Slashdot Mirror
Seminar On Details Of The GPL And Related Licenses
bkuhn writes "Given the recent confusion about LGPL on slashdot, and the concern it
raised for those convincing corporate legal departments to adopt to Free
Software, perhaps your readers might be interested in FSF's legal seminar on
the GPL and related licenses. The first one is in Silicon Valley, and
if it is successful, we hope to hold others in the next 8 months in New
York City and Tokyo." Since the FSF and the GNU project have long created and fought for software that's shareable, Free, and Not UNIX, what's taught at these seminars will probably differ sharply from what you can hear at next Monday's SCO conference call on the "IBM lawsuit, UNIX Ownership and Copyrights."
Why there's any confusion myself - it's pretty straightforward to me. OTOH, it's good to see the FSF giving their official explanations, maybe I'll learn something.
Could someone here tell me what's so hard to grasp about the GPL? or LGPL? Not trolling, just wondering. Maybe its just completely different world views or something. *shrugs*
C|N>K
Lets see, GPL, GNU not UNIX, so lets mention SCO? Where the hell is the logic, just seems like you wanted to post a link that might cause a little slashdotting to SCO's site. One might infer this as particularly malicious.
SCO has never once said anything against the GNU, in fact the GNU actually semi-support the SCO standpoint, if code was not given by the author than it violated the codes original copyright.
I do believe making this thread appaling to the commentors because of a mention to SCO is pretty tasteless and definantelly offtopic.
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
How about a license that's simple enough that you don't need seminars to be trained on all the subtle implications, nor an army of lawyers to ligitate the fuzzy edges?
The BSD license is pretty simple. And it's equally simple to rule out for-profit use of your code, if that's your beef.
The complexities of the GPL stem from its attempt to be "viral" and enforce the FSF's philosophy on other people. It's easier just to stay away from it altogether than to fuss about with all the niggling details. If you have nothing to do with GPL code, then it's easy to be sure you're not violating the license terms.
Unfortunately, this tends to cause harm to OSS in general, as many people just slap the GPL on their code because it's a popular "free" license, without really understanding or considering the consequence. And thus, it becomes easier "just to stay away from" lots of OSS code that might otherwise get used in more contexts were the license less murky -- or if another license altogether became popular.
like superdug, i gotta wonder why the obligatory M$ jabs are being supplanted by gratuitous SCO jabs. i mean, remaining moderately on topic wouldn't be such a bad thing...
ed
That would definitely be from the Free Software Foundation and not the Free Seminar Foundation...
Please spare us the editorial comment. In yesterday's article, Dave Turner specifically bemoaned the fact that CowboyNeal had not double-checked his facts and just went ahead and posted. The story submitter then apologized to Dave for going "sensational", which is apparently the only way to get a story through the "editors" nowadays, with the exception of anything that remotely smells of "M$" or the RIAA.
So I think an apology to the FSF (and your readers) is in order.
Those who follow discussions concerning the arguments being prepared for the SCO lawsuit are betting right now that the GPL will be among the targets of that action. They may be right, they may be wrong, but references to that action are relevant to any discussion about software licensing these days.
The best way to do is to be.
You are not using RMS-approved browser. Please download emacs www functionality right now or else.
BOO! TERRO
Debian has moved a large amount of documentation licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License into the non-free section of its software archive, out of concerns that the GFDL is not free, at least as far as "free" is defined by the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
One issue is essentially with the ability of authors to define "invariant sections" of their documents, the subsequent modification of which would violate the GFDL. This conflicts with the requirement of the DFSG that licensing must allow modifications, and must permit the modifications to be distributed under the same licensing terms as the original, as e.g. the GPL does.
Other people have raised the concern that the GFDL's restrictions on the use of "technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute" -- a restriction that, on the surface, makes sense in that it prevents attempts to limit the freedom others have to read the distributed copies -- could have the unintended consequence of forbidding putting documents covered by the GFDL on devices which are encrypted for personal security.
