I did read the article, I also know that they have been talking about GPLv3 for several years yet nothing comes of it. It would help if they where more clear about what they wish to have the new license mean.
There is a reason why Linux is licensed under the GPL v2 only.
It's not like they don't have an idea of what they plan. A while back there was talk about writing the next verions of the GPL in such a way that if you use a GPL app on a webserver and never distribute it you would be forced to open up any changes you made.
It makes it hard to plan for the future when they keep things so close to their chest.
There is also a great deal of work to be done to allow the large number of stakeholders who have grown up around the GPL to have an opportunity to express Opinions and to have their thoughts taken into account in trying to frame the best possible license, Moglen said.
Perhaps they have been dragging their feet about getting the whole process actually moving (maybe now they are actually going to start, as opposed to just postulate about it.)
Re:Draft Copy?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Funny
If you patent anything you put into the software, you loose your rights to use/distribute the software unless the patents are transfered to the public domain.
Actually, knowing the high level of literacy open source freaks regularly show, that's probably EXACTLY what it will say.
If the first draft isn't due out until next year, perhaps Slashdot could qualify "soon" in the headline of this article.
I think "soon" for Slashdot means "by the time we fix all the various problems with Slashcode, implement basic spellchecking for the editors, and train ourselves to look for dupes before publishing them to the front page."
-- I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
Re:Draft Copy?
by
mark-t
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I realize that I'm just being a pedantic pain in the arse by pointing this out here, but the GPL really only covers the issue of _copying_, not mere use.
Don't forget: "Get rid of the people who use every possible chance to bitch about slashdot and keep coming back."
Re:Draft Copy?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Personally, I would really like to see monetary damages for violators who willingfully violate the GPL. I don't understand why so few of the licenses out there deal with money more explicitly.
That was my first thought, although not quite as humorous: they need to add a clause to the effect of "If you attact the GPL, you forfeit any rights to use GPLed software." Unfortunately, as the Samba team has already decided, you can't penalize people just for being asses...
--
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
I would like to see them try. Think in terms of Linux.com. MS apparently offered top (as in well over the top) dollars for it. And yet, it was not sold to them.
And Pam just quit OSRM (or whatever their abbr. is) to avoid a conflict of interest.
I would be very surprised if Pam would allow MS/SCO/SUN/whoever to buy it.
-- I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
If your name is Bill Gates, Daryl McBride or Orrin Hatch you cannot use this software.
If this software is being used in a company whose name ends in AA (like in MPAA, RIAA), you cannot use this software.
If you are wondering where is the start button is, why you cannot install IE on it, or how come Kazaa doesn't work on it, type rm -rf and all your problems will be gone...
-- how long until/. fixes commenting on Chrome?
Re:Draft Copy?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Some people get away with murder. Why are you so afraid about some hippies license that never actually got proven in court. You think you would be forced, how?
Re:Draft Copy?
by
Megaweapon
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Yes, because expecting just a moderate level of competence from a website that asks for money for subscriptions is too much to ask.
-- I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
Re:Draft Copy?
by
Politburo
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Slashdot is always asking why people continue to use Windows, even with all its flaws.
The reason why people continue to use Slashdot is the same: even with flaws, it's still better than the alternatives (at least for my goal of wasting time at work...).
there are those who allege that loading a program into memory constitutes making a copy
Actually, it does.
Fortunately, it's a copy that can still be permitted because 1) it's required to simply _USE_ the work as it was intended, and 2) it's entirely arguable that such a copy is for "personal and private use", and as long as those boundaries are not transgressed, copyright is not being infringed.
a) this is now a business, and has been for some time b) it's a techy site, run by and for techies c) at a pinch, it could draw upon a truly massive number of web techies in its audience to help
But no, the grand-parent's right - much easier to ignore the concerns and complaints of the people who make this site what it is (the commenters) than to actually get off their arses and do something about it.
Confused me there. GNU Press is the FSF's publishing division. After trying to work out whether you meant a new book, I'm assuming you mean a press release about GNU, or maybe you are trying to confuse GNU with the FSF themselves and mean a press release by the FSF--not of course that the "soon" quote had anything to do with the FSF as it was the/. (mis)interpretation of an eWeek article--note that word doesn't even appear in the article.
>>Are you also waiting for a Christmas release of GNU/Hurd?<<
Ummm...I've used Hurd a bit and there have been quite a few (obviously not officially stable) releases...it's even *kinda* stable now...
>>I'm actually an RMS fanboy<<
Really anyone who uses the word "fanboy" has to be a troll...kinda clinches it...good troll though...
-- Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
Re:Draft Copy?
by
maxume
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I think "soon" for Slashdot means "by the time we fix all the various problems with Slashcode, implement basic spellchecking for the editors, and train ourselves to look for dupes before publishing them to the front page."
So about the same time as Duke Nukem Forever comes out?
-- I would rather be killed by a terrorist than enslaved by my government.
2) it's entirely arguable that such a copy is for "personal and private use" Damnit, now I can't use my neural link or I won't be allowed to listen to my CDs anymore, for fear of being prosecuted.
I'm guessing the reasons for the perceived slowness of the GNU GPL's development are that it is such a good document that no one
can think of any ways to really improve on it
wants to hastily change it lest they somehow damage its legal watertightness ("if it ain't broke don't fix it").
However, there is now talk of releasing a new version (GNU GPL 3.0) and maybe a first draft of the new version sometime "soon" (in terms of it's slow development cycle--some people are bandying around 2006 as a possible date). There is no draft ATM but possible changes that have been talked about in the past include:
an anti-DMCA clause;
clarification of the section on granting patent licenses (and better protection against algorithmic patents in general);
possibly something about trusted/trecherous computing to stop free software being effectively shackled by that technology;
possibly allowing the offer of source code for binaries without source to refer to a URI where it can be downloaded (as opposed to the out-dated snail-mail method);
clarification (and possible tightening) of "as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed...with the major components...of the operating system on which the executable runs..." to close the loophole that people could argue quite a wide defintion of "major components of OS";
most significantly, a new clause saying that source code must be available to users who use the software remotely over a network (e.g.: the Internet). [See the relevant official GNU-GPL FAQ and section 2(d) of the Affero GPL (which is very similar to what the FSF are considering for the new GNU-GPL clause).]
See this FSF presentation and NewsFourge's two-partarticle interviewing RMS for more background--neither recent. Those are the main official sources I could find.
I'm sure a public draft will be released for discussion some time before anything gets finalised.
-- Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
Well, however much it is nice to jump to a conspiracy theory, they promised that when they have something for us to look at they will release it to the public for consultation but they haven't come up with a first draft yet.
Maybe (I'm just guessing), they are being so slow in coming up with a first draft because the current version is so good that it is difficult to think of any ways to really improve on it and it would be v. bad to modify it hastely lest the modifications somehow damage its legal watertightness ("if it ain't broke don't fix it").
-- Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
Huh? Your question doesn't make any sense. Them asking for money or not doesn't impact my life. As another replier stated, this is a techie site runned by techies, and yet it is not runned very well. Why would I want to pay to get a subscription just so I can see dupes or typos earlier, and still get basically the same set of problems others run into (503 errors, etc)? Apart from adding a few new sections, Slashdot hasn't changed (read: improved) in the past few years. It's a dying site in my opinion, and I would like to see it return to the older days of coolness (and I've been here since around 1998).
-- I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
Isn't one of the "benefits" of subscribing is that subscribers can catch dupes, typos, or just plain misinformation regarding articles before it gets posted to the "lite" site? And yet there are still dupes and typos, and not all the writeups always match the article they are posting to.
-- I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
(If you are instead suggesting that a judge has never found anyone guilty of copyright violation for not following the terms of the GNU GPL (when that is the only license they had for a piece of software) you are unfortunately mistaken.)
-- Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
Ummm...maybe because the damages are dealt with by the copyright law [so it wouldn't make any sense to specify damages unless, assuming you can legally do this (which is questionable), you wanted to, maybe, make a promise to people violating your copyright that you would only seek part of the damages you are due when you sue them].
-- Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
Re:Draft Copy?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
> to close the loophole that people could argue quite a wide defintion of "major components of OS"
The FSF themselves argues a quite wide definition of this clause (eg including the payware VisualBasic runtime for Windows as an major OS component).
But what about the excellent IT color scheme? That seems to be an improvement! It makes my stay here much more efficient. By avoiding that scheme, I have nearly halved the amount of time I spend(read: waste) each day reading pointless news each day! If that's not an improvement, I don't know what is.
Yes, I know how to change the scheme. It's called sarcasm. I wish I didn't have to add this disclaimer to my post, but some idiot is going to be "helpful", and show me the way to "fix" this problem. But then again, if they can't sense sarcasm, they probably don't even read this part, so this is pointless to put here. If you got this far, you've just wasted a fair bit of your own time.
-- warning: This post is likely to contain gobs of dripping sarcasm. Consume at your own risk.
According to RMS, this clause made more sense at the start (to port free-software to other Unix platforms and use thier compilers/libraries) and the FSF were less aware of how open the clause was, but now he thinks it might be wise to be more specfic and tighten it. See the article I referenced earlier.
-- Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
There is a reason why Linux is licensed under the GPL v2 only.
Perhaps because only v1 and v2 exist, and v2 is better than v1 (since it deals with patents)? I mean, were you expecting part of the kernel to be under GPL v12 or something?
-- Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog You cannot wash away blood with blood
Then why do you stay? If this site is "BSD Dying" then get off the URL and save bandwidth for those who still find it amusing. But complaining about "paid subscriptions" when you yourself don't have one (and thus get the content, however flawed you feel it is, for free) is sanctimonious nonesense.
-- Sig under construction since 1998.
Re:Draft Copy?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You will not see a draft of GPL 3. There will be no process for community feed back or input. For all its talk of openness, FSF is a very closed organzation. If you don't believe it, just try to get your hands on the draft of GPL 3.
You will be asked to accept it as it is or be lumped in with all the other enemies of free software.
Despite the names of some very respected people on the organization's Board, FSF is still captive to RMS's whims and need for complete control.
Well, if it was me, I wouldn't include that for the following reason.
This is nonsense. They cannot ask for any more damages than what they get under copyright law (and a copyright license is pointless without copyright law). See my aunt post.
I guess the idea is to stick with pure
usage restrictions
This is totally wrong as section 0 of the GNU GPL specifically states that there are no restrictions on usage (of software licensed under it).
avoid all money issues for corruption reasons.
Of course there are money issues for someone if they are succesfully prosecuted or sued for illegally copying or distributing software licensed under the GNU GPL (like any other work of art under any license): fines and compensation respectively. This is not really corruption as it is stated in the law (of almost every jurisdiction). (If you do object to people being fined or having to give compensation for breaking the law (or to the existence of copyright law) then campaign to have the law changed.)
-- Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
GPL vs MS EULA's
by
Gentoo+Fan
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I know it's mostly apples to oranges, but considering how infrequently the GPL is updated comparing this with both the size and likely tweaking of a standard MS EULA would hopefully be a good arguing point with possible Linux converts. Anyone know of a repository of EULAs and how frequently they get updated?
Re:GPL vs MS EULA's
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
There's no such thing as a "EULA Repository", but, it's a great idea.. not for MS EULA's only.. I'd love to be able to diff between MS/Oracle lastest evil ideas...:-)
On second thought MS would probably cry "copyright infringment!" on a site with all their various EULA's (I'm guessing). But I can just imagine all the work done in their legal department just for crafting or updating EULA's for each new big release.
Re:GPL vs MS EULA's
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The final thought on the discussion of a "EULA Repository" on Kuro5hin is that this would make EULAs more acceptable. Ignoring EULAs is the right thing to do if you don't believe in them, and this means not analysing them at all (except maybe for statements about spyware and other nasty stuff the manufacturer admits the software does).
Re:GPL vs MS EULA's
by
DunbarTheInept
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
They can have it one way or another, but not both. Either EULAs are enforcable contracts entered into willingly and knowingly by both parties, in which case they [b]must[/b] be publicly visible to the consumer BEFORE they make the purchase, or they aren't. If you hide a contract from one of the parties involved until after it is agreed to, then it should not be enforcable.
Of course, that was me living in my fantasy world where the courts are doing their job with fair minded justice and honesty. I now return you to reality, in which EULAs are both proprietary secret documents and enforcable documents.
--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Re:GPL vs MS EULA's
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
[b]must[/b]
We use real html tags round these parts.
Re:GPL vs MS EULA's
by
0racle
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I have this bad habbit of bringing facts to the irrational discussions on Slashdot. they [b]must[/b] be publicly visible
Another interesting thing with licenses, is that I google for new software and licenses. For some reason, if I search for "XYX" software and "free", I get a bunch of hits to sites that have a very different opinion of what free means than I do.
Honestly, with new software that I am not familiar with their license agreement, I lie and click "I agree" which is synonymous with "I don't care". Like every time I use software update on my Mac I'm going to do a mental diff on the current EULA and the previous one, mentally agree with every clause of the legalese, and have this affect my life how?
Oh, and another completly offtopic rant. WTF is up with Apple shipping nagware on Macs? Its quicktime for those of you that don't know. I don't think that Microsoft does anything that annoying with any of the software that ships with their OS (Maybe, don't know or really care).
Have you ever bothered to read ProCD v Zeidenberg and it's appeal, or perhaps even the volumes of work written about it. This is the defacto case law on the subject of shrink wrap licenses, and it clearly says that so long as there is a means to return the product and receive a refund, then the party need not be able to read the license prior to purchase.
Before anyone jumps down my throat about not being able to return the copy of Windows that comes with an OEM PC, you can. You have to return the PC with it, though. While you might not like that, it is an option, and thus meets the criteria set by the appeals court.
how can I read it before I have a computer Its freely available before you buy it, accessing it is your problem, where would it end otherwise? If a motherboard mfg shippes an updated bios that fixes a problem with a board after it was packaged, should they have to come right to your house, tell you the problem and give you the fix? No, they make the issue and the update available on their site, how you get to it is your problem. Should Microsoft place a lawyer in every computer store or have on IM you as soon as you make motions to buy one online? Maybe they should train all sales people as lawyers.
Requiring a computer to buy a computer I never saw any requirement to have a computer to see those, only access to one. Do your friends not have one, or your library, maybe the local cyber cafe might have one, never use one at work? Once again, a bios update, or any update at all for the most part, would also require access to a computer, not nessesarally use of your own however.
-- "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
Let's say you read the EULA and were OK with it. You then bought XP and installed it. Six months later MS changed the EULA. What now? Are you bound by the original or the new one. DO they have all the revision on the web site? If you are bound by the new one do they send it to you or let you know in any way? What if the new EULA is not acceptable to you then what?
Unless they've changed it, there is a pop-up the first time you turn your computer on that display's the EULA and requires you to agree. If you don't they have to refund you for Windows. Some guy got the full price of Windows refunded to him after a small claims suit a few years back under the laws the GP and up are talking about. I think/. even linked it.
-- The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
Ok so you agreed to the EULA (e.g. contract) that comes with XP, but then M$ changes the EULA on the updates?
Well, IANAL, what you can do depends on where you are. Many states have clauses in contract law that prevent this sort of thing (do consideration by both parties). In some states EULAs aren't even valid. Furthermore some of the clauses of the EULA arn't enforceable because Federal Law (copyright) trumps State (contract). If you really want to know, get a laywer and find out.
-- The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
I think it should be required to be printed and shiped with the computer/software I agree that would be a much better solution but its not required, and that saves a bunch of trees for a little while. The only requirement is it be accessable and I pointed out 2 resources where the EULA's are, so its one less thing to whine about. Incedentally, the last time I opened a computer it had an OEM version of Windows 98, and I could swear it had a booklet that had the EULA in it. They probably stopped because no one read it and it was therefore a waste of money and paper. I could be wrong about that though, its been a while.
-- "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
Apparently you missed the fact that I acknowleged at the end of my post that the situation I described is how it SHOULD be, not how the legal system recognizes it to be. I am well aware of the stupid way the law interprets EULAs. When there are no alternative choices of how to use the product, a EULA isn't much of an agreement at all. When they are industry standard, it's not a matter of voting with your wallet by going to a competitor. It's a matter of voting with your wallet by withdrawing from technology altogether and becoming a hermit.
--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Publicly visible in a way tied to the product. If you have a product package that says "This is a toothbrush" and then when you open it up it's actually a q-tip, it doesn't matter if there exists some external website somewhere that says the package doesn't really contain a toothbrush. It's still not the product that it claimed to be. The license for a thing should be visible before you buy it, and it should be available right there as you make the purchasing decision. Anything less is pure deception. Putting it up on some external website and expecting the user to check it there is not reasonable. Do you double-check with a google search every time you buy something to see if maybe the package isn't what it says it is?
--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
It's "due consideration" actually. IANALE, but unless system updates are specifically mentioned as a duty of MS in the original EULA, I'd think that the update itself would qualify as due consideration for the user. Don't agree to the new terms? Don't install the update.
Yes, because if I want to know about the EULA for the software for a computer I'll just get on my..oh wait, I don't have a computer yet in such a circumstance. In all seriousness, so far all court cases that have sided with EULAs have done so because the user has clicked on the equivalent of an "I Agree" box to terms. There's nothing fundamentally to stop a user, at least at the moment, from altering the copy of the program they bought such that they can bypass the EULA, thereby installing the software without agreeing to the EULA. Shrink wrap licenses are probably not legal under the obvious fact that there's no reasonable way to read it first; if the license were printed outside the package such that it could be read first, its questionable if you could alter the EULA as written and then open the package. What most don't realize is that a license/contract is supposed to offer you something such that you have a compelling reason to *want* to agree to it. If you've already bought the good, then clearly agreeing to most EULAs gives you nothing but only restricts you. This is one of the reasons, btw, that most EULAs have less apparent legal standing than the GPL, which trades redistribution rights for a dissolvement of warranty and like responsibility from the person whom you gained the GPL software from. But not all courts seem to be united on if an EULA can block resale. As such, the safest answer is to stop buying software that has EULAs if you care at all about retaining your rights to do as what law innately allows.
-- Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
I dunno, it's been considered standard for a proposed contract to presented on paper for quite a while now. How about just doing it right, if you want to offer a 'liscence' then do so, not just display it AFTER the product is alread bought and paid for and try and bully the customer by telling them they have already agreed to a contract they may not have already known about, and much more likely had no way to know the details of ahead of time.
Say I sell you a house and after closing you find a sticker over the keyhole this says: By breaking this seal you are agreeing to the following terms and conditions:
You didn't not buy this house only rented it.
You are not allowe to modify this house.
You are not allowed to distributes pictures of or discuss this house.
You are not allowed to discuss this agreement with anyone.
etc, etc
It doesn't matter if the contract was posted in some dark corner of the internet, for it to be valid it must be presented as a condition of sale.
It is not my duty to search out your EULA before buying your product. It terms are not explicity agreed on before/during the sale, then it automatically defaults to those established by standard copyright law. It simply doesn't work to present additional restrictions AFTER you already have my money.
