Explaining the GPL to Non-Lawyers?

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.

Comments

short and simple way to describe complex things

[Lord Omlette]

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.

Its wordy and hard to read for a reason...

[FortKnox]

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...

Re:Its wordy and hard to read for a reason...

[MrResistor]

I have to disagree. It is the complexity that allows loopholes. Something that is complex is more easily interpreted differently. Something that is clear and simple leaves no room for alternate interpretations. Which of these leaves more room for interpretation?

2+2=4

The ANSWER is equal to the SUM of the FIRST NUMBER and the SECOND NUMBER, where the FIRST NUMBER has the same value as the SECOND NUMBER. IF AND ONLY IF the SECOND NUMBER has the value of the SECOND POSITIVE INTEGER, the ANSWER will have the value of the FOURTH POSITIVE INTEGER.

What's nice about the GPL

[XaXXon]

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.

Re:What's nice about the GPL

[rgmoore]

Does there exist EULA that gives you, the user the right to distribute binary-only copies of a program?

Yes. The BSD/MIT style licenses give you this right, for which reason advocates of those licenses claim that they're "more free" than the GPL. I'm not sure if I agree with the point, but there are licenses that give the first-generation user more rights than the GPL. The argument is then over whether those rights are more valuable than the GPL's protection of second and later generation users.

Re:What's nice about the GPL

[jsfishmonger]

Well said. It's also worth pointing out that there is no requirement that anyone accepts the GPL to actually use the program. For the end user it just about boils down to a standard freeware disclaimer: "There is no waranty" allong with perhaps a gentle reminder: "This software is copyrighted, don't go round saying you wrote it from scratch yourself."

It's nearly a one-liner most of the time

[petard]

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 :-)

Less licenses...

[curunir]

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.

Re:Less licenses...

[Arandir]

Licenses are naturally complex things.

The problem is that we're using licenses to begin with. We don't need licenses. Books don't have licenses. Poems don't have licenses. Music, despite the RIAA's wishes to the contrary, doesn't have licenses.

There are in essense only three sets of rights available to the recipient of any copyrighted work:

1) Rights previously granted under Copyright Law.
2) 1 + additional rights
3) 1 - rights already granted

Only number 3 requires a license, because only number three has to be agreed to by the recipient. This is a EULA.

Number one doesn't need any license at all. Just put the words "Copyright 2002 Joe Schmoe, all rights reserved" at the top, and you're done. 90% of commercial software could be released like this with zero problems for the authors. This is known as simple copyright.

Number two doesn't need a license either. You're granting additional rights, not taking anything away. Even if these additional rights have conditions attached to them, as with copyleft, the recipient does not need to agree to anything, because they cannot excercise those additional rights outside of the context of those conditions. I refer to this as a Permission Statement.

The general public, over the course of three decades of concerted brainwashing by the software industry, has come to believe that you need a license to use software. This is very sad. Instead of perpetuating this myth, we need to be proactive and declare that the user doesn't have to agree to any damn thing to use the software we gave them!

GPL can be summarized succinctly

[bshroyer]

In a preamble to the preamble, which would very nearly fit into the aforementioned 3" by 1" box:

Before the preamble, state:

Through the GPL, this software is licensed with certain freedoms.

You have the freedom to view and change the source code to this software.

You have the freedom to freely copy and distribute this software, and to demand payment for its distribution.

In exchange for these freedoms, you agree, again through the GPL, that these freedoms will be present in any modifications of or distributions of this software. In addition, you agree to provide the source code for any modifications or distributions you may make.

Please read below for the full text of the GPL.

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".

My case

[jsse]

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...

Re: My case

[booch]

You should go get an MCSE certification yourself, then. In the same way that an MCSE cannot talk about the GPL in a well-informed manner, you are not seen as qualified to speak on things Microsoft. I have certifications in both Microsoft and Linux (among others), so when I advocate the use of Open Source over Microsoft products, people are apt to believe that I know the pros and cons of both, and have made a well-informed analysis.

All I needed to know, I learned from Pulp Fiction

[Darth RadaR]

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.

What's the problem?

[Otter]

If you're talking about users, what's the issue? Install the software, do anything you want with it, don't bother trying to sue the maker if something goes wrong. The fine points of copyleft and derivative works have nothing to do with anything any user is going to run into. That's, to a large extent, the point -- you don't need a lawyer use your software.

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).

The GPL is a work of Art!

[zulux]

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.

About time someone said this

[Rogerborg]

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:

• (C) Original developer
• 
  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.

Re:I have a similar problem

[weinerdog]

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.

YOU CAN'T GET RID OF UPPERCASE

[marhar]

I got this from my old company's lawyer: You won't ever get rid of UPPER CASE in legalese, because

• Some legal precedents require parts of your license to be "noticable"
  
• Typing in upper case has been found to be "noticable" in previous court cases
  

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.

Re:Keep it short

[ThePlague]

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

Organize the license text from the user's POV...

[sethg]

...which means you need to consider what kinds of users your program will have, and have a different section for each kind.

Restatement of the GPL, Section 1

• We give you permission to use the Program for any purpose, to share copies of the Program with anyone else in your organization, and to reverse-engineer the Program. If this is all you are doing with the Program, the rest of this license does not apply to you. [The average user can stop reading here.]
• If you want to give away or sell copies of the Program to someone outside your organization, you may only do so under certain conditions, which are listed in section 2. [Anyone who wants to redistribute the program needs to read this part.]
• If you want to modify the Program, use parts of the Program in your own software, or otherwise create what copyright law considers a "derivative work" from the Program, and this derivative work is only distributed within your organization, you are free to do so. [This is for companies who need to run a modified version of the program internally but have no interest in distributing it.]
• If you want to give away or sell copies of this derivative work to anyone outside of your organization, you may only do so under certain conditions, which are listed in section 3. [This is the group of people who are most affected by the GPL's terms, but these days only a minority of the people who use GPL'ed code are actually redistributing modified versions of it, so most customers shouldn't have to wade through it.]
• You do not have to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, if you do not accept it, then all the normal restrictions imposed by copyright law apply: you may continue to use the Program, but you may not give copies of the Program, or copies of any work derived from the program, to anyone else. [A subtle and futile attempt to prevent people whining about how the GPL "takes away our freedom".]

  [Now someone just has to fill in sections 2 and 3...]

Re:short and sweet

[dachshund]

but it's also "if you use our stuff with your stuff in certian ways, your stuff becomes our stuff". This is the scary part to many companies.

Well, no. It's "if you redistribute our stuff with your stuff in certain ways (all of which are clearly defined in a one of the most readable license documents you'll ever see), you won't be covered by this license. In which case, you'll have to explain to a judge why you violated our copyright."

After all, users are never forced to sign any kind of agreement to the GPL. If you didn't sign a license, nobody can force you to agree that you were bound by the contract. But without the license to redistribute granted by the contract, you may pay a penalty for violating the authors' copyright.

Anyway, if your legal staff can't figure out the terms of the GPL, then god help you with the proprietary licenses you're dealing with.

Re:All I needed to know, I learned from Pulp Ficti

[mcc]

Oh God.. Wow. This just works way, way too well. I mean, like, you can keep going with it...

-----

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 .45 automatics laying near the back, loading and cocking them.)

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. ^_^

GPL: no license required for use

[Lumpish Scholar]

Anyone who's had to read a 3-page document in a 3"x1" textbox ...

Speaking as someone who's had to write text crammed into those boxes, here IMHO is some appropriate verbiage for GPL software:

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.