I'm curious whether FSF folks speaking about licenses plan to discuss this at the seminar(s).
How can a voluntarily adopted license "force" anybody? As you say, you just have to reject the use of GPLed software if you don't like it. And remember that the GPL must only be accepted if you redistribute another's program, not just if you use it. A programmer should be aware of the terms in which the code she relies upon is licensed, right?
The whole point of the GPL is to build a community of people freely sharing code and donating it to each other. The license is tuned and tweaked to do just that, and do it really well.
If someone want to use the GPL for a different purpose (like, say, earning some money), hey, the code it's free! They can do it, but they should be very aware that the license is not intended to do that. So, it's not the FSF fault if they got it wrong, as their goals are cristal clear.
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
Did you miss the Java thing over the last few days? The assumption was that when developing java stuff, you could link to something that's LGPL'd without *GPL'ing your project. But the linking timeline is pretty convoluted, and it resulted in some people getting a bit of a surprise when they discovered the projects they're working on would be *GPL'd, which they had thought not the case.
So some clarification is a good thing.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Actually, the Free Software Foundation (FSF), which monitors the scene and enforces the GPL, says a Mountain View company has been violating the GPL for more than a year. The foundation calls the violations serious and is threatening a lawsuit.
The specifics of the FSF's beef with OpenTV have to do with the company's policies in sending source code to licensees of OpenTV software tools created under the GPL. According to the foundation, OpenTV has either refused to provide the code, or has attached improper conditions on providing it, to several programmers who have every right to it.
OpenTV's intellectual property lawyer, Scott Doyle, says there's been missed communications on both sides but that the company has no intention of violating any legal agreements. He says the company plans to post the code in question online.
But if the FSF is right that OpenTV is violating the GPL, and if this behavior is found to be legal by the courts, the entire free-software and open-source movements could be derailed. Agreeing to share the improvements you make in the GPL-licensed software you've used is an essential part of the larger ecosystem.
Some people I respect say the GPL is a bad idea, period. They say it's too restrictive of programmers' rights, in the sense of forcing them to open what they've done to the world. Fine: If you don't like the GPL, don't create software from code that used it in the first place. Then put different licensing terms on what you've done.
But legal agreements are supposed to matter in our system. Just because the GPL turns the idea of intellectual property somewhat around doesn't make it less valid.
Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
Chill out. They are probably getting flooded with submissions about the SCO conference call, which is the first "news" out of SCO since the Japan Trip (I don't think their ballyhooed July 9 conference call ever happened). But SCO announcing a Monday conference call is certainly not worth its own story, and there is no point waiting until the next Slashback. So Timothy stuck it in a mildly-related story to stop the submissions and so that people who are interested in the SCO case can follow the link and investigate/comment. Sounds reasonable.
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
So if they go mad, and make version 3 one that allows anyone to do anything they like without having to release their changes....
Of course, there is a little proviso that says:
The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.
but that wording is very wooly. What does similar in spirit mean?
Get your own free personal location tracker
What's more free, the freedom to take away the other's freedom or the prohibition to do it?
I will agree with you that the previous poster was spouting metaphysical bullshit. But you are making the mistake of confusing freedom with privilege.
Privilege belongs to a few, freedom belongs to everyone. There is no such think as the freedom to take away the freedoms of others. You are confusing this with the privilege of taking away the freedoms (or privileges) of others. Please understand the difference.
Freedom is based upon the respect of property (with 'self' included as a property). I am free to do whatever I want with my own property, within my own domain. But I am not free to do anything at all to your property within your domain without getting your permission first. The reason my freedom to swing my fist ends at your nose, is because your nose is not my property to do with as I wish. The reason I cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater is because that endangers the property (lives) of others.
Everyone has (or should have) the freedom to do whatever they want with their own software that they have written. But when you start dealing with the software that other people have written, then the firm respect for property is critically important to preserve freedom. The BSD license is free because it recognizes this. It says "this is my property, do with it as you wish." The GPL is free because it says "this is my property, and you can use it if you follow my rules". The biggest difference between the two licenses is that the GPL strenously asserts its property rights over the work and its derivatives, while the BSD license absolves all but the most trivial property rights over the work and its derivatives.