If Microsoft really wants that EULA for WinXP to hold up, they need to present it to me at the counter at Best Buy. Otherwise, there's an implicit agreement to the doctrine of first sale.
It not an unreasonable thing to expect, ever buy a cellphone?
Since RMS's office is now in the Gates building, maybe he has been assimilated and GPL v3 will include terms allowing Microsoft to make use of GPLed code and not release their sources, since the GPL has t erms allowing you to use a subsequent version
That's one way to close up all the open software. The GPL provides for redistribution under that version of the GPL, or any later version. Microsoft could have RMS killed, and then forcefully take ownership of the FSF. They would right a new GPL to their advantage, and then "release" all of the currently GPL'ed software to themselves under their new license.
-- Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
It wouldn't close it, end users still will have the option of licensing it under the current GPL as long as the program authors followed the recommendations and said "this is licensed under GPL v2 OR later"... The "or" is the critical part, the user gets to choose.
-- I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
But versions that are already released, could continue to be distributed under the current GPL. So MS would get an unfair advantage, but the rest of the world would continue. (With some other GPL-like license for any new software, no doubt.)
Yeah, the original GPL v2 code would still be free, however if the FSF undergoes a MSFT-based coup d'etat and GPL v3 was, say, just a general-purpose fascist EULA then MS could grab all that GPL'ed code out there, make Microsoft Winux and Visual GCC with incompatible proprietary extensions and generally embrace and extend the hell out of all of us. Unlikely to happen, though.
The GPL provides for redistribution under that version of the GPL, or any later version.
No, it doesn't. The recommended language for using the GPL suggests that you allow that, but the license itself doesn't require it.
A number of prominent authors (I believe Alan Cox is one) release only under v2 for precisely this reason.
Note, too, that the standard copyright disclaimer you sign if you're releasing software to the FSF has language in it that terminates those rights if they distribute under a non-free license (see the disclaimer form for exact wording).
Your license was brought to my attention, but I can't figure out what, if anything, GPLCompuglobalhypermeganet does, so rather than risk competing with you, I've decided simply to buy you out.
<snip>
Bill Gates: Oh, I didn't get rich by writing a lot of checks! [insane laughter]
-- Bill Gates, "Das Bus"
--
"I have a cunning plan..."
Re:New Terms
by
PugMajere
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Alan Cox is definitely not one of them.
Linux Torvalds, however, distributes the Linux kernel under that license.
Except:
9. 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.
Same way the Scientologists took control of the Cult Awareness Network. Sue them, get a judgement to force bankruptcy, buy the name at the court auction, set up shop as the FSF (a Microsoft subsidiary).
-- Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
> GPLv2 says I can distribute your software under the terms of GPLv3.
As I said in the post you were replying to, GPLv2 says no such thing--that was, indeed, the point of my post.
There is a recommended way of releasing your software under the GPL which includes the statement
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
Note, though that this statement is NOT part of the GPL. It is merely a common way of legally releasing software under the GPL, and is recommended in Appendix A of the FSF's COPYING--but is clearly after the uppercase "END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS", in a section called "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs" that includes a number of other recommendations that are not part of the GPL (e.g. recommended disclaimers of warranty, program startup messages, etc).
The GPL itself says the following (in section 8):
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.
Clearly implying that the "any later version" wording is NOT the only way to release under the GPL.
Among the programs that DO NOT use the "any later version" clause is the Linux kernel; the COPYING file from the Linux source tree says:
Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
As another poster pointed out, Alan Cox is not one of the developers who avoids "any later version", but Linus is.
A small nit pick, the GPL doesn't have any terms allowing you to use a subsequent version. Many applications state that you may use the application under the current GPL or any subsequent version (as recommended by the FSF), but that is separate from the GPL itself.
Interesting to note the new terms
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3, Funny
"By using this software, you agree that Microsoft is teh suxx0rz!!!!"
I have the beta
by
Capt'n+Hector
·
· Score: 1, Funny
Hopefully they will fix the kernel panic issue...
-- Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti? Africus aut Europaeus?
Re:I have the beta
by
Secrity
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
The GPL causes a kernel panic? What kernel? When does it happen?
why what is wrong with it.........
for me kernel panic works just fine-------
-- ===
'Kernel Panic' no sig found:
Re:I have the beta
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Here on slashdot, it's possible to be rated offtopic even though your post contains the word GPL which is present in the actual topic. Watch and learn, noobs.
Duh, you shouldn't use the stock GPL, you should wait until the -ac patch comes out. What were you thinking?
Besides, even a newbie should know better than to use the initial releases - wait until version.4 or so.
Patents and compatiability?
by
m50d
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Will this version become comptiable with licenses with patent clauses, like the apache, IBM and CPL licenses?
-- I am trolling
Re:Patents and compatiability?
by
Tony+Hoyle
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
That's a biggie for me at the moment... I'm faced with rewriting all my code to not use GPL libraries or code simply because I want to license under Apache or Sendmail licenses (not decided which, but leaning towards the Sendmail one). It's not like I want to make anything proprietary or closed - in fact I want to *remove* restrictions but the GPL as currently worded won't let me.
Re:Patents and compatiability?
by
eison
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Afraid that is the *point* of the GPL.
The GPL is pushing a political agenda: "preserve, protect and promote the freedom to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute computer software." (from front page of gnu.org)
That restriction is the #1 thing that does support that agenda - if people find GPLed code useful enough that they want to use it, they will need to let others do likewise when they distribute their code.
I find it's not always what I want to do with my code (my agenda is often more in line with BSD), but it strikes me as genius in this means to achieve its end.
-- is competition good, or is duplication of effort bad?
Re:Patents and compatiability?
by
GreyWolf3000
·
· Score: 1
You're the copyright holder. You can change licenses anytime. Even to a proprietary one. People who downloaded the GPL source have the rights of the GPL, but once you start making changes, those downloading the source with the changes will have the new stipulations of the new license.
-- Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
Re:Patents and compatiability?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I think you missed the parents point. He wants to meet the goals of the GPL as well. He just feels the Apache license does a better job than the GPL. He's looking forward to this new version that may include patent issues and perhaps be compatible with those other licenses that do.
Re:Patents and compatiability?
by
GigsVT
·
· Score: 1
I don't see how you can say it's political, FSF isn't endorsing any politicians. And it's certainly not hidden. 10 minutes with RMS will make it painfully clear what the agenda is.
That's like saying that the Red Cross has a political agenda to save lives.
-- I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Re:Patents and compatiability?
by
arose
·
· Score: 1
That's why GPL is the way it is. Your code may be "more free" for those who receive it directly from you, but how downstream users receive it from there on is everybody's guess. By the way, even if GPL v3 is compatible with the Apache or Sendmail licenses you still can't use GPLed code in your software, just the other way ("linking is code use" is the current FSF's opinion). I suggest you make those libraries optional and dual license.
-- Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Re:Patents and compatiability?
by
mark-t
·
· Score: 1
Pay attention please... this has only been repeated by people some umpteen hundred times... The GPL absolutely cannot in any way impose restrictions on what the copyright holder can do with his or her own work. If you don't like the restrictions it imposes on others, that's fine too... maybe the GPL isn't right for you, but as the copyright holder you can place whatever copying terms you want on your code (including absolutely none at all, which is the copying terms that come with most commercial works).
You may be interested to know that it's entirely possible to use different copying licenses with different people. for example, you may have two distributions of your project, one which is under the GPL, and the other under another license (perhaps even a closed source one, available to people at some cost, for development in closed source projects).
Anyways, the bottom line is the GPL cannot constrain you, the copyright holder, it only outlines the terms that others most consent to in order to acquire permission from you to copy the work in some manner that would have been, without your permission, infringement on copyright.
Re:Patents and compatiability?
by
zoiter
·
· Score: 1
I'm curious about your sig. Is there a problem with Pan? I can't see anything alarming on their site, other than the last release being almost a year old.
I still use Pan just about every day without problem. Just curious.
Re:Patents and compatiability?
by
Trejkaz
·
· Score: 1
I'm fine with my own code being under GPL, the problem with CPL is that the CPL requires that extra clauses be added to the conditions of use, which GPL expressly permits. So it's impossible to legally mix GPL and CPL libraries, even if you want to release your own code as GPL.
Hopefully this new version fixes the problem. If it does, this is the first step towards getting an implementation of SWT on top of Qt (the next step is obviously, convincing Trolltech to "upgrade" to the new license.)
--
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
Re:Patents and compatiability?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Sorry, advocating the removal of the software patent system is explicity political, and FSF probably would endorse a poltician... if they could find one that saw things their way.
Re:Patents and compatiability?
by
Rich0
·
· Score: 1
However, if he does change the license, then he cannot use any GPL code copyrighted by others in his project, which was his point.
Re:Patents and compatiability?
by
m50d
·
· Score: 1
I think it's sad that they decided to go all "corporate". You won't find the real name anywhere on that site, not even a buried faq entry saying where the acronym comes from. I realise that this sort of thing is probably necessary if linux is going to become mainstream, but it strikes me as the equivalent of local shops turning into faceless chain stores.
I still use it, but I miss telling people I have a pimp-ass newsreader. At least I still gimp my images, although from a recent thread it seems there are people who want to get rid of that too.
-- I am trolling
Re:Patents and compatiability?
by
eison
·
· Score: 1
Never said anything about hidden. The one does not imply the other.
You seem to take a narrow view of politics, in that it has to involve a particular politician? To me, when you tell other people what they should or should not be able to do, that's politics. GNU feels all people should be able to use code, and they work towards that end.
I happen to think they do a good job, although I don't always share their philosophy - I find the inability to restrict secondary distribution can make it hard to eat, and I don't believe a great programmer should have to wait tables.
-- is competition good, or is duplication of effort bad?
Re:Patents and compatiability?
by
eison
·
· Score: 1
Thanks, but I think you and the parent both missed that their goals are tremendously different.
You can modify Apache projects and re-release your modifications as proprietary code with other incompatible licenses, provided you keep the copyright and licensing on the Apache part intact. This is fundamentally philosophically completely different from the GPL, which has as its main goal the elimination of proprietary code.
-- is competition good, or is duplication of effort bad?
Re:Patents and compatiability?
by
eison
·
· Score: 1
Assuming you brought up Common Public License, which is another BSD-style that expressly allows redistributing modified works with different licenses on the modifications and thus letting you take open code closed source?
I see no reason why GNU would want to allow mixing these two things - they don't want code to be closed source. The terms of the GPL were carefully written both to keep the code from being used in closed source programs and even to discourage the development of closed source programs in the first place.
They just aren't philosophically compatible, it isn't a 'problem' that will be 'fixed'.
-- is competition good, or is duplication of effort bad?
Re:Patents and compatiability?
by
Trejkaz
·
· Score: 1
No, No, No. You're not paying attention.
I don't want to take the GPL and release software under the CPL. Obviously that would be bad.
I want to take the GPL, and release software under the GPL which depends on a CPL library.
I don't see why the GPL should be actively prohibiting this behaviour. Tell me, what code is closed source in this scenario? You seem to think some is.
--
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
Re:Patents and compatiability?
by
GigsVT
·
· Score: 1
Main Entry: political Pronunciation: p&-'li-ti-k&l Function: adjective Etymology: Latin politicus 1 a : of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government b : of, relating to, or concerned with the making as distinguished from the administration of governmental policy 2 : of, relating to, involving, or involved in politics and especially party politics 3 : organized in governmental terms 4 : involving or charged or concerned with acts against a government or a political system
-- I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
GPL 3 Now Contains Flouride!
by
dbretton
·
· Score: 4, Funny
They're trying to drain our precious bodily fluids...
Re:GPL 3 Now Contains Flouride!
by
floydman
·
· Score: 1
precious bodily fluids
I think you had too much to drink..
-- The lunatic is in my head
Re:GPL 3 Now Contains Flouride!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
...yup, pure grain alcohol...
Re:GPL 3 Now Contains Flouride!
by
lubricated
·
· Score: 1
and spring water
-- It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
Re:GPL 3 Now Contains Flouride!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
and spring water
Spring water? WTF is that?
If you are going to quote something at least quote it correctly you douche bag.
It's "rain water", idiot.
Good :)
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I got mod points to burn, so I'll shoot...
Hopefully, they'll include the clause to allow companies to tahe GPL'd software, rip the copyrights out, and incorporate it into their own products and claim ownership.
This would solve the "problems" with the GPL all the "analysts" keep huffing and puffing about, and would allow our good friends at MS to use GPL code in their products and file suits against the authors who wrote it for "copyright violations."
FLAME ON!!! >:)
Re:Good :)
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Perhaps someone could write a program called DeGPLer that rips the GPL code out of source code. It should be released under the GPL of course.
they'll include the clause to allow companies to tahe GPL'd software, rip the copyrights out, and incorporate it into their own products and claim ownership
But it's already named GNU GNU GPL if you go into the recursion.
-- Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Is this really necessary?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The GPL works very well at the moment. Introducing a new version could confuse what is at the moment a very easy to understand concept-- if you alter GPLed code you have to let everyone use your alterations as GPLed code as well-- as well as creating schisms in OSS development. As far as I am aware some software-- including the Linux kernel if I'm not incorrect-- don't license to the GPL itself or "GPL 2 or later", they license to one specific version.
The open source community is going to have to deal with patents at some point, since patent abuse will soon be the #1 defense commercial software has (Mr. McNealy of Sun has been making some fascinating comments lately) now that they can't compete on merit or any other fair method. However I hope they are very careful with exactly how they introduce this into GPL3. Patents are already nicely covered in the GPL by requiring that you cannot distribute a GPL program if there are patent restrictions on it. But if a line gets in like "by releasing this program, you grant a universal license to open source software to use all applicable patents" it could hinder uptake of GPLed software by companies fearing that by distributing GPL3'd code they would be at risk of accidentally licensing patents without realizing it.
Re:Is this really necessary?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It is not true that if you alter GPL'ed code you have to let everyone use the alterations. It is only if you distribute the altered code that you have to license it under the GPL. In that case, you have to give access to the source code to everyone to whom you give access to the binary code.
As far as I am aware some software-- including the Linux kernel if I'm not incorrect-- don't license to the GPL itself or "GPL 2 or later", they license to one specific version.
That seems very sensible. In fact, it amazes me that (AFAIK) none of the megacorps has yet tried to assimilate AnyGPL'd code on the basis that the licence under which it was distributed was GPL version 19,754, as defined by MegaCorp, Inc., and they therefore have full rights (and no-one else has any). The idea of licensing software under some future, unspecified EULA is just plain daft, IMHO; it's like signing an unfinished contract, or writing a blank cheque.
-- If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Re:Is this really necessary?
by
donutz
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
A problem with the GPL, other than patents, is the use of GPL software in a network setting. Let's say I set up a web server, and offer a service to customers, using a modified piece of GPL licensed software. Let's say it's a PHP CMS, for example.
I'm not technically distributing the software, I'm letting people use it, so I'm not required to distribute my changes to my customers or whoever asks for the source. At least, that's how some see it.
A revision to the GPL could eliminate the confusion, and state whether or not such a situation requires distributing modified sources or not.
Re:Is this really necessary?
by
osu-neko
·
· Score: 1
In fact, it amazes me that (AFAIK) none of the megacorps has yet tried to assimilate AnyGPL'd code on the basis that the licence under which it was distributed was GPL version 19,754, as defined by MegaCorp, Inc., and they therefore have full rights (and no-one else has any).
Most likely, their lawyers have a better understanding of the law than you do.
-- "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Re:Is this really necessary?
by
shaitand
·
· Score: 1
I consider this new release a wonderful thing even if it makes little or no change. The reason is simple, because there is a new release alot of people will read it who never read the license before.
Since the GPL is plain english they will discover quite a few myths that float around about it.
Re:Is this really necessary?
by
flossie
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
In fact, it amazes me that (AFAIK) none of the megacorps has yet tried to assimilate AnyGPL'd code on the basis that the licence under which it was distributed was GPL version 19,754, as defined by MegaCorp, Inc., and they therefore have full rights (and no-one else has any).
I think you are missing the fact that the GPL itself is covered by copyright. You cannot distribute a work (i.e. license) derived from the GPL without the permission of the copyright holder (the FSF).
Most likely, their lawyers have a better understanding of the law than you do.
Well, their lawyers may do, but since you haven't even attempted to provide a counter-argument, let's assume you don't, shall we?
-- If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Re:Is this really necessary?
by
Piquan
·
· Score: 1
In fact, it amazes me that (AFAIK) none of the megacorps has yet tried to assimilate AnyGPL'd code on the basis that the licence under which it was distributed was GPL version 19,754, as defined by MegaCorp, Inc., and they therefore have full rights (and no-one else has any).
You're making a classic confusion between the name of a thing and the thing itself. (Lewis Carroll makes light of this in Through the Looking Glass, when Alice first meets the White Knight.) Just because something is named "GPL" doesn't make it what people are talking about when they talk about the GPL.
To draw an analogy, consider a company based in England. They call their building "The United States of America". Would they be able to claim offers that say they're only valid in the US?
It's a moot issue anyway. The language used is quite clear that it's referring to the FSF's GPL. From the GPL:
9. 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.
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 the license that MegaCorp Inc got the code under clearly stated what "later version" means.
Typically, the "later version" clause is at the top of the source code. The actual "later version" clause typically used reads like this:
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.
So again, it's quite clear that the "later version" means one published by the FSF.
I think you are missing the fact that the GPL itself is covered by copyright. You cannot distribute a work (i.e. license) derived from the GPL without the permission of the copyright holder (the FSF).
That's strange. In most enlightened cultures, the legal right to control which contracts parties may enter into by mutual agreement is reserved to legally recognised government, not to the whims of a random organisation with no more legal significance than Joe down the street.
-- If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I think we're talking at cross-purposes here. I'm not suggesting a MegaCorp usurp code covered by a clear statement such as the "later version" example you gave. I'm suggesting the MegaCorps might try usurping code with a more waffly statement, such as those that seem to appear on a lot of Joe Public projects: something like "This software may be used according to GPL 2 or later."
In this case, it isn't clear that the GPL in question refers to "the GNU General Public Licence as published by the Free Software Foundation", and the lawyers could argue that what the FSF puts in its own document that it calls the GPL is irrelevant. (I'm not saying they'd get away with it, given the relatively high profile of that particular GPL in techie circles, just that I'm surprised no corporate lawyers have yet tried to find out.)
-- If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Re:Is this really necessary?
by
flossie
·
· Score: 1
That's strange. In most enlightened cultures, the legal right to control which contracts parties may enter into by mutual agreement is reserved to legally recognised government, not to the whims of a random organisation with no more legal significance than Joe down the street.
Entering a contract and distributing a license are not the same thing.
You can buy off-the-shelf legal documents (e.g. tenancy agreements) from stationers in the UK. You are free to use them to enter into contracts with whomever you choose. However, they explicitly state that they are protected by copyright and that you may not distribute the document to the general public - that is how the legal firms which write them make their money.
