers instituted, that the US would have had no intellectual property laws.
Unfortunately, it so often happens that what was once accepted grudgingly, as a necessary evil, is with the passage of time mistaken for the point of the enterprise. The notion that it is still allowable for companies to fence off the intellectual commons because at least we have the opportunity to buy it back is ... let's just call it an exercise in Advanced Point-Missing.
Because experience has so often justified it. Demanding proof that private enterprise has abused the law and the public for its own benefit is like proving that you're surrounded by air: if you can't notice it for yourself, I'm not sure what I could possibly do to make it clearer.
Funny, that's exactly what I don't remember.
If people are to respect the law, perhaps the law should begin by respecting the people.
Yes, it does, but it doesn't if you can't let go of the cathedral model.
What you're implying is that an honor system, where people take free software and understand their obligations to repay with money, is doomed to failure.
If this is so, then what chance does the other honor system, where enterprises make improvements to the intellectual commons but then contribute back to it, have? At least our culture is such that people thoroughly understand the idea that goods and services are exchanged for money, and that an obligation exists whether or not it's enforced.
But between ridiculously incompetent and venal administration of the patent system and constant overhaul of the copyright system at the direction of moneyed interests, the companies are not only successfully crippling enforcement of their obligation, they're managing to sell the Big Lie that such an obligation never existed.
And that is why the GPL is necessary in the first place: if you claim individual consumers cannot be trusted under an honor system to pay a price they know they owe, how can conglomerates trying to steal a march on their competitors be trusted with a more abstract obligation to contribute to the intellectual commons?
If people are to respect the law, perhaps the law should begin by respecting the people.
> 'Why should programs say "Version 2 of the GPL or any later version"?'
Could the FSF add an exception to the GPL at a later date that said something to the effect of: "Microsoft is granted permission to distribute modifications however they chose"?
That would suck...
If its possible, FSF could make tons of money.
cheers,
metric
From the FAQ: "Does all GNU software use the GNU GPL as its license? Most GNU software packages use the GNU GPL, but there are a few programs (and parts of programs) that use looser licenses, such as the Lesser GPL. When we do this, it is a matter of strategy."
I find it mildly disconcerning that I have to read through and (worse) need to understand a 18k file to know what the GPL is about. Looking at the length and complexity of topics covered by the GPL FAQ make me wonder if people putting all their code under the GPL really know what they do.
I'll stick to the Berkeley "go down to the copycenter and make as many copies as you like" license.
- Hubert
This would require COM+ to be GPLed since it uses a "Plugin", say a dynamically linked library which is not executed or forked (the COM+ component is executed)
Since COM+ is not GPLed, registering a GPLed library to COM+ is in violation of the GPL and thus not allowed
There is no way of circumventing the GPL. No Way
Think about it
From that discussion:
Since the name "Library GPL" conveys the wrong idea about this question, we are planning to change the name to "Lesser GPL."
bullshit. capitalism in it's truest sense is the moral code that promotes individual rights not only in the availability of choice in buying/selling products, but also in the choice available to us in creation. I find it highly unlikely that the GPL would ever have been developed in a socialist state, and in fact the way that the Chinese government breaks the terms of the GPL constantly with their so-called red star linux lends credence to that notion.
Invoking John Galt as a model for self-interested capitalism, as the original poster did, presents a scheme where the accent is on the rights of the creators, not the rights of the parasitic embracers (bill gates / orrin boyle) who, while possibly rich now, can hardly be said to be perfect models of capitalism.
The GPL presents a set of alternate choices allowing the 'motive power of humans' to be more finely directed through the rational choice of the actual individual creator and not some over-arching collective. In that sense, it's highly supportive of the core freedoms that have historically only existed in capitalist societies.
Giving away something is perfectly in line with capitalism. Having it stolen/appropriated from you is what you actually mean by socialism.
Metamuscle.com - News in the Iro
This raises an interesting question: Can the owner/developer/hacker of an original code that he previously released under normal copyright, change that to GPL and/or release an update to that same code/functionality under GPL (for whatever reason)?
Wouldn't that pull the rug out of a few previous customers, who paid for version 1.0 but now can get 2.0 for, er, free??
Hmmm, my head hurts, now, great...
SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
If I want to go ahead and design a really cool lawn mower and publish it on the web, or put circulars in people's mailboxen, then I certainly do have that right, don't you agree?
I disagree that it would not be in the companies' best interest to hire the guy who wrote the neat sorting algorithm. If that were true guys like Torvalds would be penniless.
I actually believe that we need a new paradigm here. One that doesn't pre-suppose that corporations are the only ones who control where the money flows; that programmers Must get hired by big sw firms as a preliminary first step in their career. You are defending the 'rights' of corporations to make money. I am saying that that isn't a right. Developers could choose to do just what Lawnmower Man did and give away their stuff for free, and there had better be no law to prevent that, because it would be antithetical to the concept of a free society and a laissez-faire government. Which I had previously supposed Conservatives such as yourself fawned over so much. Er, not the freedom part but the lack of regulations part.
SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
It's interesting to see that, as more people become aware of the concept of GPL, and the difference between LGPL and GPL, how they are startled by the simplicity and the power of it. I'm not saying you just figured it out, but I sure remember when I did.
Now, you immediately take a position that is the polar opposite of mine, and I suspect that it's because I am not a programmer dependent on software to make a living. Taken from your side, and given the fact that any change that threatens the status quo is a bit frightening, the GPL could be perceived as a threat. It represents a potential sea-change in the software industry. It says that sw will not be dominated, as it has in the past, by large (er, monolithic), pyramidal corporations where wealth funnels to the top and guys like yourself would be guaranteed a nice salary with perks and maybe a stock option or two, but certainly no glory.
It points to a genuine New Economy, albeit intrinsically in the fabric of a Free society all along, that values software solely on the basis of its utility and merit, and not on the proprietary nature of er, IP (cringe). It de-commodifies software and commodifies it at the same time: the actual text of a program is now free, but the person who developed that killer-app is now worth more; the software is now commodified, but the coin is not gold, it is more and better software.
Who knows where this would lead? But it should be an attractive alternative to all programmers who are willing to assume the risks involved with such an undertaking (lawsuits seem to be one crag in the ocean, but that should disappear if the courts support the letter of the GPL).
Okay, let me address your single statement...
It just makes it impossible to make money by making software.
By what I just said, I think I explained how that can happen. The difference is that the coders and only the coders stand to gain. Shareholders in xyz.com must figure out a way to merely package and support thier product. I admit that the temptation to want to keep proprietary the product you just linked to a GPL program is strong when there is a direct bottom line impact, but you need to know that when your company enters into a bargain with the GPL devil.
Muahahahahaha!
SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
that's why any corporation using the GPL has to give the software out for free, and require it's users to pay a monthly free for service. Getting a monthly free from everyone who gets your software is a lot better than a one time fee. This is not a troll, just the voice of truth.
Here is another problem with the slashdot's idealisms:
if they are not enforcing payment, advertisements are bad, and tech. support is optional, how does one make money?
realistically, they can't. In the FSF perfect world, money would be taken out of the equation (or placed into their own pockets). Corporations are BAD (except if it's about linux or something OPEN-Source related). Where would we be, without coporations?
1) WWW wouldn't have been invented.
2) the internet would consist of about 4 university computers
3) all the cool technologies that we see today would never have been invented
Money is the main reason many developers (not all) strive to create new technology. Do you actually think we would see a 1.4 GHZ without corporate involvement? I will answer this question for you: NO.
Taken from the GPL FAQ:
1) Does the GPL allow me to require that anyone who receives the software must pay me a fee and/or notify me?
No. In fact, a requirement like that would make the program non-free. If people have to pay when they get a copy of a program, or if they have to notify anyone in particular, then the program is not free. See the definition of free software.
The GPL is a free software license, and therefore it permits people to use and even redistribute the software without being required to pay anyone a fee for doing so.
This is allowed, because the end-user is getting charged a fee under my own license (in addition to the GPL), which is solely for the purpose of tech support. The software and source is still given away FREE of CHARGE.
