Slashdot Mirror
Intelligent Debate About WINE Licensing
Dr. Spork writes "If you want to read a discussion about OSS licenses that is not a flame war, check out this week's Wine Weekly News. Among the highlights are Gavriel State's arguments for keeping WINE on a BSD-style license. His company has been criticized for not releasing some very cool D3D code. He claims one reason is because 'there are companies out there who will benefit significantly from commercial use of this code, and who can afford to sponsor a portion of the development cost. Until such a sponsorship happens, we cannot apply the WineHQ license to that code.' GNU purists might think it's in bad taste to use the code as a hostage, but in a world where many rich companies rely on OSS, perhaps this signals the emergence of a new business model. You might call it 'code brokering,' and interestingly, you can't do it with the GPL."
I can honestly see the need for them to keep the code under BSD style licensing. The code is still available for all to see and audit, but to release it without restriction would immediately see big companies making profit off the hard work of volunteer developers.
No one wants someone else to stand by, yawn, and then profit from their sweat and tears.
GNU purists might think it's in bad taste to use the code as a hostage
Am I reading this right? I thought the entire *point* of the GPL was that it holds code hostage... the code owned by anyone who wants to link to GPL libraries.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
Okay, so Wine is the perfect case example of why I think the GPL is, perhaps, the best open source licence (certainly the best for Linux itself).
Before you flame me, note I conditionalized the above as my opinion, not fact. And then read below for my explanation of that opinion.
Hypothetical case 1: Abel writes 'the killer open source app' and releases it under the GPL. Doug's company has been working on the same concept, but because their product will be closed source they can't use Abel's code in it.
Hypothetical case 2: Bob comes up with a 'killer open source app' and releases it under the BSD licence- but his idea isn't completed yet. The company Charlie works at has been struggling to write a similar app, and Bob's source will fit the bill. Charlie uses it to finish his company's app, which then goes to market as a closed source app. Bob can't do anything, because the BSD licence doesn't require source to remain open.
Which is fairer? To me, the answer is clear. When I contribute code to an open source project, I am trying to produce a benefit for the whole world, not just a few people who want to get cheap code. By not forcing the code to remain free, you devalue that difference.
Do you like Japanese imports?
I think that one thing to look at is who holds the rights to GPL code?
Let's say, hypothetically, that I write a functional app, X, and relase it under the GPL. Regardless of the GPL, it's still MY project, and MY application.
Now, let's say you fix a bug in it and send me a patch... in an email like 'Hey.. I fixed such-and-such a bug, here's the code if you want to include it in your tree'.
See the problem? You aren't licensing your code to me under the GPL.. you just gave me a patch, freely, and told me I can 'have' it. So I put it in my software... and again, release an updated version under GPL.
Now compay Z comes along and wants to talk exclusive deal with me for my code, because they don't want to use GPL. I am still 100% free to negotiate with them; I don't have to share anything with you, or even include you in the discussion. It's still my project, and I am not bound by the terms of the GPL.
However.. had you released your patch to me as an updated, GPL version of the code instead of just sending me a patch and saying 'here you go', it would be a different story (or if you just released the patch clearly stating it was under GPL.)
This is something we often don't think about or look at in GPL.. we sort of assume that anyone who contributes anything becomes a co-author.. but that's not necessarily true at all.
Remember, there's more to it than just GPL...
GPL only says what rights you have to use someone elses code.. ownership of additions to your average OSS project is something that needs to be dealt with above and beyond that.
Bob has a killer open source app, released under GPL, but it's not quite done.
Charlie's company is struggling for a simliar app, but is having trouble. Charlie discovere's Bob's project.
Charlie has his lawyers contact Bob to negotiate private licencing of the relevant code. Bob gets rich, Charlie's company prospers.
As for 'which is fairer'... I'm sorry, that totally depends on your personal wants and needs.
Those who willingly release under the BSD licence *KNOW* that a business can take their code and use it, proprietary, without them seeing a dime. I'm sure you won't find people who chose the BSD style license whining about 'not getting paid'
That's what I don't get about these stupid licencing arguments. It's all about what the copyright holder wants to do.. period.