The GPL is distributed with the software; it is not a contract. Although MegaCorpXXX could enter into a contract with you on the basis of their latest evil version, they are not able to bundle it with software as a generic license. To do that, they would have to write their own without deriving it from the GPL, in which case they could not argue that their new license satisfies the "later version" provision of the GPL.
Of course, all this is entirely moot, because the text of the GPL actually states:
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.
Re:Is this really necessary?
by
maxwell+demon
·
· Score: 1
What would happen if some company started, in some country, a new organization also called "Free Software Foundation" and published a "GPL v. 10" which doesn't have anything from GPL v.2 (or 3), but say it's "a later version", arguing that a later version may very well be a complete rewrite of the previous version?
After all, is the term "later version" legally defined?
-- The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Re:Is this really necessary?
by
StalinJoe
·
· Score: 1
After all, is the term "later version" legally defined?
<obligatory pun>
After the whole Clinton fiasco, the USA's confused about the legal definition of "is"! </obligatory pun>
-- "Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything." - Josef Stalin
Just as version 2 was/is being tested in court we have to go for a new license which will no doubt leave us open to all sorts of patent problems that those untested proprietary licenses don't have.
The end is nigh
Negative, SCO is challenging the validity of the GPL in their case against IBM. It's not the only thing involved in the case by a long shot, but it's in there.
Changes to the GPL
by
KJACK98
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
For me the weaknesses that need to be addressed in the GPL are most definitely patents, the confusion around dynamic/static compiling + web services. Get rid of this issue of two licenses (GPL/LGPL/ or the new trend that is even more confusing GPL + Linking Clause?!?) which causes a lot of problems for reuse of code. Having a 'viral license' just scares corporate use of our code. Other issues are enforcement of trademarks, so that companies can have commercial offerings by offering a particular 'brand'. At the end of the day the license must continue to protect its most important aspect, that all code changes to the software must be contributed back - preferably in a free downloadable manner (mailing $15 for the source code when the binary is available free online goes against its principles).
Having a 'viral license' just scares corporate use of our code... At the end of the day the license must continue to protect its most important aspect, that all code changes to the software must be contributed back
Maybe it's just me, but isn't the fact that all derivative code must also be free, where all the 'viral license' FUD comes from? I don't think you can have one without the other (in as far as as long as you have this clause, companies like MS and SCO will call the license viral).
-- We always knew Comcast was corrupt, here's the proof:
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1909890&cid=34545432
That's annoying but not indefensible. Demanding hundreds of dollars for a CD mailed domestically or providing the source as large a printed document would be, imho.
This raises an interesting question. Let's say I have a program for a niche market and there are commercial competitors. I provide the binaries online but distribute the source via a CD.
Buried in my code is a statement, perhaps in a function, is a statement like:
static const char[] xid = "alk24lCAmql4==";
which I might claim is a source control code but which is really a hidden serial number that ties the source to a particular CD. Compiling the code gives you a slightly different, but functionally identical, binary. But it also gives me a mechanism to test for my code in your commercial products. (So it really is a "source control code"!) Does that violate the GPL?
-- For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Re:Changes to the GPL
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The 'derivative code' to the application is fine, but the issue is, I have a commerical software product, and it dynamically links to say for example the gnome library, under the GPL, because I linked to it, I must now make sure my product source code is available too, hence 'viral license' -- this is where the lgpl is meant to protect this aspect.
Re:Changes to the GPL
by
mrchaotica
·
· Score: 3, Informative
mailing $15 for the source code when the binary is available free online goes against its principles
According to the GPL FAQ, that's already disallowed:
Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my site?
Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide "equivalent access" to download the source--therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary.
--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Re:Changes to the GPL
by
GigsVT
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
See, the thing is, the GPL FAQ isn't the GPL. It's just sorta the way they see it.
The GPL FAQ has no legal weight, other than seeing what the FSF might sue you over and what they might not.
-- I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Re:Changes to the GPL
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
A FAQ becomes your interpreation, it must be stated in the license itself... So i agree completely with you.
Even if you could only distribute the source by CD (you can't), I'm really not quite certain how it would tie the source to a particular CD. If they got the source and were using it in their proprietary (Free can be commercial too) project, couldn't they just remove the statement? And before you say "how would they find it," doesn't the compiler generate a warning when there are unused variables?
Then again, most companies stupid enough to infringe GPL software at all are also too stupid to remove all the other strings...
--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Re:Changes to the GPL
by
DunbarTheInept
·
· Score: 3, Informative
The problem is over just what does and doesn't constitute "derivative code". If I publish a product in which my code has a shell script that calls out to gzip, just how derivative is my work? The fear companies have is over this feature. The LGPL is a bit clearer, but the GPL isn't too clear one way or the other. Some ways to read it might give the impression that as long as you ship a GPL tool alongside your own tool, and make any sort of call from your tool to the GPL tool (i.e. a shell script calling gzip), that your own tool is now GPL too.
--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
If you do what you seem to be implying then Yes, it would.
You must make the source code available essentially by the same means as you made the binary available. So if you only distributed the binary on CD, you dont need to make source code available online. But if your binary is online, then you must make the source available online by essentially the same means.
You must also distribute and licence via the GPL the actual code used, not merely a functionally equivalent piece of code.
Whatever you distributed, you are obligated to make the souce code for THAT particular derivative version of the original GPL program available and licencable via GPL. You can't offer a substitute version no matter what your intention is.
If dont make available the actual source code used for that particular binary, no matter how similar, then you had no licence to distributed the binary and you infringed on the original author's copyrights.
-- No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
The "equivalent access" clause you linked to is being taken out of context.
The language of the GPL is quite clear.
You are obligated to either:
- Provide the written transferrable offer to provide the source (on CD or other accepted transfer medium) valid for X years(I forget how many), for no more than a fair handling fee. (this incurrs a multi-year obligation on your part)
OR
- Provide the source along with the binaries. (no continuing obligation on your part)
The equivalent access section falls into the latter category:
If you provide access to the source when you provide access to the binaries, and whether or not to take them is purely up to the receiver, this is the same as if you distributed them together, and you have no ongoing obligations. This is the most widely used method. Take Debian, for example. They could shut down any day with no ongoing obligation, as they made the source freely available to you via the same channels as the binaries. This is what equivalent access is about.
You are still free to distribute binaries along with only a written offer to provide source, valid for several years.
If you offer free download then the sources must also be a free download, but if distribute binaries on cd then you can offer sources for a nominal shipping and materials charge. $15 for the sources on CD would qualify if that included shipping.
I linked to the Free Software Foundation's own FAQ about how to interpret the GPL, so it seems that that's what they intend, even if the actual license text doesn't reflect it.
Sounds to me like it's something to fix in version 3!
--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
This is a nice idea, but strictly, I believe it would. The parts of the GPL that talk about making source code available use the words "corresponding source code." I would interpret this to mean "that source code which, when the user compiles it with (the appropriate versions of) the appropriate tools, produces binaries that are identical to those that the user already has." If the binary differs by so much as one bit, then it's not the "corresponding source code."
Even if your hidden serial number is completely benign, and it's the only difference in your source code, how is the user to know that? How is the user to decide whether the binary he compiled himself is "functionally identical" to the one you compiled for him? The general case of this problem is unsolvable. Incidentally, can you be sure that your serial number will actually appear in the binary? The compiler (or the user) might notice that it's not being used anywhere, and decide to omit it.
Then again... if it's your code, you can do whatever you want with it - including things that the GPL would forbid other people from doing. So you can tell everybody who downloads your software that it's GPL'd, but then when they ask for the source, give them a copy with a serial number. If anybody else was to do this with your code, that would be a GPL violation.
The FAQ question you linked to is about whether or not you can charge for downloads, not whether or not you can distribute source on CD. The conditions under which you would HAVE To offer source for download are not all-encompassing.
You would have to offer source for download if you were unable to provide every person you distribute to a written offer for source on some other medium. If you are Debian.org, this is a problem, as anyone is free to grab the binaries from you. The only viable solution for you is to offer source.
If you are a commercial enterprise, selling your software, and clients are granted download privelegs only after signing contracts, etc, then you CAN provide them with a written offer before allowing them to downoad binaries, and you would be under no obligation to provide source online.
"Then again, most companies stupid enough to infringe GPL software at all are also too stupid to remove all the other strings..."
What makes you assume that? I wouldn't venture to believe most companies who heist gpl code get caught, let alone do something stupid. I WOULD venture that most companies who GET CAUGHT do something stupid like leave the strings in;)
"If dont make available the actual source code used for that particular binary, no matter how similar, then you had no licence to distributed the binary and you infringed on the original author's copyrights."
Great, except that wasn't really the question. Besides, it's easier to dynamically change a line of text in each copy if the copies are distributed electronically, not harder.
The question is, would doing so be considered source code control. I don't think so, controling is forcing an outcome. Tagging like the parent is referring to isn't controling, rather it's something which can be used to control.
Re:Changes to the GPL
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Obvious solution is to check with the copyright holder of that particular piece of software. IIRC, FSF has already stated that they don't consider system pipes (like your example) to be linking. To them, it's not a derivative as a result. TrollTech (of Qt fame) has (imho) put out differing interpretations of the GPL. Ultimately the only person who would have standing to bring an infringement case (unless it were a criminal infringement case) would be the holder of the copyright. And even then, they'd also have to convince a judge or jury that their interpretation of "derivative" was both truly "derivative" in terms of the law, and not ambiguously allowed for by the license.
Okay, then, let's go to the GPL itself. There are three ways specified to distribute the source.
1. Just include it along with the binary. 2. Include a written offer to obtain the code, for which the price is not greater than the cost of physically transferring the code. 3. Delegate the offer you received to those who obtain binaries from you.
Number 2 is not possible for Internet distribution, because you cannot have a "written offer".
Number 1 may also be satisfied by offering "equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place". Thus if your price for the source is different from the price of the binary, you are no longer granting equivalent access.
So, if you distribute binary code for free on a Web site, then you must provide the source for free, and it must be obtainable from the Web site, and only allowing mail distribution is prohibited.
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.
In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.
This seems to me to be entirely clear, or at least as clear as the subject-matter permits. If you write a program that is free of GPL'd code, and that can be run without GPL'd code, then it is not under GPL.
A simple test for what constitutes "mere aggregation" is: will my program run without the GPL'd part? If not, it is a derivative work, if so, it is not. If there is an alternative to the GPL'd part that users can substitute, then your program will run without the GPL'd part.
So in the example you cite, if your code can call any other (de)compression tool in place of gzip, you have not created a derivative work.
This is not legal advice, if you were wondering. If it was, I'd be asking money for it!
I disagree. The original question was "Does that violate the GPL?"
And my answer was. "If you do what you seem to be implying then Yes, it would."
I think that is pretty direct.
Now your claim is that:
"The question is, would doing so be considered source code control."
My response: No that was not the question. The only reference to source code control in the original post were the statements:
"which I might claim is a source control code but which is really a hidden serial number that ties the source to a particular CD. Compiling the code gives you a slightly different, but functionally identical, binary. But it also gives me a mechanism to test for my code in your commercial products. (So it really is a "source control code"!) Does that violate the GPL?"
To which I answered. Yes it would.
It doesn't matter if what you are doing is "source code control". If it involves distributing or publishing a derivative binary (or the original binary itself), you must include the corresponding source code. Not a variant of it. The GPL makes no special exemptions for "source code control" or any other excuse for distributing a binary and refusing to distribute the corresponding source. It does not allow it.
If you want to distribute source code ID tags or whatever with your product and those TAGS are derived from the original code in any way (say by MD5SUM or other means) then you must license the tags themselves as GPL work or else not distribute the original work.
In any event, the GPL does not license you to make special flavours of binaries and only release the vanilla source code. It makes no difference if the special flavours taste the same as authentic vanilla. You must make the source code of the special flavours available and you must license the corresponding source code to the recipient under the GPL.
-- No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
And one thing worth remembering is that licenses really have no say in what is derived and what is not. It's a matter for the courts (and law).
If A is not a derived work of B, the license of B just cannot restrict what you do with A. It's just like saying "The Windows kernel is a derivative work of gzip just because I say so" - it's not, and it's not for you to decide. Unfortunately what constitutes a derivative work in case of software is not as clear-cut as most people would hope.
Of course some developer can state in his license that he doesn't consider some use of his code as constituting a derivative work; or quite equivalently (but wrongly) stating that it is not a derivative work. While such a statement (the later one) might be technically incorrect, it prevents the licensor from changing his mind about that (this is called estoppel).
Mmmm if the companies were really that worried they could probably hire a lawyer and read the license itself. IF they still had questions the lawyer could drop an email to the FSF and ask for a clarification.
Of course they could probably skip the lawyer part, read the license themseves (it's pretty plain english) or email the FSF themselves too.
It sounds like your hypothetical comapny is too lazy to any of that.
Nobody can guarantee 100% identical binaries. You can't account for different versions of the compiler and linker, different optimization flags, etc.
I also don't follow your argument that nobody can do the same thing with my code. Remember the hypothetical situation was a niche market with only a few players. If the commercial players want to look at my source code to get ideas I don't care - it improves the products for everyone. Besides anyone who takes a serious look at the code for ideas would see why these strings are there and could easily strip them.
But if they copy my code wholesale I want to know that I've been treated as an unpaid staff programmer.
-- For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
You would be shocked at the number of companies that don't compile with "-Wall" because they want to reduce the number of warnings seen. Gives them a false sense of security, I guess.
The same companies complain about fragile, flaky code. I'm a miracle worker when I come in, fix each type of warning in turn, then leave the build files with "-Wall" enabled.
-- For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
As others have pointed out it's perfectly legal to distribute the source by CD only. You might need case law to disallow distribution via now-obscure media like 9 track tapes or punch cards.
With one-off CDs, it would be trivial to run the source through a tool that replaces every "%RANDOM%" string with, duh, some random string. A different string per instance, all written to a database linking the string to the person getting the source.
If I wanted to put the source online, I could do the same thing with an Apache module (or Java code) so it inserts the tags on the fly. In this case the tags would be linked to the user via authentication (I simply require a free registration to get source so I can notify you of security issues) or your ip address/browser if nothing else.
-- For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Yeah, it makes me glad that my school (I'm a college CS student) requires us to use "-Wall -ansi -pedantic -O2" for all our homework -- making good coding practices a habit is always a good thing.
--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
That isn't the slightest bit clear at all. What if my code COULD call sometehing other than gzip, but it doesn't work because I used a command-line flag that only gzip supports? Is it then a derivative work? And, from a legalistic point of view, is there any difference between calling a piece of code by command-line versus calling it as a library function call? The GPL says library calls into a GPL'ed library file make your work derivitive, and the LGPL says they don't. But how does calling a program from command-line differ from calling it's main() as a function call, in terms of this legality of it?
--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
The way I read it was "if you distribute the binary via free download you must distribute the source for free, too (but you can offer a $X CD also, if you want)." Or, in general, [the cheapest] source price must be less than or equal to binary price, regardless of distribution method.
Maybe I'm interpreting it wrong, but if so it seems like it would allow immoral* behavior, e.g. distributing a binary for free, but charging for the source for the purpose of discouraging its use.
*in this instance, immoral == against the spirit/intent of the GPL
--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Determining if something is a derivative work or not has to be determined on a case by case basis as there is no clear legal definition that applies broadly.
The test above is in the above post is about as good as you will get.
Determining if its a derivative work cannot be done mechanicaly, its has to be done by a person, so it would be naive to try and beat the system by putting useless code in there that makes a feeble attempt to be independent of the GPL.
Re:Changes to the GPL
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Asking the FSF is no good because they won't tell you anything except "Call a lawyer." In other words, they use the uncertainty over "derived works" to their own advatange.
From a logical standpoint, code running in another process context is obviously not contained within the original code base. So, by some hypothetical example a company could if they were trying to be devious put all their properitary code into a binary and modify a GPLed program to call it, thereby abdicating them of GPLing their own code. When you get into issues like an OS that doesn't have the concept of separate memory spaces, there's clearly less room to separate between the two.
Of course, there's nothing to stop the holder of the copyright from the GPLed program to sue said company. And in most cases it'd be reasonable to tell if the binary-library the company made was effectively an extension of the GPL program, even though it is in a separate memory space. To a great extent, it's really just the question of fair use. Most responsible companies, being paranoid, want to absolve any worry that they will be sued and lose later on, so they'll assume it extends to the gzip example. Most sane companies, though, would realize that there's FreeBSD, NetBSD, etc which offers all sorts of tools for "free" to remove such worries. The rest of the sane companies will either ask the copyright holder of the GPLed program, open source their software to remove any doubt, or go with a proprietary program to move the blame to another company.
So, in all, I think the GPL is well worded in using "derivative work". As for the gzip example, even frontends would probably not be considered a derivative work as gzip is merely being used in its original function. Now, modifying gzip in some way to function more efficiently with your proprietary program is probably crossing the line. In other words, it seems much more likely you will be sued for modifying the GPL program to work with your program than the other way around. I base this on the current situation with proprietary software. But of course even in the properitary world, there's nothing to stop one company from suing another for being "dependent" on their product.
-- Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
Re:Changes to the GPL
by
Mycroft_VIII
·
· Score: 1
In that case the obvious thing to do is distribute source only, or alternatively when someone clicks to download the binary create the tagged source then compile and send both the binary and the source.
Of course on projects of any size this could be problematic. Now if you distributing by removeable media only it becomes a much more realistic option.
This assumes that tagging code would be considered different from the build source for the purposes of complying with the GPL. I honestly don't know the law enough to say, for all I know it (or a court ruling) says something like comments or other code that in no way changes the functionality do/don't apply.
The problem is the other way around. Not trying to make a feeble attempt to be independant of the GPL, but making a genuine attempt and not knowing if it was successful or not, and therefore not knowing if it is legal to distribute your product without source code or not. You don't want to wait until after a court case has been filed to find out.
--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
You're approaching this from the standpoint that the company is TRYING to do something sneaky and underhanded and usurp GPL code. I'm approaching it from the standpoint that they aren't trying to, but end up violating the GPL anyway because it's so broadly phrased that it's tough to tell what counts and what doesn't. In order to catch the cheaters, the GPL got phrased in a way that also catches the unsuspecting. And this is why some companies are very worried about using GPL code at all. The LGPL is a lot more clear on the matter, but the GPL is fuzzy. (Taken in the context of comparasin to the LGPL, and that the LGPL was writted explicitly to be different from the GPL, some of those fuzzy things can maybe be resolved by inferrence. (i.e. that the person releasing this software went with the GPL instead of the LGPL probably infers that they do NOT want you to be able to do those things the LGPL says are okay but the GPL neither says are okay nor says are not okay.))
--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
I don't think so. It sounds like your company is especially inept and lazy. In my company the CIO has read the GPL and understands it. Since he is kind of stickler I am sure he has also run it by the legal dept.