2) Our lawyers have told us that to be in the best position to enforce the GPL in court against violators, we should keep the copyright status of the program as simple as possible. We do this by asking each contributor to either assign the copyright on his contribution to the FSF, or disclaim copyright on it and thus put it in the public domain.
giving the FSF copyright to a program is NOT placing it in the public domain. This is like giving all of your worldly possessions to a religious cult, and saying: "God owns my possessions now".
that just proves my point on how closed the GPL actually is, not for "free speech", as many think. It's even worse than a standard close source license
only to note that RedHat is making money
that is the biggest joke. All corporate redhat companies (including redhat) are losing money. Please I would like to hear of a REAL example, which I don't think actually exists.
This is not true, at least when it comes to libraries. The GPL, when applied to a library, is much, much worse than any other license I've seen.
Using the Evil Empire as an example, some libraries that come with development tools like Visual C++ are redistributable and have licenses which make no attempts to control how you license code you develop using them.
On the other hand, using a library licensed under the GPL requires that you apply the GPL to your own code (or so they claim - I personally find the distinction between fork/exec and shared address space dubious.)
Yep, but they were all fairly small programs, so I don't know if they count as "product".
"The Crystal Wind is the Storm, and the Storm is Data, and the Data is Life"
I can just see the customers now. "Curse you for releasing the source! See if I ever pay for an upgrade of this software again!" Actually, if I were such a customer, it would irritate me a lot less than the possibly more common announcement "New major version! Registration fee is $39.95, or FREE for all customers who purchased the old version within the past year. Too bad about you early supporters who forked over the dough for that same version 14 months ago."
"The Crystal Wind is the Storm, and the Storm is Data, and the Data is Life"
But this post is just FUD. Freedom is a funny thing. Ever hear the phrase "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose"? Maximizing liberty means restraining certain actions, i.e., those which take away liberty. Otherwise we have nothing but the rule of the strongest/most monopolistic. You could say "the GPL is coercing me to be free" much like you could say "these murder statutes inhibit my god-given right to kill people", but that's just silly.
Bryguy
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
I doubt you'd have to mirror the gcc source, unless you think that the FSF is going to drop their server in the near future. <g>
karma is for the weak >)
IIRC, it was originally named the "Library GPL", but was changed to "Lesser GPL" because it could be applied to things besides libraries.
karma is for the weak >)
But are they GPL'ing the code? You didn't mention that. If they are, then you would be correct. If they aren't and are releasing it under another license, it doesn't violate the GPL because it isn't.
So tell me this: what does LGPL stand for? The FAQ says
...
"... there are a few programs [...] that use looser licenses, such as the Lesser GPL."
But it links to a discussion by Richard Stallman, where it's "Library GPL".
Does this matter? Perhaps not; geekspeak, with its morass of TLAs, is a language unto itself. All we need is an emergency vowel drop, and it'll be ready for verbal use
The FAQ is filled with great information, but, not to be a troll or anything, IMO it's still to complicated for Joe User to understand. Other than that, it's very informative.
I loved this line, though: "My program will have liberty, or never be born."
What I already said:
Now, please tell me why you thought that statement said the GPL is about technology. True, later in my post I also mentioned technology... but I purposefully separated that point since I understand it is more an effect of the GPL and not it's purpose (And the effect idea is fairly debatable; Ever compare GCC's performance with commercial compilers?)
I'm done with sigs. Sigs are lame.
Well, I think it's important to also consider the other Open Source Licenses that there are out there.
Now, I'm certainly no expert on any of the varieties listed, but perhaps there is one that allows the author to collect on profitable usage and distribution of his/her work.
I know that if I wrote some significant piece of Linux software I would very likely wish to release the source in the public domain, however I would like to also share in the profit if someone else is making money from my work.
However, looking at it from another angle (the one the GNU people likely look at it from,) I would submit that while not being able to enforce payment on a product that may be sold may not be in the best interest of profitable commerce, it is in the best interest of adding value to the product for a target audience, in this case Hackers. The goal of GNU-Licensed software is not to produce profit, but to produce further development of a free *NIX-like OS and applications for it. The reason you can sell GNU software (provided it includes source code) without breaching the license is simply that the GNU-License developers don't mind if you make a few bucks as long as you're supporting their couse, namely distribution GNU source code.
An example of why open source is good (even if it's not free!): I happen to like Outlook Express quite a bit. Being a Microsoft product, it is most certainly closed source. However it is also freely distributed, despite Microsoft's typical draconian EUA's and legal stuff like that.
