peddrenth asks:
"Software licenses are, we keep saying, difficult to read. The public clicks OK without reading, either implicitly trusting or mistrusting us the software authors. There have been calls recently for companies to clean-up the license, to bullet, section, and colour their licenses, to remove THE UPPERCASE
and to draw charts and graphs to explain the license. Anyone who's had to read a 3-page document in a 3"x1" textbox knows how useful this would be. The GPL is one of the most important licenses in the world, and appears on thousands of products. Everything from windows programs to operating systems to people's artwork requires understanding and acceptance of the GNU GPL. Should we, the free software community, take the first step in this effort, and show the world what an easy-to-read license looks like? Would it be useful if long textual software licenses stood out like a sore thumb amongst the cool, pretty, and clear free licenses?" Many may think the GPL Preamble to be clear enough, and this may be true. However there are a lot of people out there that would like to read the
entire license so that they know exactly what they may be getting into,
before they agree to it. This usually implies being able reading the actual license, and not just the preamble.
"Should we use such a comparison to show the public how they're being manipulated by terms in a EULA they don't read or understand, and encourage other license-writers to include the graphs and tables themselves, showing the public what a license really means?
What would be your ideal license, what poster would you draw to explain the GPL to a child, a PHB, or an artist? Would you stick with the text, or can you think of anything better?"
jamie interjects: The root of the problem is that "intellectual property" is a kludge of a natural human understanding of property rights. Useful, but a kludge. You have to invent many
oddball concepts
to keep up the pretense that ideas are property. The GPL is a kludge (strict and precise licensing terms) implemented on top of a kludge (copyright law) and, in English or in code, there is no short and simple way to describe complex things.
Slashdot Mirror
Peter
Give the person Richard Stallman's home phone #. Then tell the person to call up and ask "What's the big deal about the GPL?"
Problem solved.
[o]_O
What was my stuff is now our stuff.
In return for this gift, I ask that if you improve our stuff it remains our stuff.
Should we, the free software community, take the first step in this effort, and show the world what an easy-to-read license looks like?
Licenses are lengthy, wordy, and hard to read for a reason. They try to ensure that no "loophole" can be made. The simpler you make the license, the more likely lawyers can "see multiple meanings in words", and avoid the license entirely.
IMHO, the free-software licenses SHOULD be wordy, because companies like Microsoft have lawyers constantly looking for a loophole...
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
got stuck on the word 'or' in the perl license (GPL or Artistic)
I think there will always be a problem no matter how clear it seems to be.
One of the things that's nice about the GPL, and that I've just come to understand recently, is that it doesn't really matter if you 'accept' it, in the sense that you accept a EULA from MS. Since accepting the GPL actually gives you MORE freedoms than the normal copyright laws, if you don't accept the GPL on a program you get, you are actually more limited in what you can do with it. You can't distribute it, and surely can't distribute a modified version.. Whereas the other EULAs restrict you in addition to copyright restrictions, the GPL actually reduces the restrictions put upon you by copyright law.
Most of what the majority of non-lawyers need to know about the GPL can be summed up in one line:
The GPL does not impact users of the software, only distributors.
That's it. For that simple reason, the premise of this question is flawed. Most of the world simply uses software and doesn't redistribute it, therefore understanding and acceptance of the GNU GPL is not an issue.
Anyone who is distributing software (GPL or otherwise) really needs to take the time to understand the details of their redistribution agreement. As redistribution licenses are concerned, the GPL is very easy to understand and truly does stand out as a marvel of simplicity. The only simpler things are BSD and public domain :-)
.sig: file not found
Licenses are naturally complex things. That's ok. What isn't ok is that every company feels they need to write their own license specific to their product.
The strength of Open Source licenses for me is the fact that once I've read them through once, I can install countless applications without needing to read a license agreement.
If commercial software had a bunch of shrink-wrapped licenses that companies were free to use and each license was clearly identifiable near the top, then people could just click the "I agree" button and actually know what they were agreeing to.
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
Before the preamble, state:
Or is that too simplistic?
Note that this does not accomplish one important end, in that it does not clearly distinguish itself from other EULAe, except that it devotes the first few sentences to "freedoms" rather than "limitations".
The cure for cancer is coming: Reovirus
Sure, you could try to simplify the GPL, but the fact of the matter is that what the GPL is attempting to do is very complicated. I challenge you to propose a simplified GPL which accomplishes the same goals as the GPL. I'm not even sure if the GPL itself accomplishes the goals of the GPL, this hasn't been tested in court at all yet.
