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."
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
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
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.
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.
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?!? --
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.
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:)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. --
--
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
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.
Slashdot Mirror
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
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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.
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.
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.
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,
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.
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.
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...
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 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
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.