Essentially it's freeware. Nontheless, I like it enough that I would pay for it... provided I could fix those GD-*#%! bugs in the IMAP code and perhaps add some features (and subtract others). As a developer, I am sure I would be perfectly capable of affecting those desired changes... and I would prefer to not have to wait for microsoft to do it for me... What I'm saying is that opening the source code adds something very valuable to the product. If it wasn't already available for free, I'd gladly pay for a copy of the source code if it allowed me to modify the program for my own personal use. Even better would be if I could even sell my enhanced version and simply pay microsoft a small royalty. Open source can certainly be profitable, but profit is not the intention of the GPL. That is left to other Open Source Licenses.
I intended to put in my $.02 but think I just overpaid!
I'm done with sigs. Sigs are lame.
Some of these changes oddly seem to imply that they plan on going after AOL in its violations. Particualry the clarifications on including a copy of the modified source code as well as the restirctions on including GPL'd software in propiratary devices. They also mention that a URL to the GPL is not enough because there is no ware to assure that a URL will be vaild in the future. Pretty interesting.
about time. I was beginning to think the GNU people wrote some shell utilities, a compiler, and a license and just stopped doing things. Nice to see response!
samrolken
Hi, what license should I use when I want the world and their mother to be able to download/modify/hack/whatever it, but, I want anyone using it commercially (any non government, profit orginisation) to pay for it? tx ^_^
You're confused that a owner/developer/hacker would take the time to write a program, and after justifying the costs, maybe even turning a profit, improves/refines it and frees it to the public? This sounds vaguely like the original intent of U.S. copyright laws. The owner/developer/hacker had limited term exclusive rights to his/her/their product, and later, after they've gotten monetary compensation for his/her/their efforts, GPL's it so that he/she/they can retain credit for having done the work.
P.S. Is there a provision in the GPL for passing on a sponsor list (i.e. people who've paid for previous versions)?
Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
I have written an application that links with many different components, that have different licenses. I am very confused as to what licensing requirments are placed on my program. Can you please tell me what licenses I may use?
-
To answer this question, we would need to see a list of each component that your program uses, the license of that component, and a brief (a few sentences for each should suffice) describing how your library uses that component.
This is just silly. For a lot of these little programs peoplem ay as well just post their source and say "have at it!".
---
___
The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin
Why is the parent modded down? Really? Answer the question instead of modding this down.
It IS silly to permit people to sell something but forbid any attemt to enforce payment.
What are you talking about? A society where the economy is built on sharing exists today in Cuba and have existed in the sovjet union and China.
It not a new concept invented by RMS or the FSF.
Sure, make a company pay you $100.000 for a software project that they have to give away to everybody afterwards.
Sounds like great business, no wonder all the tech companies goes down the drain these days.
"Most of the code written by all developers is not for shrink-wrapped products. "
True, but that certainly don't mean that the companies paying $$$ for it thinks it's ok to give it away to everybody. No good business.
Ehhhh?
I can't believe I'm reading this. You are joking, right?
The GPL forced programmers to give away their work for free. Why would anyone pay people to develop software that they can get developed for free? And how could they if it's developed else ware for free?
How can you even possibly call it "individualist" oriented when it's all about giving your work away to the community (the word communism comes from the fact that in those society the community comes first and the individual doesn't own anything)?
It's very true that most programmers don't make their income on selling software, but that doesn't matter one bit. No one can pay you to develop software when it must be given away for free or when others develop the same kind of software and give it away. It would be an insane business model!
Please explain what you are talking about.
1: They download a free copy.
2: They buy it from Redhat who is synonym with Linux in the public's eyes. They have a strong trademark, you do not.
They will buy it from Redhat instead witch also have the right to make manuals to your software.
When you GPL your software you have lost all rights to it. Big-corp (for example Redhat) can use (and do) their strong trademark to sell it.
You just become free labour.
"Open Source is a very savvy capitalistic move in a chess game between the centralists (e.g. Microsoft) and the individualists (John Galt, RMS, and a lot of /.); "
It is not capitalist or individualist oriented to give things away...EVER!
I work professionally with software development so I'm well aware how it's done.
The fact remains, when software becomes cheap to produce there is no way in hell to justify paying for its development.
Sorry, posted this reply at the wrong location at first.