I have a simple license, called the QingPL, but it is quite different from the GPL. Most significantly, it does not require that source code be released when a derivitive work is released.
I worked for a local Government, who were already brainwashed by Microsoft's sales. Here is the dialogs during a meeting debating with a MCSE whether we should use GPL's code:
Me: We could save money using this pieces of GPL code..
MCSE: Doesn't that make all the derived work GPL?
Me: Yes.
MCSE: Then we must release our source code to public! This is confidential!!
Me: No....we are only required to release the source code when the recipents has the binary. We wouldn't release our system to public...
MCSE: but according to GPL, the source code is open to all to read!(?) The other department could read it and might release them to public!
Me: You might have misunderstood the concept...according to GPL's FAQ we do not need to release the source code if we use them within an organization. A Government is one big organization, which is very suitable to adopt GPL....
MCSE: That's NOT I heard about GPL. I don't believe in what you said! GPL is about opensource and any dervied works must be made opensource, this is a very restrictive license and there's no way out!
and things went downhill from there. My boss trusted him because he has an MCSE.
I still ponder, what qualification in MCSE would make him know GPL better than others...
I guess you could explain it the same way that John Travolta explained the basics of marijuana laws in Amsterdam, NL to Samuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction.
(Jules and Vincent driving in a car)
Jules: Okay now. Tell me about the GNU GPL.
Vincent: What do you want to know?
Jules: Well, it's about free software, right?
Vincent: It's free, but it has some standards. I mean you can't just write a GNU GPL program and restrict it's usage. You're supposed to provide the source code.
Jules: That's the GNU GPL?
Vincent: Yeah, it breaks down like this: It's legal to copy it, it's legal to have access to the source code and, if you're a programmer that wants to add to it, you can as long as your additions to the code go under the GNU GPL. It's legal to keep the program free, which doesn't really matter 'cause-get a load of this- if a company wants to add to your program and not offer the source code, it's illegal. Taking GNU GPL'd programs and not offering the source code is a right that companies don't have.
Jules:That did it, man. I'm f***ing GPL-ing my program. That's all there is to it.
/*drunk.. fix later*/
Where you need to worry about the implications of the GPL are if you're a) a developer or b) a loudmouth who complains about alleged GPL violations. Come to think of it, you don't need to know anything to be a loudmouth who complains about alleged GPL violations.
By the way, Jamie and Michael, if you have something to say, please post it instead of giving yourselves an automatic (Score: 6, Editor).
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Most people's eyes glaze over when they think they have to read a contract/license. Prod them into actaully reading the GPL - it's in real english and is honestly written. It's also a brillient bit of leagal-ese.
Courts have traditionally ruled in favor of the consumer if the contract is un-nesessarly obscure, so making the GPL hard to read in an vain attempt to close a loophole can be counterproductive if done in haste. Also, one must be carefull to not give a poorly thought out explenation of the GPL with the GPL - the court might rule that the explenation grants additional rights if the consumer is confused as to if the explenation is part of the contract/license.
So the short answer is to actually READ the GPL. There are no explenaions nesessary to an inteligent person - and no explenation will do the cosumer any good anyways. It's only us developers that need an explenation - we're the ones that can get caught in a GPL bind, not the average consumer.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
We've had a problem for YEARS with our legal beagles and the openSSH licence because the author thought he/she was being cute. The licence has a section that more or less says "I'm not entirely sure that I haven't borrowed pieces of code where those authors may decide to come after a user for any reason. At any rate that's not my problem and strictly a matter between you and them."
Which is a horrible way to protect the author from third party lawsuits. And the result is that our corporation does not officially sanction the use of openSSH. This leads to more suspicion and resistance to other open source tools and generally makes a mess of the whole effort.
I really wish authors would get a legal reading of their own licences for a reality check before doing what commercial licences do - that is "use this software and you are on your friggin own no matter what hombre!! I mean what next for licences? Rilly rilly kewl pictures and animations and shit?
As the resident office open source nut, a major part of my (non paid) role is stopping my employer stealing open source code. I have lost count of the number of times that I have found stolen open source code in our products. I say "stolen" advisedly, and it's the word I use when confronting the culprits.
The problem is that many of them simply do not understand that there is a cost associated with using "free" software. Sure, it's their fault for not reading it, but it would make my life a lot easier if we stopped wielding the word "free" like a weapon (it means too many things to too many people), and if the GPL (and other open source licenses) opened like this:
This code is copyrighted. It is not "free to use". You may not copy or use it in any way, including for non-commercial purposes, unless you follow strictly the enclosed license terms. If you do not read or follow the license terms, you will be in breach of copyright, and can and will be prosecuted for theft.