There are people out there who think -
- I want to release this code into the public domain to promote it as a standard, help other people etc.
There are people out there who think -
- I want to release this code into the semi-public domain in an effort to help people and force my political beliefs on them.
The first choose a "free software license", the second choose the GPL.
I choose free software and accept that companies can use it for commercial purposes. My point in releasing it was not to make money off of it or forward my political beliefs.
Which one are you? I'll give you a hint, Stallman is #2)
If whine want's to keep some code proprietary to protect their business while still promoting an open standard with a workable code base, that's just fine with me. If the standard grows in popularity you end up with an open standard backed up by a successful company. This works.
See www.opengl.org for a good example.
-- "The best way to predict the future is to invent it."
I consider myself a hard-core Lilnux weenie. I don't balk at compiling and configuring software on Llinux. However, I've never had a satisfactory experience with wine in the last 8+ years.
My home and work machines both run Linux 100% of the time. For the 0.001% of things I just can't accomplish, I run an old copy of Win95 under VMWare. The only things I can't find OSS equivalents are TurboTax (too lazy to do by hand, too cheap to hire a CPA, and too complex to do over the web), and M$ Streets 2001.
No, I don't play games I can't find on Linux. I don't game much wanyway, so I don't suffer. I've taken to chess lately, so I get by with xboard/crafty. :)
I'd much rather see money/resources go into plex86 so I can ditch VMWare (which has far more cool uses than running Windows, anyway), than wine,
Method of processing duck feet
Also, the following Transgaming strategy would be illegal for GPL or LGPL software: Write some fancy and useful code release it as binary for people to get hooked on, and do a telethon to raise money before the source is made public. The licenses would instead force you to make all your modifications public.
I actually think this is a great system: the code gets written (not just "promised" a la Ximian), the authors get compensation based on the market value of the code, but the code is still free, there for anyone to use. I honestly haven't seen a better revenue model for a company that writes OSS.
Actually, I should have been more clear: you can do code brokering if you are the author of a new application. If instead you write code to improve an existing application, code brokering would be illegal under the GPL unless you managed to get the original application relicensed (which would be an insane task given that all you're after is improving the OSS application and maybe getting a few bucks for your trouble).
Good points.. and these are both, in typical Gnu fashion, misleading statements (no, this is not a flame, it's the truth).
.companies have used this sort of 'hole'in the GPL model to their advantage before, and succeeded (I really, really wish I could cite the example, it was on /. a year ago about.. but I really can't remember.. I'm sorry. I'm not making this up)
Because the GPL does not permit me to revoke the rights it grants, I obviously cannot grant someone *exclusive* use if the code, because it's not within my power to revoke the GPL rights I've granted others.
Actually, I *CAN* strike a contract with someone for exclusive use, but I'll end up in court with them because I can't deliver that. Writing this contract, however, is not a violation of the GPL, though it's definately doing a contract in bad faith, etc, etc.
The point is, I am still free to license it to others under whatever terms I want. (I could even license it to them for exclusive use, but that might land me in court, becuase I can't deliver exclusivity)
It would be more plain to say "You can license it under any terms you want to anyone, you are still the owner, but you cannot revoke the rights granted to others via GPL.
As for the second statement:
Read the fine print there...It is making assumptions about what transpired and how.
They are assuming that Y released his v2 code under GPL... and therefore, if X puts it in HIS version, he now has to follow the GPL.
However, if Y simply submits a patch to X saying 'here's a bugfix dude' it's a different story. See the point?
I'm not saying that X owns all submitted code by default.. just that it's not as black and white as the GPL FAQ makes it out to be.
PRetend I had a license that didn't stipulate either way.. say you just saw my code as my buddy, worked on it, and submitted a small bugfix to me. Are you now a co-author? No. It's still my code.
If you wrote half of it... then we would obviously discuss who owned what.
The problem with OSS Projects is nobody acutally discusses the terms of code submission into the project, and poeple submitting code often forget to 'license' their code back to the project.
Remember.. this FAQ is not a real legal opinion..