I work professionally with software development so I'm well aware how it's done.
The fact remains, when software becomes cheap to produce there is no way in hell to justify paying for its development.
For christ sake...
"You can charge whatever you want for distributing a GPL'd program, you just can't restrict those people from redistributing it (under the GPL). "
So, lets take an example...
If five programmers work on a project for one year the cost for this is about 5*3500*2*12. Those figures come from: 5 people each making $3500/month. The typical cost for a person is twice the salary (vacation, sickness and some unchangeable time makes this typical). And they work for 12 month. This makes a total sum of 420 000 for the year.
That money has to be made in order for those people to be able to pay their bills and be able to put food on their tables, right?
Now, you say I can charge anything I want, right? Ok, lets say we charging $50 for each copy we distribute, this makes it an absolute must to distribute at least 420000/50 copies. This requires that 8400 individuals or organisations buy it for this figure.
But, anyone can redistribute it. Either for free or for basically the cost of the media. Now, you see, we can't do that since we have spent 420000 on developing it, the others who distribute it do not have this cost and can distribute it allot cheaper. Say some other (like redhat) includes it on their CDs or sells it for $10/copy.
Is it really THAT hard to understand that the unrestricted rights for anyone to redistribute it makes it impossible to charge for it in reality?
Who the hell is going to buy the CDs from us? You tell me.
Your post shows exactly why geeks have to broaden their narrow sight.
I can only think that the FSF likes to be a bit vague about what can and cannot be done with GPL'ed software. But I think that makes the GPL less useful than it could be: authors placing their software under the GPL deserve the clearest license possible.
If that is the intent, it would represent both bad faith and bad judgement. If two parties enter into a contract in good faith, they should aim to clarify each other's rights and obligations. And except perhaps for some clueless companies, anybody with legal counsel will get the advice that if it isn't clearly permitted by the license, they should not do it. That is, in my opinion, also the ethically correct position.
I hope that you are wrong and that the FSF merely hasn't gotten around to incorporating these clarifications into the next version of the GPL. Being deliberately vague would, I think, undermine their ethical position and be quite harmful to the GNU project.
Of course, the GPL is about gaining consideration: it's your potential contributions for your ability to use the software. That's an equitable trade, and it isn't denying you anything. If you don't like it, don't enter into the contract.
They have no willingness to negotiate, and despite offering it to proprietary software developers, they deliberately prohibit the use it's wanted for.
It's not offered to "proprietary software developers". And, as you should have learned as a child, not all your wants are met by the world. Other people have wants, too.
By traditional contract standards, this is not at all reasonable.
By your reasoning, I should be able to copy Microsoft Windows freely and widely. After all, their EULA is keeping me from doing what I want with it, and Microsoft won't negotiate their EULA with me.
"If GPL'd software can't be distributed or stored alongside proprietary Oops! Put in a clause for it!"
Should be:
"If GPL'd software can't be distributed or stored alongside proprietary software, people will have to either go full-GNU or never touch GPL'd software. How will anyone get started? Oops! Put in a clause for it!"
--
What the FSF really wants is to decide on a case by case basis what uses are and aren't good for promoting Free Software. This is impossible.
If GPL'd software can't be used on a proprietary OS, we lose a lot of bootstrapping potential. Hmm... we'd put some a clause in to allow that.
If GPL'd software can't be distributed or stored alongside proprietary Oops! Put in a clause for it!
If the GPL makes any claim on the output of GPL'd software, only full-fledged FSF fanatics will use it. We'd better make sure not to do that.
However, if you allow your software to be modified freely to take input and give output in any format, distributed freely with proprietary software, and run on proprietary systems, you allow it to be incorporated into proprietary systems. Any attempt to prohibit this can only prohibit certain direct methods, unless you want to either cripple it for end-users or open up the "intent" can of worms and make any case a chess game between lawyers (if it doesn't invalidate the contract altogether).
So they can either have a license with proprietary incorporation loopholes, or they can have a license with "legitimate use" litigation loopholes. They chose the former, making the GPL nearly meaningless, rather than choosing the latter, and scaring off everybody even thinking of touching GPL'd software. Now it's just a matter of who gets better lawyers and the quirks of the judge.