I'd say that a clear statement like this is way more important than the DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY that we tend to splash first. The disclaimer is there to protect the author, but a clear warning that open source code is copyrighted and strictly licensed protects the recipient from doing something stupid and causing grief to both parties. I'd say that it's more in the spirit of open source development to prioritise the copyright/license warning than the disclaimer.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I think a good structure with something amounting to code comments might do the trick. Have the short version be a breakdown of the practicle implications. Write up a document of what each piece means, then write the lawyer speak translation in a sub-section.
I think keeping the lawyer language seperated and in confined and in smaller sections if necessary for someone who doesn't already understand it to figure it out.
Science may someday discover what faith has always known.
Unless you're an expert, it's hard to get the recipe (the source) from the food (the binary). The GPL is saying "Here's the recipe, and here's some food someone else has made with that recipe, all free for the taking. But if you make and give away or sell food based on the recipe I just gave you, you've got to give away your recipe for free as well."
I know analogies suck, but it's close enough.
How to explain GPL to capitalists:
This software contains the intellectual property of several people. Intellectual property is a valuable resource, and you cannot expect to be able to use someone else's intellectual property in your own work for free.
Many businesses and individuals are willing to trade their intellectual property in exchange for something of value; usually money. For example, in return for a sum of money, you might be granted the right to incorporate code from someone's software program into your own.
The developers of this software are willing to trade you the right to use their intellectual property in exchange for something of value. However, instead of money, the developers are willing to trade you the right to freely incoroporate their code into your software in exchange for the right to freely incorporate your code into theirs. This exchange is to be done by way of and under the terms of the GPL.
If you do not think that this is a fair bargain, you are free to decline and to develop your own code or purchase it from someone else. You will still be allowed to use the software yourself, which is awfully nice of the developers, since you probably didn't pay them a penny for it in the first place. If you feel that this would make you a freeloading communist welfare addict, you may instead opt to purchase similar software from a less generous developer.
There's no such thing as Scotchtoberfest!
this program is free
give it away or change it
but please keep it free
---
I give you my work
you must let your breath go free
we share the same moon
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
As several people on this discussion have pointed out, the unfortunate thing about software licences (and legal documents generally) is that they are, by their nature, trying to be very exact. There is a reason that "shall" and "will" mean very different things in law, and that lawyers use the correct one, yet in common speech, most people would interpret them much the same way. Legalese has become complicated to deal with the problem of details: if you're not precise enough, you'll be (wilfully or otherwise) misinterpreted.
The next obvious thing to do is to introduce a summary of the licence, as the parent post by bshroyer and others have suggested. Unfortunately, that immediately raises the question of whether the summary is complete (almost by definition, it isn't), accurate, or even a fair representation of the real licence. Can anyone hear the words "legal minefield" in the back of their minds right now? I hope so. What if the summary and licence terms disagree? What if the summary looked reasonable, but the licence contained a restriction unmentioned in it, causing someone to violate the licence agreement because they'd trusted the summary? (That's actually the worst case, in a way, because if someone can't trust the summary to tell them what's going on, what's the point?) Do you try to introduce new laws now to force summaries to be fair reflections on the summarised material? If you could do that, why bother with the full version at all?
Why, indeed. In fact, for a long time, Borland used to have a licence agreement (called something like the "no nonsense licence agreement" IIRC) that aimed at much this purpose. It wasn't full of any more legalese than necessary. While it had to be long enough and in enough legalese to be precise, it wasn't deliberately obfuscated. I think they could score a major coup over the MS' of the world now if they brought back such an agreement, and marketed based on its ease and trustworthiness vs. MS' (un)Trustworthy Computing initiative that seems to steal half your (non-)rights through the EULA. (Remember Borland still offer MS major competition in the development tools market, for example, and hitting developers who would otherwise be drifting into MS' .NET program isn't going to do Microsoft any favours.)
So, basically, yes, your suggestion is far too simplistic, simply because the whole "summary" issue opens up too many cans of worms. OTOH, in the spirit of your suggestion, a licence agreement that was much shorter, to the point, precise enough but not deliberately hard to read would be a great improvement.
Now, if anyone thinks the big corps should be required to do this because it's easy, please submit your proposed rewrite of the GPL on a postcard...
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I've always had to wonder, IS THERE ANY LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE TO PASSAGES WRITTEN IN ALL UPPERCASE? Or is it just one of those annoying things like ESL business owners uneccessarily placing things between quotation marks?
my sig's at the bottom of the page.