In any case, only one person needs to even pay the $15 - after that anybody can mirror it freely on their website - the GPL, after all, allows free redistribution under the GPL.
The GPL doesn't prevent you from selling a GPL'ed program for $50,000/license. However, what it does do is allow the first person who buys it from you to sell 10 copies at only $10,000 apiece (thereby recovering his initial investment), and the next guy from selling them for $1000, and so on until the price has dropped to free.
Re:Changes to the GPL
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Having a 'viral license' just scares corporate use of our code.
Then maybe the scared corporation should write their own damn code?
I'll grant you this is difficult, but I don't believe it's impossible. That's why I said "with (the appropriate versions of) the appropriate tools." It would normally be more trouble than it was worth, but in theory, you could tell the user the exact versions of all the tools and libraries that were involved in compilation, and the exact command lines to type, and that would give them a binary that was identical to yours. Usually, the source would be available for download, and I suppose anyone who cares about having it would probably compile it themselves without looking at any precompiled binaries that you supplied. But since you were talking about making only the binary available for download, and sending the source on a CD, the user has to ask themselves: "How do I know that this source is really that which coyote-san used to create this binary?" The only way they can be sure is to try to compile an identical binary - which they can't, because the sources aren't the same.
I also don't follow your argument that nobody can do the same thing with my code.
I was assuming that you own the copyright in the code. (It becomes more complicated if you accept patches from other people, so I'll assume you wrote the whole thing yourself for now.) As the owner, you can do things with the code that other people are forbidden from doing without your permission. For instance, if you put your binary on some server for people to download, you're under no obligation to provide the source for exactly that binary to anybody. If they ask for the source to that binary and you give them source that's the same except for the addition of the serial number, this is fine (unless you have a contract with them that says otherwise). Conceivably, they could sue you for false or misleading advertising, but this is nothing to do with the GPL.
Now, if you tell your users that the source code you're giving them is GPL'd, then any user who distributes a binary of that source has to make that exact source available to anyone who downloads their binary. They don't own the copyright, so they require the copyright owner's permission to distribute the program (binary or source). The GPL is what gives them that permission, and they have to abide by its terms if they want that permission to continue to exist. If you wanted to allow your users to distribute binaries and sources that didn't correspond with each other, then you (as copyright owner) could do this, but then you would not be licensing your program under the GPL. The license might look very similar to the GPL, but it would not actually be the GPL.
Having said all of that, several others in this thread have pointed out that successfully violating the GPL is harder than many people seem to think. Apart from all the clues that are left behind in the binary, there's always the possibility that someone who works for the infringing company will blow the whistle on them.
Then again, in a small market, would there be any benefit to having a hidden serial number? Company X requests a CD of your source, and you send them one. Three months later, company X launches an all-new product that looks suspiciously like yours. You buy a copy, run "strings" on the binaries, and find the same unique serial number that was in the source you sent them. Great. You sue the living daylights out of them and retire to a tropical island. But what do you do if their serial number isn't there? Do you conclude that there's no copyright infringement - that their product's similarity to yours is just the result of reverse engineering and the fact that they're chasing the same customers as you?
Or are you expecting that you might find company Y's serial number in company X's product? While Y might be devious enough to try to get X into trouble by giving them their CD of your source, I can't imagine that X would be stupid enough to go along with it, knowing
In that case the obvious thing to do is distribute source only, or alternatively when someone clicks to download the binary create the tagged source then compile and send both the binary and the source.
This procedure would satisfy the GPL.
This assumes that tagging code would be considered different from the build source for the purposes of complying with the GPL. I honestly don't know the law enough to say, for all I know it (or a court ruling) says something like comments or other code that in no way changes the functionality do/don't apply.
If you copy and distribute another persons copywritten material, regardless of whether or not you change it, you must have permission to do so. In order to recieve permission based on the GPL, you must follow certain procedures, which is that if you distribute a binary, you must distribute the "complete corresponding" source code.
The requirement is not "corresponding or functionaly equivalent source code" it is "complete corresponding" source code.
from the GPL:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
----- end quote
The only possible source of contention is the definition of "complete corresponding".
Since a binary can be used in many different ways, and some of thos ways may be dependant on the exact value of such "TAGS". It is easily shown that in general modification in a so called "TAG" renders the binary to be functionally not-equivalent (and thus not corresponding by any definition of the word).
But at a minimum it would be easy to convince a judge that "complete" means "complete" and if the source code is lacking in the actual tags used to compile that binary, then the source code is incomplete and therefore not "complete corresponding".
-- No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
No. I'd say your company is especially lacking the ineptitude and laziness that is common everywhere else. A CIO that knows the GPL? That's not normal. Normal CIOs only understand what they read in trade magazines.
--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
It only takes two minues to read the thing. If you wanted to take a whole hour you could read commentary on it. I just don't see where it's a burden. I bet many CIOs have read it. They read software licenses all the time. Every CIO has either read or had their legal dept read every single contract they have signed with MS, IBM, or any other software company I am sure they have also read the GPL. If anything it's way simpler then the contract your company signed with MS.
If your CIO is not reading or not making the legal staff read the contracts and licences that your company is bound by you should quit. Your business isn't going to last for long with management that inept.
-- evil is as evil does
Re:Changes to the GPL
by
Mycroft_VIII
·
· Score: 1
I pretty much agree with your assesment. However I've heard of judges with no technical savvy (or worse some but not enough), comming up with some pretty stange rullings in the past and that's really my only equivication here.
The phrase "have read the GPL" and the phrase "have read the contracts and licenses that your company is bound by" are not identical. In the case of a company that has chosen not to ever use GPL software out of an unfounded fear of what it means, they can have read all the contracts and licneses they are bound by, and the GPL just isn't one of them.
--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
The "viral" aspect of the GPL applies only in certain circumstances. (Maybe "viral" is not the best term.) These circumstances are when a developer chooses to combine code with GPL-covered code or if a software package is used with a GPL-covered library. (Not everyone agrees with respect to dynamic linking and GPL requirements. See this article which tries to use an analogy of a written work referencing a copyrighted character elsewhere.) The "viral" rule about licensing copies under the GPL also applies when copies are distributed to the public.
Of course, if a library was licensed under a proprietary license, it is extremely likely that dynamically linking to the library would be restricted. This would be especially true if the license was a contract that exceeded normal copyright restrictions.
The LGPL is designed to enforce copyleft for libraries while allowing the library to be used as a library with proprietary software. Sometimes, there may be competing proprietary libraries that do the same thing as a copylefted library. In this case, the GPL could discourage usage of the library. (It is OK to use the regular GPL for libraries instead.) To help free software, it would be better to use the GPL for libraries that do not have competing proprietary libraries. Note that an LGPL-covered library can only be used like a library regarding proprietary software. For instance, distributing copies of the library under a proprietary license would not be permitted.
The lack of explicit answers to questions about remote linking and the like are causing increasing problems with the GPL. Currently, you can not statically link to a GPLed library, nor can you dynamically link. However I believe you can dlopen a GPLed library as well as including the functionality in another program which you communicate to via RPC, provided that your program is functionally still useful without the helper program. Further, you may not link against a GPLed appliation but you may communicate with it via RPC, TCP, etc. Finally, you only need to give a copy of the source to a person who you give a copy of the binary to. This of course means that you can put a GPLed application on your webserver and you never have to give the source to anybody if you so choose, even if you make the output freely available, or if use of your application only makes sense by remote execution. So what does 'distribute' mean in this interconnected world? If I can ssh into a box and run a binary, has it been distributed to me? What if I can run it via a web server? Or a caching proxy? And I understand you don't have to release source provided you only use the application internally, but the definition of internally has a few surprises for most lay people.
Now, did anybody follow all that? And I'm not even sure I got it all right. The next version will be long overdue.
Just for clarification you should add that the linking issue only exists when a proprietary application / library is to be linked against GPLed code. Anyway, these are good points and exactly the same that have always been somewhat unclear to me (I see it the same way you do though). If the next version covers all this stuff it will be very helpful.
You're hopelessly overcomplicating the matter by introducing a lot of noise that isn't in the GPL.
The GPL does not talk about linking.
The GPL does not talk about web servers.
The GPL talks about what you can do with the code. Derivative works have to be available under the GPL. If you give somebody a copy of the program to run then you have to give them the source. That is all.
If you have an application that links to a GPLed library, your application is ***PROBABLY*** a derivative work of the library, because that's the way in which we normally use libraries. No transformations on the method of linking, however creative, will alter this; the work is a derivative because it is a derivative, not because of the manner in which you load the library.
If you give the program to somebody, you have to give them the source. If you run the program for them, and give them the output, you do not have to give them the source. This does not change just because a web server is involved.
As I understand it, you can use the normal output of a GPLed application in a non-GPLed application. That, to me, covers things such as webservices and RPC, whether the application making the call would be useful without it or not.
Currently, you can not statically link to a GPLed library...
That's why we have the LGPL.
This of course means that you can put a GPLed application on your webserver and you never have to give the source to anybody if you so choose...
Good. Most of the local modifications to GPL'd web-apps would only be needed by people building a website competeing with the author's. Any that are not only of interest to the author should be shared with the community, and that's how the existing system works.
So what does 'distribute' mean in this interconnected world? If I can ssh into a box and run a binary, has it been distributed to me? What if I can run it via a web server? Or a caching proxy?
Better questions would be: What if I lease a computer with GPL'd software to someone? What if I lease a computer to someone with a service level agreement? Do they have the right to make local modifications? Can the SLA be worded so they may make local modifications, but I no longer am required to maintain a certain service level? What if one crown corporation is charged with modifying a product for other crown corporations or government departments? Does this count as distribution or internal use?
You need to define "derivative". You used it a lot in your post, but it doesn't address the core problem: can I or can I not link to a GPL library with my application.
Copyright law does not address linking, but it does define "derivative work". The mere act of linking (or otherwise calling a function by its signature) is not sufficient to create derivation.
-- Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
One thing too often forgotten when talking about the gray area of the GPL in my opinion is that these problems only come up when you attempt to find a "loophole", use the software in a way that is really against the spirit and meaning of the GPL. Even if you could get away with such an action legally, surely you wouldn't be morally right.
Hopping thru all sorts of loops to avoid sharing does not seem like decent thing to do and as long as you're sharing there's not a thing unclear about the GPL.
Re:Finally
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
If you use software you don't have to release source. If you sell software you have to release source.
Its really quite simple. Use a GPLed program as a CGI script that prints out data. As long as that data ain't GPLed code you don't have to release any of your modifications. But if you put that program on a CD and sell it you have to release source to any customers who come asking for it.
If you use GPLed code in your hardware appliance and sell the appliance you have to release any modifications to that GPLed code. So for example, if you use the Linux kernel and modify the code to fix bugs or behave in the way you expect of it you have to release your code. But if you compile your own binary kernel module you can get away without releasing your changes to your binary module. But you still must release any changes you made to the kernel or any other GPLed software in your appliance.
The GPL protects the rights of the people who own the copyright to that software. If you don't use that software then you have nothing to worry about. If you sell that software in any way, shape, or form you should read the GPL.
But "derivative" cannot be defined in the license, that's precisely the problem. If it isn't derivative, the license saying so cannot make it. It's a sort of "nobody knows for sure" situation until some court makes it very clear.
The mere act of linking (or otherwise calling a function by its signature) is not sufficient to create derivation.
I believe it is. There are border cases but I believe this very clearly creates a derivative work.
IIRC, on what is and is not a derivative work, he replied, "It depends."
This makes sense in a way, becuase the term "derivative work" is implied to be taken in the context of copyright law, and not some technical test to be met.
I believe it is. There are border cases but I believe this very clearly creates a derivative work.
My calling your function by its signature in no way expands, elaborates, translates, modifies or alters your function. In fact, I don't even need access to anything *BUT* the function signature to link to it.
This is an example of usage, not derivation.
-- Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Re:Finally
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I would contest the assertion that you cannot dynamically or statically link against a GPL program and distribute the unlinked binary and provide linking instructions.
Assume the following: The proprietary program consists of code and data including function calls of the type gpl_function_x(arg,arg). So long as those are simply function definitions and not macros, there is no problem. Provide a script for the end user to link their GPL software with their copy of the proprietary code, and you're all set. The notion that you may unknowingly include macros or otherwise make your proprietary software a derivative work is FUD, im. Just compile your proprietary software to an object file without any GPL software present. If it succeeds, you clearly do not have a derivative work. Suppose that you wrote another software library consisting of gpl_function_x(arg,arg)'s that you could link your proprietary software with to create a functional executable. Distribute that library to be safe.
I don't believe this is contrary to either the spirit or the letter of the GPL. The GPL is concerned primarily with keeping free software free, with conversion as a secondary objective. If a user wants to link their excellent operating system with a proprietary driver for obscure (or more likely, greed-produced) hardware, the GPL should not stop them. Kernel folks would like it to, because it would simplify development and debugging. But the fact that only function names separate the binary driver and the GPL software makes it very unlikely that any court would prevent distribution of a binary driver or even an entire proprietary package linkable (!) with GPL software. After all, Microsoft does not prevent DLLs and drivers from being loaded and linked against their proprietary code base.
You need to define "derivative". You used it a lot in your post, but it doesn't address the core problem: can I or can I not link to a GPL library with my application.
That is for the courts to decide. You just have to make a guess that you're willing to defend in court if you have to.
Copyright law does not address linking, but it does define "derivative work". The mere act of linking (or otherwise calling a function by its signature) is not sufficient to create derivation.
That is what I said. The mere method by which your program uses the library is irrelevant. Derivation is an intrinsic property of the code, or not, as the case may be.
Mindlessly linking a library that you do not need is not derivation. Building an application that includes features from some other code is derivation, regardless of whether or not that code is in a library. Those are the clear cases in both directions; anything between these two is necessarily going to be difficult to define, because that's how copyright works. The reason we have the courts is to resolve questions like this.
In all cases, the method by which copyright is infringed does not matter. The question is merely whether it is infringed, or not, and whether the license permits this form of infringement. The GPL is a set of simple rules about what you have to do for each type of infringement (distribution, derivation, etc); the definition of what constitutes each type is a matter of law.
If it were only about compile-time dynamic linking, I would probably agree with you. However it's not.
What's more important is what happens at runtime. While it's true that for example the GPL says it only restricts distribution it really draws its validity from runtime linking. It is this combining (indeed very tight combining in case of runtime linking, into a single binary in a single address space) of two different works that forms a derivative work, at least as much as static linking creates a derivative work (which I hope can be stipulated). But, and this is the important thing, even the creation, not mere distribution, of derivative works is an exclusive right of the copyright holder. Hence, even if compile-time dynamic linking wouldn't be infringing as is, the resulting binary cannot be used in any legal way - indeed it is designed to be used in an illegal way - and that's not something the courts are going to allow.
No, it's not elaboration. To take sqrt() itself, the program could be linking to GNU libc, Diet libc, Dinkumware, BSD libc, or even a homegrown sqrt(). It can't be derivative of all those libraries. The only thing being used is the signature, or in other words, the API, and the courts *have* ruled that you can't copyright an API.
That there are multiple implementations of sqrt() proves that it's an API. But you don't need multiple implementations to do this, all you need to do is make the signature publicly available to other projects for the purpose of linkage.
-- Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
The combining into a single address space is an argument that GNU uses, but it's a completely arbitrary distinction. This argues that the *mechanism* of linkage alone determines the derivation. Otherwise what's the difference between dynamic linkage, which GNU says infringes, and runtime linkage, which they say does not?
p.s. Static linkage is a different case because it actually incorporates and distributes the orginal work.
-- Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
No, it's not elaboration. To take sqrt() itself, the program could be linking to GNU libc, Diet libc, Dinkumware, BSD libc, or even a homegrown sqrt(). It can't be derivative of all those libraries. The only thing being used is the signature, or in other words, the API, and the courts *have* ruled that you can't copyright an API.
I didn't mean for a trivial example to confuse the issue. Substitute for sqrt() patented_function() where there are not multiple implementations. If my program is "patented_function() + 1" does that change the way you see linking as derivation?
-- My God, it's Full of Source! OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
GNU argues that the lack of multiple implementations is sufficient to warrant infringement, but I cannot agree because it doesn't make any sense. Let me QUOTE to you the copyright definition of derivation, because copyright law is the ONLY thing that matter. In fact, to skirt the borders of heresy, what copyright law says is supremely more important than the opinions of RMS or Eben Moglen (both of whom are quite necessarily biased in their legal interpretations).
A ?derivative work? is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a ?derivative work?.
By making use of a function I am not recasting the function. I am not transforming it. Nor am I adapting it. It hasn't been translated, arranged or dramatized. There are not revisions, annotations or other modifications to it. Also note the distinct lack of any reference to a "process memory space".
From one viewpoint it may be possible to say that a function call elaborates on a function. But in such a case the same occurs for runtime linkage. Are you prepared to say that the GPL expands to cover runtime linkage? Because GNU is already on record saying it does not.
Besides, copyright isn't a concrete absolute unalienable right granted by God to the author. Which is funny because GPL advocates act like it is. There is such as thing "fair use". If calling a function in a publicly available and "free" library isn't "fair use", I don't know what is.
RMS once wrote an essay pondering a world in which people didn't have the right to read. How ironic, because he's specifically advocating a world without the right to "use" libraries. There's not much difference between being forbidden to read a book without the author's permission, and not being able to call a function without the coder's permission.
-- Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
I believe the GNU position is that both compile-time and runtime linkage makes a derivative work. However what legally happens at runtime is not so interesting to the GNU people because they're anyway only interested in regulating distribution.
IMHO static linkage doesn't actually differ very much from what the dynamic linker does at runtime.
From one viewpoint it may be possible to say that a function call elaborates on a function. But in such a case the same occurs for runtime linkage. Are you prepared to say that the GPL expands to cover runtime linkage? Because GNU is already on record saying it does not.
Interesting - I can't see a distinction if the microcode that comes out the other end is the same. If GNU abandoned runtime linking rights they've abandoned static linking rights, in my book.
Besides, copyright isn't a concrete absolute unalienable right granted by God to the author. Which is funny because GPL advocates act like it is. There is such as thing "fair use". If calling a function in a publicly available and "free" library isn't "fair use", I don't know what is.
Excellent point. While I agree with your premise philosophically didn't a court just rule that "sampling" in music isn't fair use? I would draw parallels between a song comprised largely of samples of other songs, arranged together by the framework of the new song and a software product that wraps a collection of open source libraries, offering their functionality as its primary purpose (ffmpeg might be a good example if it were closed source).
The trouble with/benefit of fair use is that it's rarely black and white, and often left to a court to decide. As you say, if we want to play in the copyright arena, this comes with the territory.
-- My God, it's Full of Source! OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Last updated 13 years ago
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
You can measure the wisdom of a law document by how *rarely* it gets updated. 13 years is impressively long for a field as dynamically changing as computing. Nice work.
Re:Last updated 13 years ago
by
Darkon06
·
· Score: 1
You can measure the wisdom of a law document by how *rarely* it gets updated.