I've never believed that the GPL would survive a direct court challenge. I certainly don't think it'll be used successfully to sue someone who segregates their proprietary and GPL'd source, though anything is possible in court.
--
So we recommend that you approach them when the program is only half-done, saying, "If you will agree to releasing this as free software, I will finish it." Don't think of this as a bluff. To prevail, you must have the courage to say, "My program will have liberty, or never be born."
To release a non-free program is always ethically tainted,
I'd like to modify GPL-covered programs and link them with the portability libraries from Money Guzzler Inc. [...]
A major goal of the GPL is to build up the Free World [...]
In general, proprietary software projects hinder [...] the cause of freedom.
Yeah, reasonable and friendly, 100% positive information using neutral language.
This is the same-old I Can't Believe It's Not Communism bullshit, with weighted words and little digs at every opportunity, and always The Cause. This guy makes us all look like fruitcakes.
--
You must distribute source code with binaries to this program.
If someone spends 1 day downloading the binaries for your linux distro, but stops the download before the 2-day download of the sources is done, you have to hunt him down and forcibly copy the source code onto his computer.
All software distributed with this program must be licensed under this license.
Yeah, no putting any non-GPL software on the same internet!
You may not restrict the distribution of this software in any other way.
So you may not restrict others from taking and distributing your hard-drive containing this software, however, any derivative works of this software may be restricted at will.
While we're at it, let's toss out the legal system and switch over to the ten commandments.
--
I have a question. If I am the copyright holder of a program I created, and I accept bug fixes to this program from other people, can I release this program under a dual license later? Do I still own the whole copyright after accepting bug fixes?
So tell me again, what is capitalistic about working together for the common good? ;-)
The Marxist slogan "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" -- also sounds a lot like free software to me.
Before my brain overloads here I'd say we need a more reliable defintion of what is 'capitalistic'!!
In particular, there is the theory of 'Rational Choice Marxism' (as in the rational choice axioms of economics), which defines marxist concepts mathematically through game theory.
e.g. if you have two coalitions C1 and C2, and C1 would be worse off if C2 acted for itself, and C2 would be better off, then C1 is said to exploit C2 (if C2 doesn't act for itself, despite it being materially better then C1 is said to dominate C2 or something like that). I don't remember all the details and theorems right now.... it is heavy stuff.
C1 and C2 might be bourgeosie/proletariat, princes/serfs, or proprietary software shareholders/software developers. And you need to consider all possible coalitions, equilibrium points, etc. Anyway IIRC the theory leads to a more rigorous way of determining what is capitalistic. Maybe someone could work that out for free software and let us know the answer to three decimal places.
It is a purely academic distinction. Honestly, people simply DON"T pay for GPLed software.
The only way liberals win national elections is by pretending they're not liberals.
Correct. It almost sounds like an advice "sure you can sell it but , huhuh, since you can't demand payment for it ... good luck"
All I am saying this clause is there to discourage any sort of monetary payment.GPL advocates might claim otherwise but anyone with any common sense will admit that it is incredibly hard to sell stuff when people are not required to pay for it.
More important issue here is that, in my opinion, widespread use of GPL will simply destroy any sort of commercial interest in developing software. Of course, this is highly unlikely since I firmly believe most software dev. professionals are not about to commit professional equivalent of a suicide.
The only way liberals win national elections is by pretending they're not liberals.
Hmm. Trying to simply slow down growth of the government ( not cut down, just slow down) is considered extremist these days ...
BTW. He did no hide his plans for a tax cut, nor his plans for various reforms.
The only way liberals win national elections is by pretending they're not liberals.
"True, but many of us (including RMS, myself, and a few hundred thousand other nerds out there) have built quite a structure on such distinctions. It's what technocrates do; or at least, it's what I do: In a very real sense, I pick nits for a living."
Fine with me. Just don't forget that all this freedom ( and means) to enjoy your small utopian world is brought to you courtesy of commercial IT industry where most of us go to earn our living.
Don't bite the hand that feeds you until you are 100% sure that there is something to replace it.
The only way liberals win national elections is by pretending they're not liberals.
". Yes, it does mean that I cannot follow the proprietary software business model of forcing people to pay to get software, but it does mean I can charge people, for example, for the convenience of the software in a box with a manual, etc. "
Of course you can. What are we talking here is promotion of completely new and unproven system of selling goods.