"What's mine is mine, and what's yours is ours." Press OK to accept. Press CANCEL to accept.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
So if you changed from upper case to bold italic lower case, you would very likely face a legal challenge that your notice was not "noticable", and you would have to fight that throught the court hierarchy. However, once somebody did do this, then others could use that as precedent.
There are some interesting issues here. The organization of a book is to some extent protected by copyright: if you write a book, and I write a book with an identical table of contents, I'm violating your copyright. By analogy, I guess mimicing an object hierarchy, for example, would be forbidden.
Anyone know any precedents?
(IANAL, just a programmer who's studied copyright issues more deeply than most.)
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
GNU Haiku
You may use the source
Change at will, port, give away
But with the new source
BSD Haiku
You may use the source
Change at will, port, give away
With source if you want
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
Oh God.. Wow. This just works way, way too well. I mean, like, you can keep going with it...
.45 automatics laying near the back, loading and cocking them.)
-----
VINCENT: You'll dig it the most. But you know what the funniest thing about Open Source software is?
JULES: What?
VINCENT: It's the little differences. A lotta the same shit we got here, they got there, but there they're a little different.
JULES: Examples?
VINCENT: Well, in KDE, you can embed a web browser in your file manager. And I don't mean that you're using the web browser for your file manager like in Win98 either. They give you a plug-in browser, like you can install or remove any browser you like anytime you want, like in Opendoc. And in GNOME, you can embed like Mozilla or drawing apps or whatever into anything. Also, you know what they call their image editing program?
JULES: They don't call it Photoshop?
VINCENT: No, they use UNIX there, they wouldn't know who the fuck Adobe is.
JULES: What do they call it?
VINCENT: The "GIMP".
JULES: (repeating, grinning softly) The "GIMP". What do they call their word processor?
VINCENT: Well, the word processor is still Office, but they call it "OpenOffice".
JULES: What do they call their IDE?
VINCENT: I dunno, I didn't code anything. But you know what they use in Open Source software to configure their webservers instead of preferences dialogs?
JULES: What?
VINCENT: Text files.
JULES: Goddamn!
VINCENT: I seen 'em do it. And I don't mean a couple of extra options, they fuckin' do everything with that shit. Like, they drown you in it. Anything you wanna change about the way the webserver looks, you have to open up this big-ass file named "httpd.conf" and search through the file for the place where they explain what words to put where if you want it to act a certain way.
JULES: Uuccch!
(Cut to shot from inside the G4 tower case as Vincent and Jules open up from the side panel, reach in, and pull out two
JULES: We should have shotguns for this kind of deal.
-----
OK.. obvious, not funny/relevant.. I'm sorry.. I'm sorry!!! I just couldn't resist..!! Please don't hurt me. ^_^
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
You need not agree to a license in order to use this software.
The installation should somewhere contain copyright information, warantee disclaimer (which the user is not required to approve), and a link to the GPL. See also How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs.
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
The preamble to the GPL is adequate because it does not need to be read (much less agreed to) for a user to use GPL software. There is no EULA. The GPL itself does not apply until a user attempts to distribute, modify, or otherwise create derivatives of the software. This will almost never happen in the normal use of most software.
It would be more appropriate to draft the GPL using RFC terminology so that those who will be distributing, modifying, or otherwise creating derivative programs can understand the license. Coders don't speak legalese, but most can grok an RFC.
Nathan
I'm only mostly joking here. That would keep all licences short and sweet. Case in Point: the GPL in haiku.
What was mine is ours
Add to ours as you see fit
What is ours stays ours
AveryZero
It's tricky when it comes to software, since it hasn't been determined yet by the courts whether a software sale is a sale of a product or a sale of a license
Yes it has: Softman Products Company LLC v. Adobe Systems Inc. U.S. federal law, 17 USC 101 defines a "copy" as the physical disc on which a computer program is recorded. If the transfer of a copy of a program looks like a sale, walks like a sale, and quacks like a sale, then it's a sale, thus making the "owner of a copy" under 17 USC 117 the person who buys the box.
Some people might chime in and claim that MAI v. Peak nullified 117. I don't think so. The text of the decision interpreted 117 out of context; the case it referenced, Apple v. Formula, involved selling copies, but the facts of MAI v. Peak didn't. (The decision prompted a rider to the DMCA that amended 117 to authorize repair or maintenance of a computer system.) The real copyright infringement seems to have involved the "rental, lease, or lending" of a computer program separate from any hardware in which it may be embedded, and 17 USC 109 prohibits rental of software without authorization of the copyright owner.
Will I retire or break 10K?