If you like the GPL, then proudly assert that you are in favor of strong copyrights and software ownership, and people may only use your property in according with your demands. But don't go asserting that other licenses are less free just because they don't wave the legal cudgel of copyright in everyone's faces.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
bkuhn taught a class at OSCON regarding the GPL license, and walked through the licenses section by section, explaining the purpose of each section, and how they worked together to help keep software free. I attended the class and found it to be very worthwhile. I had some misconceptions about the GPL that were set straight. After the class, I found myself wishing the slashdot readership could attend the same class for their own benefit, and to help clean up the signal-to-noise ratio on slashdot.org about licensing.
/. of old.
Regarding the comment earlier about how "sensationalistic article submissions" seems to be the way to make it through the editors, I completely agree. So many story submissions are one-paragraph editorials versus simple presentation of the facts/details that it's getting downright annoying. It certainly doesn't feel like the
In a nutshell: If you distribute a program that uses a LGPL library, you must provide a way for a user to use your program with the LGPL library.
-If the LGPL library is dynamically linked, the user can do this automatically.
-If the LGPL library is statically linked, you must provide object files so that the program can be re-linked by the user.
-If you're using Java with a LGPL library, you have to provide
-If you're including code from a LGPL library, that explicitly does NOT make the including source file LGPL.
All of the examples given are covered by this text:
That sentence quite clearly defines what an executable is, and quite clearly separates the process of linking, whenever it happens, from the definition of an executable. This makes the LGPL clearly and easily cover something like a completely interpreted language that would be distributed in a text form consisting of an LGPL library, and a proprietary program that uses the library (in obfuscated source perhaps).
When you distribute your program, ask yourself this question: "With the files that I have included on my program CD, can the user download the next version of the LGPL library and use it with my program that they are getting on the CD? And if they recompile the same version of the LGPL library, can they reproduce a program that works just like the one they are getting on the CD?"
If the answers are both yes, you are compliant with the LGPL.
BTW, IANAL.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Yes, I do. And it is a mistake to relicense GPLed software under a more restrictive license than the GPL, even if the additional restriction seems minor. The "fiasco" that created the KDE dispute was that the KDE code had incorporated GPLed code but was also subject to an additional restriction imposed by the QPL. The GPL explicitly forbids applying additional restrictions to GPLed code in section 6:The QPL adds an additional restriction by requiring persons who incorporate QPLed code in thier programs, but do not distribute them (as in an in-house application), they must make the source code available to the initial developer of the incorporated QPLed code, as stated in section 6 subsection c of the QPL:Thus there was an incompatibility issue that was both real and a problem for the validity of both licenses. The problem was publicized by Debian when they decided to not distribute KDE until the license issues were worked out It was suggested that KDE either remove the GPLed code from thier programs (no-one really wanted that), or ask for special dispensation from the originating copyright holders to link the incorporated GPLed code to the QPLed qt libraries (difficult, but theoretically possible). TrollTech eventually (pleasantly) surprised everyone by releasing the qt libraries under a dual license which allowed the GPL to be applied to programs that incorporated qt without the additional restriction required by the QPL alone. Every one went away happy, except for those who didn't understand the issue in the first place.
To understand how these two Free licenses are incompatible read this and this.
For an understanding of some of the other issues involved and how it worked out read this and this
Then there was the Corel LinuxOS fiasco. They had a "private" beta, and everyone jumped all over them.
The Corel situation was brought up by the beta testers, as they were refused copies of the source code to the GPLed binaries that were distributed to them. Ther was nothing "private" about thier beta, you could download it off of thier website.
By the way, IANAL, but I do no how to read the source material before I shoot my mouth off. I'm not going to argue with your post being rated "interesting", as it certainly piqued my interest, but whoever it was that modded it insightful needs to do thier homework before they use up all thier points.
Read, L