WTF?! Using that reasoning means that laws allowing slavery were pure genius i guess? You can't judge a law simply by how long it lays untouched.
Re:Last updated 13 years ago
by
NetNifty
·
· Score: 1
Re:Last updated 13 years ago
by
PetoskeyGuy
·
· Score: 1
Or perhaps like the constitution if it is written to accomidate the inevitable changes without becoming invalid in the process.
Re:Last updated 13 years ago
by
elegie
·
· Score: 1
A good way of describing things...the U.S. Constitution is actually like a set of rules and guidelines with the force of law. The specifics are general and can be fitted to unexpected situations while preserving the same spirit.
good points
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
god points certainly include running of code that is not signed by a large corprate entity like IBM and MS mentioned in the article.
I always had concerns over OSes and hardware blocking code from running and how it could be used to attempt to restrain competion
I heard Marvel is going to sue the creators of the GPL due to the fact that various words and phrases from the document can be mixed around and formed into well-known Marvel comic-book hero quotes.
I think one issue of FF said that Dr. Doom uses BSD because the logo jives with his nature better than a penguin. Spider-man uses whatever the Daily Bugle uses (WP 5.1 and Novell Netware because Jameson won't pay for new computers).
What about the LGPL and Java
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I wish that the LGPL would be clarified so that organizations like Apache would/could use it. I think what needs done here is a significant clarification to the terms about reverse engineering. More importantly, a clearing up of the terms of this license as it relates specifically to Java and dynamic loading of code. I think, generally most developers who use the LGPL, for their own code, believe that it is clear enough and that Apache is being too conservative about it.
From my own perspective, I tend to agree with Apache and that I am *very* hesitant to recommend LGPL code for use in my company's products. I say this because, I expect my company to honor the open source licenses, I just am not sure in the LGPL case how far that goes, in respect to reverse engineering and dynamic loading with Java.
I, for one, welcome our Free Software overlords.
by
quamaretto
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
"The GPL is just a way of turning humans... into this." [Holds up printout of Linux source code]
"28 days... 6 hours... 42 minutes... 12 seconds... The copyright on the UNIX source will expire."
"You only THINK you've won! While your back was turned, I switched licenses!"
(I did the best I could.)
-- *is run over by rotten tomatoes*
Additional clause added...
by
Spoing
·
· Score: 4, Funny
III.j. For justice, all your base are belong to us.
-- A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Re:Additional clause added...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
III.j. For justice, all your base are belong to us.
Not even great justice, then? Just regular old justice?
As far as i know GPL as updated in 1991 hmm lots of changes in the coming years for IT.
-- http://askaralikhan.blogspot.com/
Authored by...
by
RealProgrammer
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
According to TFA, GPL 3 will be authored by Eben Moglen and RMS.
That's all fine and everything, since the current GPL got to us that way.
I will be shocked and dismayed if they don't open up the process, though. The GPL is more fundamental to FOSS than any other document, and I'd hate to see it developed in a cathedral.
If they opened up discussion to the public at large then the various terms of the license used in intermediate versions that were later discarded would inevitably end up in some jackass's license, somewhere, because he liked that additional term. This would sow chaos and confusion as everyone used their own form of the GPL rather than the standard GPL.
-- My reality check bounced.
Re:Authored by...
by
nothings
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
According to TFA, GPL 3 will be authored by Eben Moglen and RMS.
[...]
I will be shocked and dismayed if they don't open up the process, though. [...] They'll surely do it as an open collaboration.
If you read the second page of TFA:
There is also a great deal of work to be done to allow the large number of stakeholders who have grown up around the GPL to have an opportunity to express Opinions and to have their thoughts taken into account in trying to frame the best possible license, Moglen said.
There is also a great deal of work to be done to allow the large number of stakeholders...
My point is merely that that doesn't necessarily imply the kind of open process we see with Linux, Mozilla, Groklaw, et al. I don't know what level of openness they'll allow, but my guess is they'll make a draft, ask for comments, make changes and repeat or release if no one complains.
That'll probably be ok, and I'd be hard pressed to prove it isn't optimal, having read their earlier work.
GPL v2 worked for all of us for 13 years and it wasn't created by the open process you propose. If they open up the process, it will get fux0r3d. People will want to modify the GPL in a significant way. Making GPL v3 a lot of different than its pevious version is very bad and I'll tell you why - People who released their software under GPL v2 (and included the clause "Under GPL v2 or any later version") did that because they wanted their software to be distributed under the spirit of the GPL. If you make GPL v3 very different, it will break those people's intentions. If someone wants a different licence, he will go to OSI and look for a new licnece. The GPL needs to stay the same in spirit for at least this reason. And I think this will on the minds of Eben Moglen and RMS when they create GPL v3.
Nothing stopping anyone from creating thier own 'gpl like' or simular lisence now. After all there could web servers or graphics & widget systems or other things with thier own 'open source' or 'free' liscences it they wanted. Oh wait.....
Seriously I've often thought of various tweeks I wouldn't mind seeing in the gpl or other liscences for some uses. I just don't code anything worthwhile these days so I don't bother. Of course not having a law degree, or at least a lot of the training that goese with one, kinda slows me down as well.
Suppose they just closed the "server hole" outright. I have an in-hour PHP application that is used outside my company.
I download a GPL SMTP library to do direct SMTP... Does that count as aggregation? My scripts are require();ing the other GPLed PHP... I don't think it can get much closer aggregation than that... so is that GPL violating aggregation under this proposed GPL that closes server-side development?
What about things that are a little farther from the user... I have various web programs that generate output based on user requests using ghostscript that eventually gets sent to the user. Would that mean GPL compliance would be releasing the source for my entire in house application?
What's an "application" anyway? If I hyperlink to a bunch of PHP files from one main file, does that make it one application?
It's going to be very difficult to sort out these questions, and the FSF is going to have to be very careful to balance the usefulness of GPLed server-side apps with their ideal of "freedom".
-- I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Problem is that in this case the code for the server is only a small part of the application. Lets say you had thesource code to an Amazon or an Ebay, without the customers and the data and in the case of Amazon the warehouse full of real world goods it won't do you much good.
-- Erlang Developer and podcaster
Re:GPL Server Hole
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The AGPL does this. It's a prototype for GPLv3, upwards compatible with it when it comes out.
Re:GPL Server Hole
by
asuffield
·
· Score: 2, Informative
After considerable discussion on debian-legal, we concluded that we cannot think of any ways in which this "hole" could be plugged and still result in a free license.
That suggests it is not a hole at all. This is intuitively correct: I should not have to release my modifications just because I showed somebody the output from my program.
Re:GPL Server Hole
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
If debian-legal cannot adapt to a world in which users rarely get binaries for most of the programs they use, then debian-legal will become obsolete.
The GPL does not cover output, only distribution of derivitive works.
A license restricting the output in this way would be like the MS Office EULA trying to control who you sent word documents to.
Also, a very fundamental problem: The GPL is a copyright license, therefore it cannot be violated by the copyright holder, as the holder needs no license.
When you make a derivitive work, you are distributing works which others hold copyright to. In order for the GPL to apply to output, the output would have to be covered under copyright from someone else. This would be like Microsoft trying to claim that they hold copyright for all documents created in Word.
That would be very stupid if it were allowed to happen.
Where do you draw the line? I can see a whole spectrum of possibilities here.
At one end of the spectrum, you have, say, a general-purpose spreadsheet that's implemented to run server-side, and users type in their data through a form on a web page.
At the other end of the spectrum, you have something like a basically static web page that happens to be served up dynamically so that it can say "User JSmith logged in," or "JSmith, you have 3 buddies online."
In between these two cases, you have a whole range of possibilities. I think you could rate any particular server-based application on a scale of 1 to 10 in a scale of "applicationness," and there would certainly be cases that would rate 5. I don't understand how you can make a sharp legal distinction.
There are legitimate reasons why people might want their server-side software to be secret. The choice should be the developer's, not a lawyer's. That is, an open-source developer can and should decide whether his own app lies closer to one side of the spectrum or the other.
The whole thing just gives me doubts about the GPL itself. Maybe we should admit that the GPL is not the be-all and end-all of software licenses. For libraries, thr LGPL might be more appropriate. For a server-based app, the developer might want to avoid GPL'd software. For libraries meant to be used in server-based apps, people should probably use a non-GPL license; actually an awful lot of CPAN falls in this category, and is available under the same license as Perl (which is BSD-ish).
I don't think there's a server hole that shows the GPL is broken and needs to be fixed. I think there's a server hole that shows the GPL isn't universally applicable.
Re:GPL Server Hole
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The only solution is to turn the GPL into a click-thru EULA. Which will make GPLv3 obsolete on arrival.
Re:GPL Server Hole
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
So, for instance, suppose you licensed Apache to IBM (never mind the GPL vs. Apache license) and they modified it significantly and added lots of features, but only used it to run www.ibm.com. You would sue them for not abiding by the same license agreement that allowed you to distribute Apache to them? Why does that sound familier? Did a company who relicensed Unix recently try this?
Actually, the "server hole" problem you are referring to is *exactly* what would happen to all copyrights and patents if copyright and patent did not exist. Businesses would become completely service oriented and keep their trade secrets carefully hidden. Isn't that what libertarians wanted in the first place? The abolition of copyright? The good thing is, though, IBM isn't that smart. Not in the long run, not when put up against all of academia. They can design their specialized interface to make them money, but in terms of pure valuable ideas, they can't make money off of them, and if they could, they wouldn't publish it even with copyright and patent laws. Suppose they solved one of the million dollar math questions. Assuming they have any brains, they would start taking contracts to solve NP complete problems in record time, not share the results. The problem you are really addressing is corporate (and to some extent, personal) greed. Nothing will make some people share. But the value available to everyone else if we all share intellectual ideas is greater than if everything is held locked up in copyrights and patents. Even with the few who don't share back. And right now, IBM is no where near the not-sharing-back phase.
Here A Slide From The FSF About GPLv3
by
gen2002
·
· Score: 2, Informative
look here: http://web.novalis.org/history-of-fsm/slide-47.htm l
in this page shows a link to the license that inspired the update the would become GPL version 3
Re:Here A Slide From The FSF About GPLv3
by
gravious
·
· Score: 1
Hey! Mod this post up. (link without typo is) http://web.novalis.org/history-of-fsm/slide-4 7.htm l
--
Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
Re:Here A Slide From The FSF About GPLv3
by
gravious
·
· Score: 1
fuck - dupe plus typo remained - just not my day/week/month/year/life
--
Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
Re:Here A Slide From The FSF About GPLv3
by
gravious
·
· Score: 1
and yes - i do like replying to myself oh - this two minute repeat post block sucks
--
Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
Re:Here A Slide From The FSF About GPLv3
by
maxwell+demon
·
· Score: 1
That's most probably not a typo, but slashcode modifying your text. However, what about just providing a Link? It's as easy as <a href="http://...">Text</a>
-- The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Re: the definition of 'soon'
by
sczimme
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Well, we have only ~6 weeks to go in 2004. If the draft came out in early January I imagine we could call that 'soon', particularly since v2 has been in place for a while.
I was going to make a snarky comment about (defining soon) == (the Clinton defense) but decided to behave.:-)
/whoops
-- I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
Maybe what we are seeing here is just the media's equivalent of a blog thread kick/bump message... to remind the people that are supposed to be doing GPL V3 of that fact:-)
"Newsflash: RMS sneezed and boogers came out. More at 11." Wake me up when something actually happens.
if the FSF uses its leverage correctly, it could affect what kinds of trust are recognized in the network.
"But if we don't use our leverage correctly, we could wind up in a world where free software is injured very badly, where you can modify code but you cannot do anything with that modified code because the hardware will not run that code because it cannot be signed 'Microsoft or IBM,'" he said. "If that happens, free software will be excluded from hardware, and that is not an outcome we can tolerate."
Is the GPL movement strong enough to establish de facto standards on trusted computing? Is it even possible to build trusted content and software with modifiable GPL code?
-- Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
Re:Trust networks
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I would like to congratulate the author of the article for correctly using "leverage" as a noun instead of this "leveraged" verbed-noun crap that so often appears now.
There's a lot of other OSI-approved licenses out there. Expand your knowledge of the options, and pick the one that's right for you.
IANAL, but you might even consider ammending the GPL for your specific needs. I've seen a couple projects out there that are under the GPL, but with noted ammendments. I think the LAME MP3 coder is an example of such a project.
Now I almost have an "any later version" to exercise my option on!
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.
Re:Yay, a later version!
by
rewt66
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
This, to me, is a big deal. The "any later version" is a blank check where RMS can change your licensing terms under you. However...
I don't always agree with RMS, but here is one place I do trust him. He showed a lot of foresight in the terms he put in the GPL. Also, unless I have totally misjudged him, he would literally kill himself before he would do something that betrays people's freedom.
Re:Yay, a later version!
by
chezmarshall
·
· Score: 1
RTFGPL.
You can choose either the terms of the version of the GPL that you got or any later version. RMS cannot change your licensing terms. All the stuff you are copying and modifying under the terms of Version 2 can continued to be copied and modified under those terms. OR. If you would prefer to copy and modify the software under the terms of any later version, you can use that one.
No, because you don't have to use the later version.
Re:Yay, a later version!
by
phantomfive
·
· Score: 1
This isn't a real problem.....if you don't like it, you are free to release your software under any license you want. If you don't like the 'any later version' clause, just delete that part from the licence, and you can be happy.:)
The "any later version" is a blank check where RMS can change your licensing terms under you.
Er, maybe I misunderstand, but I don't think this is true. What the previously mentioned clause says is that the copyright holder can give the user the right to choose which version of the GPL applies to the work. But of course, the copyright holder can also choose to release the program under only a single version of the GPL, so if you do that, and RMS releases a new GPL version that does something you don't like, it doesn't matter: your software was released under the version you wanted, and that doesn't change.
If you happened to choose the "this or any later version" clause for your program, then there's the possibility that RMS might release a GPL version that you don't like, and a user could then choose to apply that version to your program. But that can be avoided by simply releasing it only under (e.g.) the GPL version 2.
-- "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
"licensed under the terms of GPL v2 or later"...
by
diegocgteleline.es
·
· Score: 1
I think it's quite important sice lots of software have a license which says "this software is licensed under the GNU public license version 2 or later". AIUI, this means that all that software will be auto-licensed under version 3 as soon as it's available?
Lets hope they don't screw up . You know the existing GPL has a clause: "9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. "
Lots of work ships with the "any later version" clause..
That should not be a problem. Most GPL'd software is licesenced under GPL v2 or later. What that means is that it is multi licensed under many instances of GPL. You can simply choose to not follow the next version of the license.
However, to contribute to the original maintainer, you must multilicense the code under GPL v2 and all newer versions.
In terms of practice what this means is that the code is free even if they screw up. However, if they do screw up, the code may become more free than what you wanted.
I think they should consider the possibility of a company modifying the code and distributing it to employees (without source). What if they claim that's not redistributing derived code because it's still in the company? Now picture a coalition of companies that act as a single entity for purposes of maintaining their own version of GPLed software for internal use within the entity.
BTW, Forcing people to "give back" to those they got code from is a bad thing and is not how it's written today. That disallows forks.
Re:Definition of recipient
by
Lehk228
·
· Score: 1
would be risky, in order to claim that they are one entitiy they would probably end up being legally responsible for eachg other's debts.
-- Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Re:Definition of recipient
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Read the FAQ at fsf.org.
Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company "distribution"? No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop a modified version and install that version through its own facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that modified version to outsiders. However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations or individuals, that is distribution. In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution.
It doesn't quite answer your coalition idea, but since they consider giving modified software to contractors to use to be distribution, I should think the coalition idea falls apart, since the legal entities involved would be quite distinct.
BSD and MIT licenses anyone?
by
bluefoxlucid
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
GPL "Protects" your "rights" to the software while stripping the rights of anyone else to modify the software for their own use. The GPL doesn't keep commercial entities from suing you; it keeps them from adding to your code without giving it back.
Let's look at the SCO argument. In basic terms, IBM altered SCO UNIX to become AIX, and so SCO owns all alterations IBM did to AIX. In basic terms, if you alter GPL code, you must distribute your source, meaning you must give your work to the public because you based it on somebody else's work.
In contrast, the BSD and MIT licenses (roughly equivalent) give you copyright, but allow anyone else to use the code, change the code, and protect their changes. In effect, these are roughly equivalent to GPL to the originator of the data; but leave the rights of any third party to their intellectual property in their hands if they choose to augment your software with it.
I believe that Open Source Software would be much easier for the industry to accept (and sodomize) if we stopped trying to armtwist vendors into releasing their own IP and instead let them base their solutions off ours without fear of having their hard work taken away from them "For the Common Good" (Marxism).
To prevent the OSS community from getting shafted by vendors blatantly stealing their work and hush-hushing the original contributors, we could reverse the original (later removed) non-advertisement clause of the BSD license, mirrored on OpenSource.com. The original clause is shown below.
* Neither the name of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
Perhaps a suitable replacement would run along the lines of the below.
* The name of the <ORGANIZATION> or the names of its contributors may optionally be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software.
*The name of the <ORGANIZATION> must be displayed in an easily accessible portion of the software, such as with Version information; on its packaging; and on any on-demand information medium about the product such as in a product magazine or on the product Web site.
This would explicitly allow vendors to endorse their products by advertising that they were derived from an OSS product or from work done by a specific person in the community. It would also require the vendor to indicate where he got the code from in the software (Help:About or --version are good places), on the packaging, and on the Web site.
As for patent clauses, I can't comment on exact wording; however, since in this new license we are not requiring the vendor to release his new source, it would be fair to lay down the following conditions about patents:
Vendors may include patented technology in derivative works if and only if they are licensed to use such patents
Vendors may release source code to derivative works using patents they own the rights to; however, by doing so, they are granting an irrevocable, universal license allowing anyone to freely use those patents released in source form
I believe this license would be most fair to vendors of derivative works and to open source developers at the same time. Perhaps someone should get one together and have a lawyer look over it; I'll pass it by the FSF. The title "BSDM" (BSD/Moser) would be appropriate, since it's my idea.:)
Re:BSD and MIT licenses anyone?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Yes, but is it going to be GPL compatible?
Re:BSD and MIT licenses anyone?
by
Zachary+Kessin
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
First of all a few misconceptions, the GPL only kicks in in this context if you take code someone else wrote and modify it and want to distribute those changes. If you just want to keep them for yourself you are ok.
As a developer I would rather release my stuff under the GPL, if I release under BSD/MIT type licence there is nothing to prevent someone else from taking my code and changing it and not giving it back to me. Now anyone can download my code and use it for what they like. But they can't sell it without returning the source.
Now with a BSD licence it is true the various people could fork closed versions of software, the question is, is this a good thing? Did having 25 different versions of Unix, none of which worked the same was as was the case 15 years ago good for unix? I would think not. The number of Unix like OS's is down to about 4 at this point (Linux,BSD including OS/X, Solaris and maybe AIX) at least those are the only 4 that matter.
