Slashdot Mirror
Moglen On Enforcing The GPL
jdavidb writes: "The GNU Project has a new essay today by Eben Moglen, general legal counsel for GNU, about enforcing the GPL. People ranting about the GPL not holding up in court should read this. Very interesting, but I felt that this paragraph looked bad: 'In such situations we work with organizations to establish GPL-compliance programs within their enterprises, led by senior managers who report to us, and directly to their enterprises' managing boards, regularly.' I'm all for the GPL, but this sounds suspiciously like an Software Publishers' Association audit. On the other hand, circumstances of something like this would be completely different, i.e., illegally taking copyright privileges over software you didn't write, as opposed to illegally copying software." Actually, I also think they sound alike in certain ways, but that it makes sense -- since both are about unauthorized reproduction of software. I like the FSF's terms a lot more. Update: 09/18 19:53 PM GMT by T : As Dr. Nonsense points out, davidb "probably meant the dreaded audits by the Business Software Alliance," rather than the SPA.
The SPA audits software used internally in an organization. The FSF audits software that is incorporated into derived works that the organization distributes and charges license fees for as if it were their own. It seems the former is a lot easier to do by accident than the latter.
If the FSF were making deals that required organizations to only use free software internally, then you could draw comparisons with the SPA.
..or give me death.
The FSF would love to hang you out to dry as fast as Microsoft will for license violation.
Keep your code FREE! Use the BSDL, the MIT license, or something that doesn't care if your code goes where it may be required.
After all, if the idea of this 'Free' is to promote the spread of information (after all, software is speech) than we should really be free.
I think it's actually important to realize here that the FSF is not RMS and that RMS is not the FSF...
;-) flippant or (occassionally ;-) arogant remarks, and assume that everyone inside the FSF must feel the same way (or be as arogant or whatever...) There are many people inside the FSF movement (and this really includes anyone who publishes GPL/LGPL code) who patently disagree with many of his statements. So we need to be very careful not to judge the FSF just on RMS alone.
;-)
/.'s [not necessarily the original poster] ;-) he does hold to his ideals in the face of wavering support and hostile opposition.
Many times people hear RMS's (sometimes
On RMS- the simple fact of the matter (the one thing that everyone always fails to realize when criticizing RMS) is that he is undoubtedly a brilliant person. He is very bright. The trouble with people who are "very bright" is that they can have a hard time dealing with people. This can prove especially troublesome when they have strong personal convictions (such as RMS has
While he has done some things I personally feel are horrible (such as this and this exchange) and very detrimental(sp?) to the FSF... I have respect for him and the strength of his convictions. Unlike a lot of people (hrm... many
In my opinion, a world with only free GNU software ("A brave GNU world") is, in fact, a better place to be. There is a big difference a Gates world and the Stallman world, and that's where the conrol is.
In the GNU world, nobody can tell me not to use a piece of software, and noone can tell me what to do with a piece of code I wrote. Stallman does not control my software any more than the next guy. If Stallman goes crazy and decides to destroy all software in the world, even he can't do it. He is also obliged to the GPL and does not own copyright on any code except his own.
In the Gates world, all software copyrights are assigned to a single company (which owns all developers) and that company can decide what to do with it's developers' code.
I, for one, don't want to see some commerical company using my software to make the next version of windows. That's why I release all my code under the GPL. I hope you will as well.
Make even shorter URLs - 8LN.org
The GPL is about power, not freedom; buy into the GPL myth, and you're just exchanging one master (Mr. Gates) for another (Mr. Stallman).
That's not really true. You can retain the copyright in your name (or your company's name, or your group's name). By using the GPL/LGPL you are not inherently giving over control to RMS (or even the FSF)... plus, as was mentionned elsewhere, by removing the words ""any
later version" from the GPL on your code, you can further ensure that changes to the GPL/LGPL in the future do not affect your software (unless you want them to).
But what it really comes down to when choosing a license (and this was the thrust of your post) is your own personal definitions of "freedom" and what you want allowed (or disallowed) with respect to your code.
Many people who use the GPL, and may or may not agree with RMS (such as myself), do not want derivative works to be placed under licenses which cause the work to become property of another entity. People using other licenses, may or may not have strong convictions about this.
For example, one thing that many people don't realize is that the networking code in Windows (I think it was just NT at one point, but now may be in all Windows variants) is actually based upon BSD networking code. The BSD licenses in place allowed Microsoft to legally do this. Some people may not have much of a problem with something like this, but those that typically use the GPL do so to prevent this sort of thing.
Personally, while I use the GPL/LGPL for all my projects, I am not about to try and force others to do the same. Part of my definition of freedom is "freedom of choice". And for any project you personally start or are responsable for, you are (and should be) free to choose whatever license you like.
If there is a loophole in the GPL, then it is weak. Pointing out the faults of a company in order to change someone's side is nothing more than mudslinging. In politics, this type of practice is not respected at all. It is viewed the same way in the software industry as well. Instead of complaining about other companies, the FSF should patch the loophole (if a company were to exploit a loophole).
1) installing modified GPL code on a machine for a customer to evaluate -- RMS has told me that if the customer controls the machine, it is distribution, but if the code modifier controls the machine, it is not.
We ran into this when installing a system for a customer for acceptance testing.
2) Distributing binaries ahead of source (i.e. to subcontractors). RMS has made it clear to me that this is verboten. He sympathized with our plight, but could find no way that the GPL would permit this. OTOH, in practical terms, as long a source was distributed as rapidly as possible, we would likely not face allegations of violation.
We ran into this when sending "the latest, greatest build of code" to subcontractors, or potential customers for evaluation on machines we do not control. Sometimes we'd want to ship an installation CD, or download updates to someone as part of work in progress. This is a technical violation.
3) redistribution within an organization. This is a real grey area -- is the organization in control of the code or the individuals who have access to it? Personally, I have taken the former approach, but have never refused to give mods to GPL code to coworkers, when asked.
You could've hired me.
Why not just put it in the public domain
Self defense. Placing something in the public domain doesn't give you any disclaimer of liability.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?