Sure, there is RedHat and perhaps couple other companies like that but , imho, they have been on this market definitely too short to pass any sort of positive judgment on this new model.
In other words, while we KNOW FOR SURE that there are companies that did make tons of money using old and true system , we have no clue if what RedHat is attempting to do will work in the long run.
The only way liberals win national elections is by pretending they're not liberals.
"I would submit that while not being able to enforce payment on a product that may be sold may not be in the best interest of profitable commerce, it is in the best interest of adding value to the product for a target audience, in this case Hackers. "
..) The only problem with these is that you have to PAY for the product and even then you don't get the same rights as people who created that software have.
Are you sure ? Remember, we are talking here about social goal which has little to do with any technical issues (browse thru ww.gnu.org and tell me if it is more about technical excellence or "freedom"?)
After all, there are excellent Unix like operating system available which were and still are working just fine ( Solaris, IRIX etc
GPL is not about technology, it is about social change.
The only way liberals win national elections is by pretending they're not liberals.
"it is in the best interest of adding value to the product for a target audience, in this case Hackers."
I was trying to refute this part of his post where he claims that GPL is not about money but about technical excellence ( if we talk about adding value for a hacker audience one can safely assume we are in technical waters now.)
The only way liberals win national elections is by pretending they're not liberals.
"However, looking at it from another angle (the one the GNU people likely look at it from,) I would submit that while not being able to enforce payment on a product that may be sold may not be in the best interest of profitable commerce, it is in the best interest of adding value to the product for a target audience, in this case Hackers. "
Adding value to the product directed at hackers is very much about technical excellence. After all, I suspect that 99% of them are much more interested in technology and achieving excellence there than anything else.
Remember, this is Slashdot , a forum for people interested in technology.
The only way liberals win national elections is by pretending they're not liberals.
"If this is so, then what chance does the other honor system, where enterprises make improvements to the intellectual commons but then contribute back to it, have? "
Well, having something on the market , even without any chance of other people learning about inner-workings of this product, is already a contribution for you and millions of other people are able to enjoy benefits of using it.
Why this suspicion and negativity about private enterprise?
Remember, so far all other attempts at implementing social and economical system different than capitalism failed rather terribly (or in this context, they all turned out to be much less effective at stimulating progress.)
The only way liberals win national elections is by pretending they're not liberals.
" ...be guaranteed a nice salary with perks and maybe a stock option or two, but certainly no glory."
Why then limit this to software developers. I am sure engineers who design cars or even lawn movers would love to have their jobs glorified just like you are attempting to do it here.
"It de-commodities software and commodifies it at the same time: the actual text of a program is now free, but the person who developed that killer-app is now worth more; the software is now commodified, but the coin is not gold, it is more and better software. "
Well, GPL simply does not provide enough protection in some specific cases.
Image you develop new sorting algorithm. Sure your value as a professional will go up but if you publish this new stuff under GPL you will not be able to directly benefit from it.
On the other hand, if this new software is available for free (GPL) with no restriction attached what kind of incentive commercial entities have to hire you? None. Having you on board provides NO direct benefit for them since whatever you publish will be available to everybody else. They might as well join everybody else in scavenging whatever new stuff you come up with.
The only way liberals win national elections is by pretending they're not liberals.
The GPL does not enforce that software be available at no cost, but the market forces inherent in free software do (would you buy a Red Hat CD for $50, without any manuals or support, if you could get the same for about five bucks with shipping or download it off the Net for pennies?
It just makes it impossible to make money by making software.
Here's an issue that I've been mulling over....
/. if MS snarfed up some of the GCC code, and slammed it together with some Beowulf supporting software, modified the mess to make it taste better and started running Windows XP compile farms on it.
What is "release" of the software? The new FAQ collection contains the following quote:
*begin quote*
Does the GPL required that source code of modified versions be posted to the public? The GPL does not require you to release the modified program. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the users, under the GPL. Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.
*end quote*
Now then. Here is what I can see as a reasonable definition of "release".
When the entity holding the copyright on the derivative work makes the derivative work available to an entity or entities not holding the copyright.
However, this has implications that are not clear.