In sort the bug you have pointed out is to most people really a feature
-- Erlang Developer and podcaster
Re:BSD and MIT licenses anyone?
by
steve_l
·
· Score: 1
I do Apache work, and like the flexibility of the license. But my day job involves LGPL work ( http://smartfrog.org/ ), so I've come to appreciate the strategic benefits of GPL.
And this is it:
Microsoft hate it.
And that is a metric of its wondrous power. MS dont hate BSD because it lets them use BSD code. MS hate GPL because if they adopted it, the ugliness of their code and its lack of real value would show. And they couldnt get lock in through non-standard hacks -all hacks would be public.
So yes, there is a place for GPL, even if you or I find it an inconvenience at times. RMS doesnt want you to use FSF code in closed source apps, so would never adopt a BSD license.
Re:BSD and MIT licenses anyone?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
There's a lot of developers who don't like GPL and consider it restrictive. I'm one of them. If I'm going to give out my code it'll come with no strings attached. Otherwise I won't give out my code. Makes sense? As far as having 25 versions of Unix, well that's not something that has to do with licensing. And anyway, so long as they follow POSIX, it's workable. More workable than some Linux developers who write Linux-only code.
Re:BSD and MIT licenses anyone?
by
bluefoxlucid
·
· Score: 1
Yes and no.
What about people who want to modify your code *and* sell the changes? Whose work goes into altering your code, and do they have a right to benefit from their work as long as they give proper, available documentation of who the work came from?
Re:BSD and MIT licenses anyone?
by
bluefoxlucid
·
· Score: 1
That is exactly the metric I'm looking at. Corporations don't hate GPL, they fear it. This is why OSS is only creeping along, and why we're being flamed like hell by SCO and by lawsuits all over the damn place and by FUD that tries to make it look like the lawsuits are bigger and more abundant than they are and by FUD that tries to display that OSS is crap and proprietary software is better. OSS doesn't support progress in every way possible.
Now I'd imagine the next response is going to be, "GPL supports progress by forcing anyone modifying the code to give out those modifications for free." Well, what if they don't want to? Then they make their own broken non-standard implementations, funneling money out of their business and causing them to have to charge assloads for their products, hindering their growth and the general growth of the economy. Meanwhile we've benefitted nothing.
If we can get proper recognition, but still allow them to create and sell and protect their own work and their own products derived from OSS, then we can accomodate the growth and expansion of businesses, i.e. we can get some programmers some jobs by making businesses dealing with programming bigger.
In the meantime, the box, the website, and the help->about say that this product was derived from some OSS software at www.myspreadsheet.org, and they look fairly similar, so I'll go get the free one first.
Re:BSD and MIT licenses anyone?
by
Zachary+Kessin
·
· Score: 1
Well yes, but as its *MY* code I should have some say in the matter too. I'm not saying that the BSD licence is evil or even without merit, just that I choose to use the GPL, for well thought out reasons.
Not meaning to be a troll here. I liked PD software. But even trolls can be right about some things.
-- If it were done when 'tis done, then t'were well it were done quickly... MacBeth
Man, this brings a tear to my eye. . .
by
Fantastic+Lad
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The fact that people care about things like the GPL makes the effort of living on this planet worthwhile. It's nice to know so firmly what side of the fence one is on. The IP wars are one of today's most amazingly metaphoric and clearly delineated battle grounds of the Human spirit.
Those who create and wish to share are the Good Guys, while the Bad Guys are vile lawyers and manipulative billionaires. This corner of reality is like living in the pages of a four-color comic book.
-FL
Re:Man, this brings a tear to my eye. . .
by
Idarubicin
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Those who create and wish to share are the Good Guys, while the Bad Guys are vile lawyers and manipulative billionaires. This corner of reality is like living in the pages of a four-color comic book.
What about the Guy Who Wants to Make a Few Bucks Writing Useful Software So He Can Pay His Rent? He wants to create and share, but would like to earn a living wage doing it. Is he a Bad Guy, too?
What about the vile lawyers who work for the FSF?
Why aren't there any shades of gray?*
*I know. I must be new here.
-- ~Idarubicin
Re:Man, this brings a tear to my eye. . .
by
oldwarrior
·
· Score: 0
Is it that truly useful software must be written by students or government employees, who do not need remuneration based on value. If government pays for it, then it is really free, isn't it/sarcasm.
-- If it were done when 'tis done, then t'were well it were done quickly... MacBeth
Re:Man, this brings a tear to my eye. . .
by
Quill_28
·
· Score: 1, Troll
>What about the Guy Who Wants to Make a Few Bucks Writing Useful Software So He Can Pay His Rent?
Didn't you know that guy is doing something immoral, at least according to RMS.
Re:Man, this brings a tear to my eye. . .
by
Brandybuck
·
· Score: 1
You forgot to add the "" tags to your post. Without them the moderators missed your subtle humour and marked your post "insightful".
-- Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Re:Man, this brings a tear to my eye. . .
by
Dominic_Mazzoni
·
· Score: 1
What about the Guy Who Wants to Make a Few Bucks Writing Useful Software So He Can Pay His Rent?
There are lots of options if you're pro-GPL but need to pay your rent:
Work as a consultant, modifying existing GPL programs
Write a really useful library and then dual-license it as GPL and commercial; that way the open-source world benefits for free, but commercial companies that want to use your library pay you
Write shareware programs, and GPL the previous version of the program every time you release a new version. Your biggest fans will gladly pay for the newest version, but everyone benefits by getting to see and modify your old code, once you've had a chance to make some money.
Build a website that provides a really useful or entertaining service. Release the source code that runs the site under the GPL, but use advertising or subscriptions to make money off of your site.
Re:Man, this brings a tear to my eye. . .
by
Swamii
·
· Score: 1
Hi there I'm Joe Farmer and I'd like to rennovate the farming business using this new open sores model yer keep talkin' 'bout. I'm figurin' that, following what you Lienucks folks been sayin' 'bout JeePeel license, I figure I can make a good livin'.
That's right friends, I'm givin' away my crops and livestock for free.I'm givin' it free 'cause everyone will benefit and, like yer digital info wantin' to be free, food wants to be a-eatin'.
Yep, you heard right friend, all my hard work and effort I'm givin' away free. All those other farmers are the evil satan worshippers, don't you be forgettin' it.
So how'mi supposed to be makin' a livin', yer askin? I reckin' I'll be doin' it like such:
1. Work as a farming consultant. I'll just sit here and wait for the phone to ring. Any minute now.
2. Give my crops and livestock away only to the public, but make those satan worshipping corporations pay fer it.
3. Give last months crops away for free, and just sell the new, improved crops. Too bad folks are content with month-old corn.
4. Give my crops away at a state fair, but make those satan worshipping corporations pay for advertisin' at my fair booth.
Re:Man, this brings a tear to my eye. . .
by
the_maddman
·
· Score: 1
Now, if only you could do cp food/mnt/floppy/food as many times as you wanted, it might be a valid analogy.
Re:Man, this brings a tear to my eye. . .
by
northcat
·
· Score: 1
So you listed some exceptions to the rule. So what? When someone makes a comment about a group of people, he obviously isnt't talking about all the people that belong to that group.
What about the Guy Who Wants to Make a Few Bucks Writing Useful Software So He Can Pay His Rent? He wants to create and share, but would like to earn a living wage doing it. Is he a Bad Guy, too?
First of all he has other ways to earn the same amount of money. But, lets consider a guy who writes closed source software to pay his rent, then earns a lot of money and makes a big corporation, will he now release his software as open source? Can you make a list of very succesful commercial closed source apps that have been made open source? I bet the list wont fill a single page.
Re:Man, this brings a tear to my eye. . .
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Informative
If you actually paid attention to what RMS says, you will see that creating a market monopoly and using this monopoly to retard the distribution of public knowledge is immoral.
Making money from software is NOT immoral, and yes there are plenty of ways to make money in a competitive (non monopoly) marketplace.
Re:Man, this brings a tear to my eye. . .
by
geg81
·
· Score: 1
What about the Guy Who Wants to Make a Few Bucks Writing Useful Software So He Can Pay His Rent? He wants to create and share, but would like to earn a living wage doing it
What does that have to do with the GPL? Lots of people (myself included) have gotten paid (and paid very well) to develop GPL'ed software.
Re:Man, this brings a tear to my eye. . .
by
Saeger
·
· Score: 1
Sorry you had to waste so much time writing what you thought was a clever analogy. You see, food != databits. food is physically scarce and requires a lot of time & energy to create and distribute new instances; data is not. It makes sense to pay for a physically scarce object; it does not make sense to pay for artificial scarcity.
Capitalism works best in environments of actual scarcity; it has to be perverted to work with abundance.
--
-- Power to the Peaceful
Re:Man, this brings a tear to my eye. . .
by
ewe2
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
You know, this is getting repetitive, but if you don't like GPL rules, don't play the GPL game. Oh? You want to play with GPL code but you don't like it's rules? Tough. Find some code under some other licence. Nothing is stopping you from making a few bucks - look at Bram Cohen. Vilifying FSF's lawyers is cheap.
If your idea of grey is this black and white, you're not just new here. You're working for The Other Side.
-- insecurity asks the wrong question
irritation gives the wrong answer
Re:Man, this brings a tear to my eye. . .
by
lux55
·
· Score: 1
Nice try. While "food != databits" may be correct, the reality is that "effort == effort" and while duplication of data is easy, it's the developers' efforts that he's referring to. I've written software that's taken months or even years of effort to complete, now I'm supposed to give it away for free? Why? Because some socialist do-gooder tells me it's the Right Thing To Do?
I'm afraid his analogy stands up quite well.
And Capitalism is all about abundance. It isn't perverted by it, it's simply perverted in and of itself. For example, which industries make the most money? Let's see... We've got the multi-billion-dollar Porn industry, the music, movie, media, cell-phone, and game industries, the fashion industry, and let's not forget the junk/fast food industry. Capitalism has nothing to do with availability, it has to do with desire. What people desire is what sells, what people actually need has very little margin for profit left on it these days (leaving precious little for Joe Farmer and his family).
The only thing free software is doing is creating one less market independent workers can hope to compete in.
Re:Man, this brings a tear to my eye. . .
by
Dominic_Mazzoni
·
· Score: 1
Nice try. While "food != databits" may be correct, the reality is that "effort == effort" and while duplication of data is easy, it's the developers' efforts that he's referring to.
I'm sorry, but that's simply not true at all. I don't care how long you spent on something; if it's great, it's great, but if it's crap, it's crap. The GPL makes it possible to write high-quality software with far less effort; so little effort in fact that many people are willing to donate their time.
I've written software that's taken months or even years of effort to complete, now I'm supposed to give it away for free? Why?
Nobody's forcing you to. But stop complaining when somebody else writes the same software in a fraction of the man-hours it took you and gives it away for free. Oh, and how were they able to do it so fast? Because they took existing GPL code as a starting point and built on it to do something else.
Re:Man, this brings a tear to my eye. . .
by
lux55
·
· Score: 1
I'm sorry, but that's simply not true at all.
Sure it is. The open source idea maps very clearly onto the token/. business model:
1. give your stuff away
2. ?????
3. profit!!!!!
The problem is, number 2 is either practically impossible, or impeded more than assisted by number 1, except in cases where the company is either a) big enough to invest in such a loss-leader type model, or b) makes money doing related but less-fun things (ie. support, which is also expected for free from most OS projects, or consulting, which is a tough sell as its deliverables are largely intangibles), or they manage to make money off of other software they do charge for. In this last case, the OS software can sometimes help increase awareness of the commercial software, but usually just attracts more people not willing to pay, who eat up support time, and also helps decrease the perceived value of the commercial offerings as well. All around: not a big win, too much risk to be worth it, and not a very appealing business model.
I don't care how long you spent on something; if it's great, it's great, but if it's crap, it's crap. The GPL makes it possible to write high-quality software with far less effort; so little effort in fact that many people are willing to donate their time.
OS software takes just as long to develop. In fact, in many areas OS software lags behind commercial software (ex: databases, CRM, content management, project management, audio software, video software, e-commerce apps, office suites -- open office was a commercial app that was bought out and opened up, so it doesn't count -- and the list goes on). If it was so much faster to develop, and code reuse was really an achievable goal of OS, why is this?
But stop complaining when somebody else writes the same software in a fraction of the man-hours it took you and gives it away for free. Oh, and how were they able to do it so fast? Because they took existing GPL code as a starting point and built on it to do something else.
To be fair, I believe a degree of intelligent code reuse can yield better software faster. However, this is true for, and practiced by, both OS and commercial developers alike. The claim that this is the benefit of OS that trumps all commercial software lacks proof.
And no, I'm not complaining -- FYI, disagreeing and providing an alternative opinion to yours is not in and of itself complaining -- this is just your way of trying to win the argument without proving your side of it. It's called rhetorical pursuasion. Phrases like "nobody's forcing you to" and "stop complaining" are not counter-arguments to mine. Please back up your claims, I'm not interested in playing word games.
The fact is, OS has yet to really prove its merit (ie. its goal is still in the future), and from my vantage point, and after much careful thought, discussion, and research about it, I have come to be of the opinion that OS software does more harm than good for smaller developers. It does this by creating more inequality than it does equality. It doesn't create an equality of opportunity, which is probably as close as a political system (which, make no mistake, the OS movement is a political system) can come to real equality.
Re:Man, this brings a tear to my eye. . .
by
adpowers
·
· Score: 1
I know I'm going to get modded down for this, but...
You could hold the code hostage. Write some really awesome new app and release binaries. Tell people you'll release the source after $X donations. Once the donations have reached the goal, release the code. This is kind of like what happened with Blender.
Re:Man, this brings a tear to my eye. . .
by
Swamii
·
· Score: 1
Amen man, nail on the head. Good to see some clarity among the so-called thinkers of this community.
finally removes the word "suckers" and is totally written in leetspeak.
Not sure if this will be possible...
by
PoochieReds
·
· Score: 1
Most of the article seems to talk about changing the GPL to help defend free software against patent attacks.
I'm not sure if this will be possible. Defending against someone infringing on your copyright is easily done with a license (as the GPL currently does), but someone with a patent need not agree to anything before trying to sue to pants off of you.
Perhaps they plan to put a stipulation in the GPL that prevents you from suing others for software patent infringement if you use GPL software? If they do this, then it might give large companies a reason not to use GPL'ed software (not that I really care if they do. I'm just pointing out that they might rather keep their lawsuit possibilities open than use free software).
I'll be interested to see this draft...
Re:Not sure if this will be possible...
by
Mycroft_VIII
·
· Score: 1
I think perhaps they intend to prevent someone with a patent from adding a pattened algorithym/piece of code to a GPL'd piece of software, waiting till it gets popular, then charging royalties for the patent.
By adding somthing like 'if you creative a derived work or release a work under the gpl you agree that you also give free license use/modify/redistribut to any patents you own or controll to those that recieve said work or otherwise have right to said work under the gpl' by somthing like I mean somthing written in proper leagalise and that would actually work as IANAL and don't know how to actually word such a thing.
As it currently stands it might be possible for evil person/corop x to submarine patened functionality into some popular gpl'd work.
Re:Not sure if this will be possible...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
They already do this to some degree (section 7.) However, it's not clear that this section prevents someone from, as you say, changing the patent licensing conditions later when it suits evil corporation X's purposes.
On the other hand, if such a patent license was given and then revoked, the result would not be massive royalties to corporation X -- it would be that, under section 7, no one would be allowed to distribute those versions of the program which contained the patented code. (It would be legal for someone who had earlier obtained the source to remove the patented bits and continue distributing the rest under the GPL.)
Re:mod 0P
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Eviscerate a faggot today! C'mon! It's the new sensation!
But I'll live. Anyways, the purpose of a license is to give people the opportunity to state the terms that they're willing to agree to. There could be a billion licenses, they still must be understood and a greed to.
Now maybe there needs to be an intermediate license. One that all licenses are compatible with. Modifications to code could go in this license and be passed on between software of different licenses. But for that too happen we need better component management tools. There still isn't a tool that let's me write a short script that joins all the code that I want into an application. If there were such a thing it would be very easy to determine where the boundaries are between different pieces of software.
Then again witness the arguments against making modules separate from the kernel. I agree that as long as corporations couln't care less about the quality of their drivers I would want the open ones, and drivers can be written more easily tied to the kernel, but the current situation isn't feaible, and look at the argument given: That modules were an after thought. Excuse me, are you kidding me. An after thought, as if there is no logical need for the separation? Ughh.
-- The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Re:Intermediate license
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
R'ed the article? is that like readed? shouldn't it be R'ad the article or something?
Re:Intermediate license
by
Rares+Marian
·
· Score: 1
The recursive irony of that post needs to bumperstickered.
-- The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Not as simple as previously stated.
by
jbn-o
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The GPL works very well at the moment. Introducing a new version could confuse what is at the moment a very easy to understand concept-- if you alter GPLed code you have to let everyone use your alterations as GPLed code as well-- as well as creating schisms in OSS development.
Actually, private derivatives are allowed. Having the freedom to make derivatives one does not share with others in any form is required by the definition of free software:
You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist.
Also, use of a program (that is, merely executing the program) is not a power regulated by US copyright law. And the GPLv2 specifically states that it does not control this activity:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted [...]
So, no, "if you alter GPLed code you have to let everyone use your alterations as GPLed code as well" is untrue.
Also, you have (perhaps inadvertantly) repeated one of the most misleading parts of the article (and the editorial linked to the article): Associating the GPL with the open source movement profound miscredits who did what and what goals the GPL was written to achieve.
This latest revision of the GPL has almost nothing to do with "OSS" development. The open source movement (which doesn't like to talk about software freedom) did not exist when the current version of the GPL (version 2) was written. The free software movement (which is based on software freedom) predates the open source movement by over a decade. This upcoming version (version 3) of the GPL will be the first version of the GPL written since the open source movement started. As far as I know, nobody from the open source movement is writing the next revision of the GPL; it is still written by the people at the FSF (most notably, RMS and Eben Moglen, both of whom make it quite clear in their speeches that they are doing work to promote software freedom). So, the open source movement is receiving a great deal of credit for work it did not do and the danger of tying the GPL with the open source movement is that the open source movement's philosophy, which doesn't object to proprietary software, will be conflated with a license built to create and maintain a commons where software freedom is the rule.
Will GPL 2 and GPL 3 be compatible?
by
SamNmaX
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
While we won't know yet, a big issue with all this is how compatible the licences will be with each other. While there is a fair amount of software that says it's compatible with GPL 2 or greater, much is specifically locked to a specific version.
For this type of software, will we be able to use it in software that's under GPL 3? GPL 2 won't allow for additional restrictions, nor will it allow being mixed with other software that isn't under GPL 2.
As far as I can see, the only way that GPL 3 can allow compatibility if you are able to 'downgrade' to GPL 2. If that option is available, that may make it difficult if not impossible to achieve the goals that the FSF has in mind.
