Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A New Model for Software Innovation

Posted by michael on from the out-with-the-old dept.

An anonymous reader writes "In this whitepaper published at LinuxDevices.com, Matt Asay (former Linux naysayer-turned-disciple) analyzes the GPL, picking apart what it means (and does not mean) for users, and whether it is enforceable. Assay also details how its terms inhibit and foster innovation, and why we should care. In this next generation of software, those who understand 'copyleft' licenses like the GPL will have the upper-hand, and will be best positioned to take on closed-source shops like Microsoft. Assay wrote this paper while attending Stanford Law School, where he studied the the GNU General Public License under Professor Larry Lessig." A thoughtful piece that answers - as well as they can be answered - a lot of the questions about the GPL that we get for Ask Slashdot, as well as examining the economics of it. Good reading for anyone developing or selling software.

1 of 310 comments (clear)

  1. proposed revision of the GPL by Dr.+Awktagon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    An interesting streamlining of the GPL. However he takes out all the "social statements" which may or may not be a good thing.

    A few comments:

    You can use GNU GPL Software for any purpose. You can modify, copy and distribute GNU GPL Software, including derivatives, for commercial or non-commercial purposes.
    In return, you must agree:

    No no, you can use the Software for any purpose. Period. If you re-distribute the software, THEN you must agree to the terms.

    The license should emphasize that it only covers "copying, distribution and modification". No one should feeled compelled to accept the GPL, just because they are using the software. This also helps dispel the stupid notion that you don't have a right to use software you buy or download unless someone grants it to you.

    This, in my opinion, is one of the greatest thing about the GPL. It lies dormant and only applies to you if you distribute copies. You don't need to read it, you don't need to "click-through" it. You only need to care when distributing copies, which you aren't allowed to do to begin with. In fact, if I were writing the GPL, I'd put that up at the very beginning (after a warranty disclaimer if that's necessary): "you don't need to read this unless distributing copies" or something similar.

    if you distribute GNU GPL Software, you include two things: a copy of this license and a ready means of obtaining the source code for the Software.

    Define "ready means"..

    That if you distribute a derivative of GNU GPL Software, you include a notice explaining the changes you made.

    (Nitpick) why isn't this included with the previous requirement? What constitutes a "notice explaining the change"? A diff? A paragraph? Is this important?

    The GPL is wordy, partly because it spells out some of this stuff in more detail (for instance, see item #3 in it). The "revised GPL" should also be specific whenever possible.

    Anyway, the GPL does need to be streamlined and clarified to a certain extent, and perhaps the FSF can get some ideas from this revision. For instance, cutting out the Preamble of the GPL entirely might be a good idea, and replace it with a link to the FSF philosophies.