For instance, the copyright holder may be an institution utilizing the derivative work internally (think any GPL derived tools used by a major corporation, developed by that corporation and not released to any other entity in any form).
That scenario isn't terribly frightening, but I guarantee that it goes against the spirit of community involvement. Just suppose the outrage here on
Now imagine a second possibility.
A company contracts to write software for another firm. The copyright of the software is specified by contract to reside with the hiring firm. The hiring firm desires the software for internal use (perhaps a bank is hiring a software company to develop its transaction system). The software company is perfectly able to use GNU GPL'd source in this application, modify it, AND NOT RELEASE IT. There is never a release of the software since the copyright holder is a legal entity, no more so than if I modify software for my own use and never give it to anyone.
this by the way provides a possible model for incorporating use of GPL'd software into business.
I know this will be a controversial view, it goes against the spirit of the GNU GPL; however, it appears to be supported by the wording of the license....
Nietzsche on Diku:
sn; at god ba g
:Backstab >KILLS< god.
Good question. Of course, it begs generalization. Why should I listen to someone born after 1920?
-- MarkusQ
I beg to differ. At least when I started, it was a profession, not an industry (if you wish to use radiojargon dating to gauge when this was, we had "Personell" instead of "Human Resources") and we got along just fine. I think converting to an industry (as with health care and music) has benefited a lot of ancillary players at the cost of the practitioners.
I have no objection to biting the hand that tries to steal my lunch, no matter how hard it tries to pretend that it is feeding me.
-- MarkusQ
True, but many of us (including RMS, myself, and a few hundred thousand other nerds out there) have built quite a structure on such distinctions. It's what technocrates do; or at least, it's what I do: In a very real sense, I pick nits for a living.
Honestly, people simply DON"T pay for GPLed software.
Again true, though they do pay for handy CDs, and for customization, and troubleshooting, and so forth. The key is that the FSF doesn't object to us making money aiding the spread of GPLed software, but doesn't want anyone to profit by restricting its spread.
-- MarkusQ
"I will send you a copy of program X for N units of currency;"
you may not say
"Hey, I see you got a copy of program X from somewhere--you now owe me N units of currency."
-- MarkusQ
Very few programers make mounds of cash selling software. But we do make a nice living in a world where there is lots of source code. Open Source tilts the scales in our favour.
Sounds a heck of a lot like enlightened self-interest to me!
--MarkusQ
The GPL and BSD style licenses represent to basic differences in thought. Mr. Stallman and those who support the GPL are trying to make a social change. The other side of the coin, the BSD style licenses, are simply trying to provide software that people will use. Generally both sides code for the love of coding, it's just the GPL supports want an additional end result beyond that (social change). This not a bad thing, it just produces variety.
I personally subscribe more to the BSD style of licenses then the GPL. I could care less about social change (hey I'm a programmer), but I do want people to use and improve my code. I generally avoid using any GPLed code in my own projects because I do not want to have to release code under the GPL.
That being said, to each his own.
I'm a programmer, I don't have to spell correctly; I just have to spell consistently
So the distinction comes down to which process the GPL'd componant is run. This distinction isn't a grand as it once was... in fact it's a throw-away architectural issue in many cases. It would be very easy to argue that such a distinction is moot [COM+/shared memory]. The key distinction becoming the separation of the code into distinct files.
I'd bet against the FSF on this issue if it actually gets to court.
And, I'll bet the judge's head will explode when the experts put up block memory diagrams to 'illustrate' the differences.
Don't think so. GPL covered code can be linked to non-free libraries (like vendor's libc) when the GPL code is of higher level.
Shame of Slashdot
The basis of the open source movement is providing the source code along with the binaries. A couple of the main reasons for doing this is to allow people to make bug fixes and add new features.
In general I have found that the popular open source products have above average quality and have many useful features. Having access to the source code is nice, but for me it generally hasn't been needed.
On the other hand, I've found that popular commercial software products tend to have lower than average quality, but are feature rich. For these products, I would love to have the source code so that I could fix the one or two showstoppers that just irritate the f*ck out of me.
I find it nicely ironic that in the times I need access to the source code, it is unavailable to me. And the times that it is easily accessible, I don't really need it.
So here's a question that's kind of rolling around inside my head: how many of you have actually looked at and modified the source code of 2 or more open source products?