Another possibility is to try to get the original authors to rerelease their software under the new licence. This may be possible in cases where a central authority has the redistribution rights to do this (such as the FSF has with much of their software), but a lot of GPL'd software isn't quite so careful. Many patches may have been included into a piece of software not by giving full redistribution rights but instead under licence of GPL 2, in which case those authors technically need to be contacted to allow for their use in GPL 3 software.
Another possibility is that it could split the set of GPL software in two: one under GPL 2, and another under GPL 3. I have a feeling this won't happen, but it wouldn't be great. People of like minds who want to share their software would not be able to simply because of licensing issues that may be too hard to resolve at this point.
Anyway, I'm sure Moglen and RMS are taking this into account while they work on the licence. I hope it's put together in an open manner, so that all these kinds of issues are addressed.
Re:Will GPL 2 and GPL 3 be compatible?
by
Piquan
·
· Score: 2, Informative
While we won't know yet, a big issue with all this is how compatible the licences will be with each other. While there is a fair amount of software that says it's compatible with GPL 2 or greater, much is specifically locked to a specific version.
The last sentence of the article:
The primary goal is ensuring that code licensed under the current version of the GPL, Version 2, can be combined with code licensed under Version 3, said officials of the Boston-based FSF.
Re:Will GPL 2 and GPL 3 be compatible?
by
bozoman42
·
· Score: 1
If you follow the FSF's advice in applying the GPL, you will use the following clause:
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the license, or (at your option) any later version.
Which means no authors will be required to rerelease their software at all.
It should be noted that a year or two ago, Linus removed this clause from the Linux copyright notices, since he feared what RMS might do in GPL 3. Others in the community may have followed suit, but I think it would be safe to say that a vast majority of GPL 2'd software won't have any issues working together with GPL 3.
you can stick with the current version, but the ones you give your program to can obviously redistribute it under a later gpl version, and you can't prevent that.
so they've to get it right at the first attempt, i'm afraid.
Actually as several other people have pointed out using the GPL v2.0 doesn't automaticaly grant the right of those recieving the GPL'd software to re-distribute under a later version. You are encourage to give them that choice by stating so, but you can just as easily say "program FOO is released under the Gnu Public License version 2.0 only". It's purely the option of the person granting the license. You could even say "Program FOO is released under GPL v2.0 or the Apache license or the BSD liscence or any later version thereof you choose". The actual GPL version 2.0 doesn't grant the option in it's actual terms and conditions, it only recomends doing so on the part of the licensor.
Agreed, it is the point of GPL, but not LGPL, which says 'apps are OK, but other libs must be LGPL or GPL'.
In java, everything is a lib, so a strict interpretation of the situation says that you cannot import LGPL code into an Apache or BSD licensed project. Apache takes that strict interpretation; there is no clear urgency on the FSF side to fix it (as LGPL is somewhat deprecated).
I think it is a shame that BSD/Apache code and LGPL cannot coexist better.
LGPL is indeed a whole different story. Near as I can tell, GNU sees it solely as a necessary compromise to break into an already saturated market. Gnu does a great job talking about their goals for it: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html
It sounds like you just have different goals than the GNU project, so BSD or Apache are much better for you too.
As far as 'coexist', man, I hope people don't start mixing licenses left and right - it would get massively confusing and even honest folk would find it well near impossible to avoid breaking the rules.
I personally like how there are plenty of different choices available to people with different goals. Want software to be more free? GNU. Just want your name out there as much as possible? Apache. Want the world to have your code however they see fit? BSD. There doesn't have to be one right answer.
-- is competition good, or is duplication of effort bad?
GNU Icon
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Can someone explain the meaning of the GNU/FSF icon/. uses? What is it exactly, and why? It looks like an Indian ('cuse my PC... "Native American") with some strange jesters hat, sucking his thumb and holding a security blanket to me.
You don't quite get it.
by
gr8_phk
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
GPL "Protects" your "rights" to the software while stripping the rights of anyone else to modify the software for their own use.
GPL doesn't restrict your right to modify software for your own use. In fact, it grants that right which would otherwise be illegal or questionable. GPL does impose some conditions on your redistribution of that derivative work (i.e. provide source code and GPL) which are there to ensure other people have the same rights you are granted. Or don't you think others deserve the same rights as you?
I used to be amazed at how many people got upset that they can't take someone else's work, and profit from it any way they see fit. Now I know that's just some peoples definition of business.
Re:You don't quite get it.
by
bluefoxlucid
·
· Score: 1
I do get it thank you. Here's what you don't get:
1. Vendors are afraid to use GPL software because they get this FUD concept from i.e. Microsoft and SCO that "If you use Linux, your whole business will belong to OSS" or something lame like that.
2. Vendors can't apply their own innovations to modified products that they put their hard work into to develop-- yes, adding something like real transparency and hardware acceleration to a bare X11 would be counted as hard work and would tax corporate financial resources if it was done by a proprietary vendor-- without having to sit back and reap zero profits from it. It's evidently not enough that they have to tell people they used your code as a base; they also have to tell people they can freely redistribute their program and take away any hope of profiting from THEIR hard work (not yours; if I don't want to pay, I can go get the original version).
3. Maybe I'm not interested in turning OSS into some little club for a couple kids; but rather a real contribution to society where anyone can look in and see things that would be useful to them.
4. Nobody forces you to use any particular license.
Re:You don't quite get it.
by
gr8_phk
·
· Score: 1
1) Agreed. Companies fear the GPL often due to lack of understanding.
2) Adding transparency to X11 is not a big deal to a company like nVidia - one OSS hacker did it in a weekend. Business people get all worked up over the smallest things and think they're going to dominate a market because of some little improvement.
3) OSS (or rather Free Software since we're talking GPL) is hardly a "club for a couple kids" unless you count IBM and Oracle as little kids. How is anyone supposed to "look in and see things that would be useful to them" unless they have access to source code? That's exactly what the GPL is designed to promote.
4) Agreed, use whatever license you like for your own code.
The crux of this is your points 2 & 3. Allowing someone to make a proprietary version (to maintain an advantage) prevents people from looking inside to see how that new version works. Funny that a company doesn't want to give people the same opportunity they had themselves. If you want a proprietary product, follow your #4 and don't use GPLed code and deal with the added costs.
Companies have to realize what business they are in. If they make hardware they shouldn't be so concerned about their software copyrights.
This has been under consideration for over 2 years
by
jbn-o
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The Affero General Public License is a free software license, copyleft, and incompatible with the GNU GPL. It consists of the GNU GPL version 2, with one additional section that Affero added with FSF approval. The new section, 2(d), covers the distribution of application programs through web services or computer networks. The Affero GPL is incompatible with the GNU GPL version 2 because of section 2(d); however, the section is written so that we can make GNU GPL version 3 upward compatible with the Affero GPL. That is why we gave our approval for Affero to modify the GNU GPL in this way.
GPL Unconstitutional?
by
abertoll
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I noticed the link in the article about SCO saying that the GPL is unconstitutional.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1581586,00. as p
My question is: Has SCO ever indicated which part of the Constitution the GPL violates? Or is it just a general statement without any backing?
Can someone provide the section of the Constitution that the GPL specifically violates, that other licesnes (such as the ones SCO uses) wouldn't?
-- "he drew his sword Ringil that glittered like ice... and he wounded Morgoth with seven wounds..."
Re:GPL Unconstitutional?
by
Slack3r78
·
· Score: 1
I'm not sure how it could be anything other than FUD to be honest. The Constitution enumerates the what the *government* is and isn't allowed to do, not individuals and private organizations.
Let's hope they get it right the first time: since apps are released "either [under] version X.x of the License, or (at your option) any later version", if they put a flaw into 3.0, every program written up until then would be subjected to the problem.
And lawyers only know how to beef up things, expecially when documents in legalese exceed the one line length (usually they only find it slightly more difficult to mess around a "there's only one rule: there's no rules" statement).
-- 42.
Citation Please?
by
HopeOS
·
· Score: 2, Informative
According to item 7 of the LGPL you may link any library of any license against LGPL libraries. What specifically are you referring to? The incompatibilities are not with linking against LGPL'd libraries, but GPL'd libraries. LGPL was written explicitly with this issue in mind.
7. You may place library facilities that are a work based on the Library side-by-side in a single library together with other library facilities not covered by this License, and distribute such a combined library, provided that the separate distribution of the work based on the Library and of the other library facilities is otherwise permitted, and provided that you do these two things:
* a) Accompany the combined library with a copy of the same work based on the Library, uncombined with any other library facilities. This must be distributed under the terms of the Sections above.
* b) Give prominent notice with the combined library of the fact that part of it is a work based on the Library, and explaining where to find the accompanying uncombined form of the same work.
The issue is whether Java's import statement constitutes an explicit linkage of the LGPL lib into the code (it also copies all string and int constants). What does 'extends' or 'implements' to extend a class or implement an interface.
I cant find anything written down in a public document, but you try submitting code to an apache Java project that imports an LGPL lib.
The LGPL project I work on takes the loose view, where even extends is probably OK. but Apache take the strict view.
With respect to java import, constants and non-programmatic constructs are specifically waived by the LGPL. Extending a class is certainly covered though. I believe the established integration boundary is at the IPC level (ie. file io); someone mentioned that dynamic loading of plugins is not covered, but I do not believe that to be the case. If the library is operating in the same process space (or equivalent for virtual machines) or there is a source dependency, it seems straightforward enough to me, but apparently, GPL 3 will have more to say about it.
Sounds to me like this is an Apache project issue rather than an LGPL issue. Although I've never submitted anything to Apache, I have made submissions to the kernel (GPL) and XFree86 (BSD); maintainers of large projects are pretty strict as general rule and licensing issues are the last thing they want to deal with.
All my libraries are LGPL and that was with the intention that they be useable by as many people as possible while protecting my primary interest of long-term code viability.
If Apache will not allow their code-base to be complicated by foreign licenses then that's their decision to make.
-Hope
Server Hole versus LAMP?
by
Just+Some+Guy
·
· Score: 2, Informative
IANAL and I haven't really followed the "server hole" debates, so I'm really ignorant of this subject. That said, it sounds like the gist of the discussion is that people are trying to find a way to require that web applications built on GPL components must itself be GPLed. If that's correct, how would this affect LAMP applications that are built with MySQL? Would switching to PostgreSQL be the only legitimate way to keep such applications "closed"?
By the way, to my untrained eye the Affero GPL (an alternative license suggested by GNU themselves) sucks. Section 2a reads:
If the Program as you received it is intended to interact with users through a computer network and if, in the version you received, any user interacting with the Program was given the opportunity to request transmission to that user of the Program's complete source code, you must not remove that facility from your modified version of the Program or work based on the Program, and must offer an equivalent opportunity for all users interacting with your Program through a computer network to request immediate transmission by HTTP of the complete source code of your modified version or other derivative work.
Gigantic loopholes include:
The use of the phrase "any user" at the beginning of this run-on sentence is ambiguous. Does that mean "at least one user" ("Did you see any deer?") or "each and every user" ("Any programmer could read this")? I assume they meant the former, but if I wanted to rip off code under this license, I'd ask my lawyer to argue the latter.
Q: "[M]ust offer an equivalent opportunity for all users interacting with your Program through a computer network to request immediate transmission by HTTP of the complete source code"? A: 403 - request denied. It doesn't say you actually have to honor the request; you just have to allow them to make the request.
I think I understand what they're trying to do, but again, is it a good idea? Does anyone have a good idea about how to really accomplish it? Are there any licenses right now that don't have the glaring holes of the Affero GPL?
-- Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Re:Server Hole versus LAMP?
by
halosfan
·
· Score: 1
That said, it sounds like the gist of the discussion is that people are trying to find a way to require that web applications built on GPL components must itself be GPLed. If that's correct, how would this affect LAMP applications that are built with MySQL? Would switching to PostgreSQL be the only legitimate way to keep such applications "closed"?
The same way it affects non-web applications that happen to interact with MySQL. I mean, MySQL (to the best of my knowledge, I don't use it) is a server that speaks a protocol. There are libraries that speak this protocol. You likely link against those libraries. If you license those libraries under GPL, your must make your application source code available under GPL. If you license them under LGPL, then you can keep your application closed. As far as I know, there are both GPL and LGPL versions of MySQL client libraries. Affero GPL doesn't really change much here.
Of course, it's might not be a bad idea to migrate the app from MySQL to PostgreSQL anyway:-)
-- My only problem with Microsoft is the severity of bugs in their software.
Re:Server Hole versus LAMP?
by
Just+Some+Guy
·
· Score: 1
Nope, MySQL libraries are GPL. Unless I'm missing something critical, that would seem to mean that you can only develop GPLed web applications with MySQL (or commercial software with a paid license from MySQL AB, or using PHP due to the special exemption).
Now, if the GPL were altered so that you have to provide source to people who access a GPLed web application, then it would seem to me that LAMP is dead.
Of course, it's might not be a bad idea to migrate the app from MySQL to PostgreSQL anyway:-)
No argument there.:) Still, this would seem to be hugely disruptive.
-- Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Re:Server Hole versus LAMP?
by
halosfan
·
· Score: 1
As I said though, I am not a MySQL guru, so I am not sure if this is the only LGPL MySQL connectivity library or there are others. That said though, they can't GPL the protocol (or can they?), so technically, it should be possible for third-party developers to write their own libraries and license them however they want...which, of course, may potentially be as disruptive as migrating to another DBMS altogether.
-- My only problem with Microsoft is the severity of bugs in their software.
Re:Server Hole versus LAMP?
by
Teancum
·
· Score: 1
While the libraries themselves are GPL'd, it wouldn't take much to reverse-engineer them to make the libraries available under a BSD license.
I personnally think these server companies take the GPL a little too far, but I'm willing to at least try and give them a little goodwill by buying their server products for commercial purposes. Which is the whole point anyway.
Re:HOWTO: How to act like Euro-trash v0.1
by
realdpk
·
· Score: 1
"Also forget the fact that your governments funnel tax money into teaching religion in public schools, something that Americans frown upon."
Yeah, no republican would ever want to put prayer in school or the ten commandments anywhere near a school, would they.
"Tell the world you have more freedom than Americans..." yada yada.
If that's all you can come up with as an argument that America is somehow more "free", heh, open your eyes man.
"8. Compare Bush to Hitler even though Saddam Hussein was the one doing the gassing."
Dead by gassing or by bullets/depleted uranium, does it really matter how?
Draft copy; Parent is not flamebait
by
bluefoxlucid
·
· Score: 1
Parent is not flamebait; it's a valid observation.
Here's a draft copy btw; follow the warning at the top and don't use it yet. It hasn't seen a lawyer test; but it does display the spirit of the desired license.
Re:Draft copy; Parent is not flamebait
by
Alsee
·
· Score: 1
Parent is not flamebait; it's a valid observation.
Perhaps your original post wasn't intended as flaimbait, but many parts sure as hell were NOT valid. It was riddled with factually false statements. To cover the errors I happened to spot, and to add some commentary:
GPL "Protects" your "rights" to the software while stripping the rights of anyone else to modify the software for their own use.
False. The GPL does not restrict anyone from modifying and using the code.
In basic terms, if you alter GPL code, you must distribute your source
False. The GPL only kicks in when you want to distribute someone else's copyrighted work. Under copyright law you need the copyrightholder's permission to do that. By using the GPL the author rather generously grants you the permission to distribute his copyrighted work under the condition you keep it under the GPL and offer the source. As you indicate, the author of a work is entitled to compensation if he wants it. In this case the original author is asking for nothing more than the chance to receive any modifications back under the same terms - as payment for the use of the original code. If you don't like that "price", fine, then don't redistribute his code.
Let's look at the SCO argument. In basic terms, IBM altered SCO UNIX to become AIX, and so SCO owns all alterations IBM did to AIX.
False. I don't think even SCO's press releases went so far as to make that false claim. And it certainly is not what their court case claims. Even under SCO's theory IBM's code is IBM's code. SCO is merely arguing that IBM is not allowed to release their own code.
In contrast, the BSD and MIT licenses (roughly equivalent) give you copyright, but allow anyone else to use the code, change the code, and protect their changes.
False, three and a half times.
The "In contrast, the BSD and MIT licenses [] give you copyright" falsely indicates that the GPL denies you your copyright to your own work. Under the GPL you retain your copyright on your work. You can use or licence your own code in any way you like. You are under absolutely no restriction or obligation unless you ALSO distribute someone else's work.
The "In contrast, the BSD and MIT licenses [] allow anyone else to use the code" falsely indicates that the GPL restricts anyone's use of the code.
The "In contrast, the BSD and MIT licenses [] allow anyone else to [] change the code" falsely indicates that the GPL restricts anyone from changing the code.
The "In contrast, the BSD and MIT licenses [] allow anyone else to [] protect their changes" is half-wrong. The the GPL does NOT prevent anyone from protecting their changes. They own their code and their changes and can protect them as much as they like. The only thing they can't do is distributing someone else's work (along with their changes) under more restrictive terms than which they generously received the code they want to redistribute. They can keep changes as protected as they like by either not distributing them, by distributing them WITHOUT mixing in anyone else's GPL code, or by acting like any other commercial software company paying the original GPL author for a standard licence to use his code in your project!
In effect, these are roughly equivalent to GPL to the originator of the data
False. The original author (1) loses the right to receive and use derivatives of his own work - a "payment" of considerable value to most programmers, and (2) he loses the right to get paid for the use of his code in non-GPL software.
To prevent the OSS community from getting shafted by vendors blatantly stealing their work and hush-hushing the original contributors
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I don't think many GPL contributors care much about about getting their name in lights. I contributed to a project (POVRAY) with a GPL-like licence (for our purposes
-- - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
"Open Software License" fixes that
by
u1048576
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
you can put a GPLed application on your webserver and you never have to give the source to anybody
That's exactly why I opted for the Open Software License over GPL for my latest web app. I want it to stay free (speech-wise). Nobody should be able to hide their modifications if used in public.
With the Open Software License they say basically the same things as in GPL, but a published webapp counts as "distribution".
IANAL, so could anyone enlighten us about any possible compatibility problems between the OSL and the GPL?
Re:"Open Software License" fixes that
by
temojen
·
· Score: 1
IANAL too, but what you've described is a restriction on use of the software (ie, you must not use it unless you share the source), so it would not be compatible with the GPL. Under the GPL, output of the program is not GPL'd.
Re:"Open Software License" fixes that
by
Dauphin
·
· Score: 1
"output of the program is not GPL'd"... unless the output contains a portion of what's considered to be the source. This was the case with older versions of bison. The bison maintainers added a clause which stated that the output of bison was not governed by the GPL for this reason.
Forum to discuss new GPL, defensive patents, etc?
by
expro
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I have significant code I have been working on for some time. I have placed GPL language at the top, etc. in anticipation that I would publish it as soon as I felt I and it were ready.
One thing stopping me is that the code has lots of quite new ideas in it that I feel could become quickly widespread in use, in some cases as an alternative to existing, increasingly encumbered and controlled, standards.
I feel that it may be good to take out lots of patent claims, not that I feel that offensive patent use is ever justified, but that I see Microsoft patent around such things as XML.
I would like to stop them or anyone else to the extent from patenting use of the technology for X or Y (as Microsoft does with XML, for example), when it is obvious to anyone that it is a technology that is general purpose in nature and should be open to all uses.
I need to discuss this sort of thing, preferrably on a forum with someone actively pursuing FSF agendas to talk about the pitfalls and what might be possible in this respect. I would be perfectly happy signing patent rights to a third party as long as they could be used defensively by myself and others to the widest extent possible.
(Let me make it clear that it would not be my intent to use such to control or enforce a particular usage in any way, as Sun or Microsoft, for example, often try to do when making a "public" grant).
when sco is past, the war will be over patents...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
...so when it becomes a patent war, what will happen? microsoft has already stated as much, and their activities support this...the next attack will be from patents.
so what, if anything, is RMS and IBM doing about this? or is it best to just wait and see?
Danger of forks if too 'free'?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I think it could cause several forks of projects if GPLv3 includes a requirement to make changes of modified versions available even to users using the modified version over a network; for customers of companies like Red Hat and Novell it would be very cumbersome to check every tiny modification they make in their, e.g., www hosting envinronment. Costs would be high and there would be pressure for RH/Novell/etc to ship with code using GPLv2. What a mess it would be!
for all of us with gentoo linux, it's just a matter of `emerge -u world`
Re: HOWTO: How to act like Euro-trash v0.1
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
1. Play armchair commander-in-chief, claim the United States war on Iraq was illegal, and revel in the fact there were no WMDs. Your hindsight is 20/20, making you the perfect leader.
Most of the Americans who weren't sheep knew that there were no WMD's long before going in. The culture of terror that the Bush Administration pushed still scared the sheep into letting him start his war.
2. Support Kerry even though you know jack shit about politics in the U.S. Here's one for you: the Democrats bow down to special interests, such as the union thugs that burned a swatstika into a Republican politician's yard. Maybe, just maybe, people voted for Bush because they distrust the Democratic party more than the Republicans?
The difference between right and wrong is clear to most intelligent people. You don't have to be European to see that Bush is a terrorist and that Kerry was the lesser of two evils. You just have to be a scared hick to vote for Bush.
3. Bitch and moan that you couldn't vote for the President because you live in another country. If you think you know how America should run itself, why don't you move here? If you lived here, you'd at least be better able to afford a house.
As far as the bitching and moaning, they're scared. The entire world is scared. America was stupid enough to put a terrorist in power -- AGAIN. They have a right to be scared. One of the biggest hicks in the world is in power, and backed by 50 odd million scared sheep.
As far as the house, if you were educated, you'd know that a large portion of America can't afford a house, and we are quickly becoming a third world country. So don't point fingers.
4. Complain about religious fundamentalists in the U.S. Forget the fact that the reason why they are here is because they left you behind. Also forget the fact that your governments funnel tax money into teaching religion in public schools, something that Americans frown upon.
Um... your describing America. Not the way it was designed, but the way it is.
5. Tell the world you have more freedom than Americans, even though you can't own guns, have to pay annual taxes on your TVs, radios, and possibly taxes on your computers in the future, too.
The gun thing isn't even worth addressing. As far as the taxes go, you pay them to, just in different ways, and its already been announced that the specific taxes you sighted are coming (assuming this administration gets its way).
Just as a side note, ask yourself why Canada is the only nation in the G7 with a budget SURPLUS.
6. Think of your country's patent system as superior because it does not defend software patents. Completely forget the fact that your country produces practically no software worth buying. There's obviously no connection there.
Um, yeah. That does make their patent system superior, and realize that most of the winblows software you use isn't american anymore either thanks to outsourcing... or are you the type of person who considers your GM car american made just because the few who are getting rich off GM happen to live in America?
7. Smile smugly at the fact your country signed the Kyoto treaty, even though your country probably puts out as much as, if not more, air pollution per square unit of land than the United States judging by aerial graphs of chemical emissions. Your cities are well known for their smog and filth.
Their smog and filth has nothing to do with pollution, it has to do with over population. A situation that we are going to have very, very soon. And you and the bush administration want to make it worse by inviting everyone into the country. Great.
8. Compare Bush to Hitler even though Saddam Hussein was the one doing the gassing.
There was just a story on this in one of the big media magazines... Time I think... compare history for history, and America is exactly where Germany was when Hitler really started coming into power. The Germans thought Hilter was a good man doing good things just like the sheep of America (you) think about Bush. Your just not smart enough to realize it.
Re:"licensed under the terms of GPL v2 or later"..
by
Dr.+Photo
·
· Score: 1
No, it means that it will be licensed under the GNU public license version 2 or later. If you mingle in some version 3 or later code, then the whole thing is v3, unless you take it out again, at which point you can distribute under the terms of either one, again.
Dammit, Jim, I'm a doctor, not a lawyer!*
(*Actually, IANAD. This post does not constitute medical advice.)
Re:Forum to discuss new GPL, defensive patents, et
by
n8ur
·
· Score: 1
The way to preempt patents is to publish your ideas as widely as you can, in the most widely read (at least, available) journals you can get into.
Then, those ideas become prior art and can't be swooped up by someone else -- or if they do attempt to patent them, the publications can be cited to invalidate the patent.
You want the most widely known publications because the patent examiner is more likely to find the ideas there; they aren't real good at finding obscure references.
Free Speech, NOT FREE BEER
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
How many times does it have to be said before it sinks in? The GPL does not restrict commerce, you can sell your work for any price the market will pay and if you are selling the first and only copy then you don't have any competition, so that particular copy will sell for a high price. Once there are lots of copies around you have to either innovate or drop your price or provide additional services (e.g. support, training, strategic consulting).
By the way... paying your rent is not (and has never been) a valid excuse for anti-social behaviour.
Re:Free Speech, NOT FREE BEER
by
lux55
·
· Score: 1
I would like to discuss the "any price the market will pay" part of your post. However, I should preface my response with a small note first:
My post is not a complaint, simply an observation. I have benefited from and contributed to open source software in numerous ways over the years. I really believed it for quite a while. Also, anyone seeking to respond to me, please refrain from pulling more rhetorical tricks out of the "Cathedral and the Bazaar", the "Cluetrain Manifesto", or any other such source of "inspirational" material. I've read them, I know their side of the argument. If you're going to respond, make it with *your* own perspective. Please *add* to the discourse instead of borrowing from existing sources of it to further entrap ourselves in its colourful, albeit fatally idealistic mosaic.
(end preface)
Free "beer" is the first benefit people experience by using free software. This creates the perception in peoples' minds that the type of software they just used should be free (gratis). The perceived value of software thus declines rapidly towards zero, making it a very uphill battle for independent developers especially (since their applications are usually the easiest to write, so they're good candidates for free software replacements, and since independent developers simply don't have the means to develop at the level of large corporations).
The real practical effect of free and open source software is that large companies (Sun, Novell, IBM, HP, Red Hat, etc.) benefit by creating a landscape where the practical cost of entry is too high for most to attempt, while the indies are marginalized even further. This is comparable to another historically popular socialist movement: Communism. In both, the theory was that leveling the playing field would make everyone equal. However, in practice, both have the effect of creating a severely exaggerated inequality instead.
Further, the community behind most free software projects is fictional. It consists of the original developer providing answers to users on a forum or mailing list, and the users benefiting. Most users don't contribute in any more capacity than that, yet they still benefit, while the original developer is left with $5-10 in his paypal donations, $20-30 in hosting fees, and a rapidly fading warm and fuzzy feeling.
A proper system would reward those who contribute, not those who plunder. What the free/open source movement accomplishes is the opposite.
" Where do you get "flavours" out of this concept?
The working code is 100% identical. All that's different is unused strings used for tracking the code. Nobody blinks an eye with
static const char rcsid[] = "$Id$";
and this is nothing more than a variant that tracks who the code was distributed to. Unless they have a clue and strip out the strings. "
There is no concept in copyright law which differentiates so called "working code" from "non-working code". And there is no mention in the GPL of free usage of such so called "non-working code".
Even preceding the above line of code with// would not give you the right to distribute.
You have no right to modify someone elses copyrighted material and then distribute modified copies or works derived from someone elses copyrighted material. Even if your modifications are tiny or "non-working". You dont even have the right to modify the COMMENTS in copywritten source code (and then distribute it, or binaries of it) without permission.
Arguing with me isn't going to change that.
Copyright law is what prohibits you from freely making such changes. Don't blaim the GPL. It didn't take away any rights you did not already lack.
-- No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
Definition of "written offer"?
by
tepples
·
· Score: 1
Number 2 is not possible for Internet distribution, because you cannot have a "written offer".
If you claim that an offer presented through a web page is not a "written offer", then you claim that every agreement to purchase a product or service over the Internet is invalid, as it is possible to display the "written offer" without printing it.
Comment removed
by
account_deleted
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Re:Forum to discuss new GPL, defensive patents, et
by
GreenCrackBaby
·
· Score: 2, Informative
You can copyright your code (it is copyrighted automatically but paying the nominal fee to do so explicitly will help in any future legal hassles) and achieve the same effect. If Microsoft goes for a similar patent to one of yours, chances are they'll get it anyway. The number of conflicting patents is only going to grow as prior art searches become next-to-impossible and overly-broad patents keep getting granted.
Patents are very expensive to file, and if you want more than just a US patent you need to file in all the major countries (you are talking thousands of dollars in fees typically). If you use a lawyer to draft the patent (and you really need to) then your fees skyrocket.
By copyrighting your code explicitly you establish prior art should a similar patent ever get granted and a legal battle ensue.
--
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
use of a program (that is, merely executing the program) is not a power regulated by US copyright law.
Use of a program involves copying it into main memory, and courts have ruled that 1. only the owner of a copy of a computer program has any such rights under 17 USC 117, and 2. it's possible for the owner of a copy to waive section 117 in a contract and for the copyright owner to require such a waiver as a condition of obtaining or decrypting a copy.
In addition, even if a RAM copy isn't an infringing copy, doesn't operating a public Internet accessible service using a copyrighted program count as performing the program publicly? (A computer program is a "literary work" under U.S. copyright law.)
You are confusing executed code with distributing the copylefted source code in question.
Also, you are confounding the binary distribution of a program with offering a web service (where the logic is performed on the server, NOT the client computer.)
Lastly, there is nothing that mandates a web service to not be password or subscription restricted, therefore not public. The courts so far have not considered posting an image on a web page to be a public display, (owner still retains copyright) so they'll likely eventually extend the same argument for programs covered by copyright. (If they haven't already.)
-- "Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything." - Josef Stalin
You are confusing executed code with distributing the copylefted source code in question.
How? Copyright restricts distribution, but it also restricts public performance. Under some conjectured interpretations, it's unlawful to operate a web service available publicly without permission of the copyright owner in question.
Lastly, there is nothing that mandates a web service to not be password or subscription restricted, therefore not public.
That's not what "publicly" means. If it costs to get into a movie theater, it's subscription restricted, but it's still performing the film publicly. The definition of "performing a work publicly" in 17 USC 101 largely concerns itself with whether "a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances" have access at all, not the terms on which such access is offered.
The courts so far have not considered posting an image on a web page to be a public display
But have they considered it not to be a public display? Or have they just not decided the issue yet?
(owner still retains copyright)
The owner of a copyrighted image being displayed publicly retains the copyright anyway.
The prohibition on public performance of a copyrighted work might apply to works under the GNU GPL as well. The GPL version 2 does not grant any right to perform the covered work publicly. If a computer program is in fact subject to the monopoly on public performance (and which appellate case specifies that it isn't?), then the user needs permission from the author separate from the GPL to run a publicly accessible web service.
does anyone know if this will stop me from using GPL'ed components (like Mircosoft COM)? That would be terrible because then they would put restrictions on the output of programs; and I'm no fan of restricting USAGE.
Actually, I'm no fan of GPL, but if GPL v3 puts such restrictions on software it is doomed in the enterprise.
In order for the GPL to apply to output, the output would have to be covered under copyright from someone else.
Would running a computer program be considered "performing" the program? If so, would transmitting the output constitute performing the program publicly?
Re:Public performance
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
People have made that analogy, but US copyright law doesn't seem to explicity recognize the public performance of computer programs, so it's rather thin ice.
Re:when sco is past, the war will be over patents.
by
tepples
·
· Score: 1
Some Linux friendly companies, such as Novell and especially IBM, have patents on computer-implemented inventions that they could use to retaliate against Microsoft should the need arise.
I hope they fix this. It's just pitiful that they ignored it.
-- OH NOES!!! IT APPEARS YUO DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY FOR DIS HERE PIZZA! WAHT EVER ARE YOU GOING TO DO!?!?
It only looks like a cathedral...
by
ediron2
·
· Score: 1
Let me start by saying I don't know Moglen, Stallman, or Torvalds, yet all appearances are that they're all willing to engage in sensible debate when warranted. They're also busy.
Considering Messr's Moglen and Stallman will be certainly involved in any GPL3 litigation, I'd be fine with them writing GPL3 without a lick of input.
At it's worst, opening the authoring process would mean that Moglen and Stallman could be stuck with language that they're not happy with, yet are forced to support in court. Put another way, everything they've learned so far is going to infuse the language they use. To argue with every joe schmoe would mean they'd waste an inordinate amount of time writing a zillion 'well, back in 98 we had a case like X that would have made that problematic' responses. Man, I'd kill myself before opening up the editorial process that far.
That said, other replies say they're open to suggestions and discussion. That's just about where I want 'em to be.
A couple hours ago, I started to answer someone on the/. story about Linus being too cathedral-ish (they thought a committee would work better). Someone walked in and I had to close a few windows quickly, so let me just offer up my (deleted) remark from then:
If you don't like it, feel free to fork the process and start things up in your preferred fashion. All the tools are free for download, all the prior source is there, all the discussions. Just become an expert and you can offer an alternative GPL (or Kernel). Frankly, about halfway through, you'll probably agree that these guys are doing a smashing job and it'd be easier to help them than to reinvent the process yourself.
Forks happen. But they happen rarely because it's not trivial to gain a consensus of enough supporters to keep things alive and move forward.
Let me clarify. . .
by
Fantastic+Lad
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
There is nothing wrong with making money.
People need energy to live and produce. To create, one must consume. The trick is living in balance. --In making as clear and uncluttered a conduit of power out of yourself as possible. The level of clarity is determined by your Intent.
The Bad Guys are the ones who have knots tied in their systems; they are more interested in one-way transactions of energy, or coming as close to achieving one-way transactions as they can manage. Accumulating power for themselves is more important than in feeding the overall system of which they are a part.
When people join with the ethic of feeding easily to those who need, (but only to those who share the same ethic, otherwise the system is bled), as well as taking from the system when they themselves are in need, then the whole grows out of proportion to the sum of its parts. I don't think it is possible to create energy from nothing, but I think that these types of systems appear to do so because they have a way of grooving themselves to more easily accept and polarize the ambient energy of the world around.
--For example. . . When several people are working on an exciting and worthy project, others who are not even associated with that group feel compelled to help out or offer resources. I see this happen all the time.
It does not help for incremental patents
by
expro
·
· Score: 1
It does not help for incremental patents. Let's say I invented XML, so Microsoft says, "we invented using XML for a calendar", and everyone who wants to do it has to pay.
Also, use of a program (that is, merely executing the program) is not a power regulated by US copyright law
No, but in order to use the program, you have had to copy it. And in order to copy it, you have had to agree to its license. And licenses can impose all sorts of binding conditions on you. Therefore, a license on a copyrighted piece of software can regulate its use, although the GPL chooses not to.
That can be a bit reaching. I could also point out that reading a book requires 'copying it' to your retina and brain. Hey that's at least two copies.
Any 'copying' necessary to actually use the work in a normal fashion should be seen in the same light as the 'imaged copy' on your retina of the book, the analogy is strongest in reference to ram storage of the pieces of code and data in use as they are temporary as is the image on your retina from said book.
I don't see any other rational way to consider it.
Any 'copying' necessary to actually use the work in a normal fashion should be seen in the same light as the 'imaged copy' on your retina of the book, the analogy is strongest in reference to ram storage of the pieces of code and data in use as they are temporary as is the image on your retina from said book.
The "copy" in question isn't the copying into RAM when you use the software, it's the copying that took place when you obtained your copy of the software. It's at that point that you agree to abide by the use restrictions in the future when you actually use the software.
That can be a bit reaching.
It can be. And the law limits how far such licenses can reach in various ways. But that doesn't change the principle.
HUH? I'm not shure I follow your reasoning. You seem to be saying I'm bound by a license because of the copying that had to happen for me to be able buy something in the store?
I didn't make that copy therefore anything agreed to in order to poduce that copy is between the rights holder and the person making the copy, NOT me. I had no involvement and am not a party to the creation of that copy, only in the purchase of it (assuming a purchase and not a gift by eigther the rights holder or a third party, but that's likely tangential anyway).
If you meant something else I'm sorry but I completly missed it.
I didn't make that copy therefore anything agreed to in order to poduce that copy is between the rights holder and the person making the copy, NOT me
But you made a purchase contract with someone who copied the item under license. No matter what you do, you have no way of obtaining a copy of the software legally without agreeing to its license.
I don't understand your mental block. Microsoft, Sun, IBM, etc. have been regulating your use of your software for decades using licenses and copyright.
It's no mental block to say I don't see how I'm bound by a contract I'm not party to.
My 'purchase contract' is usually $x for Product Y. They place a product on the shelves and lable it a specific, this is thier offer, by giving them said price (plus any aplicable sales tax) I accept thier offer.
This has NOTHING to do with whatever agreement the product was originaly produced under in relation to me other than if thier sale of it to me violoted thier agreement, but in that case it's thier problem as I am NOT a party to that agreement.
No, but you do need a license to have a copy of the copyrighted work in your posession. And that license can regulate your use. It can't regulate your use completely (you can make backup copies, you can sell your license), but it can regulate many aspects of your use.
If you don't believe me, try buying a 1 CPU license from Microsoft, running it on an 8 CPU system, and taunting their lawyers with it.
Re:regulating use
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
No, but you do need a license to have a copy of the copyrighted work in your posession.
Nonsense, it's copyright, not posessionright. You need to own a copy of the software in order for copies essential to use to be exempted, but you don't need a license.
If you don't believe me, try buying a 1 CPU license from Microsoft, running it on an 8 CPU system, and taunting their lawyers with it.
That's because you aren't buying a copy of the software, you're buying a license to use the software. This happens to come with a copy that you do not own. Read the EULA carefully, "3. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS AND OWNERSHIP. [...] The Software is licensed, not sold."
Re:regulating use
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Nonsense, it's copyright, not posessionright. You need to own a copy of the software in order for copies essential to use to be exempted, but you don't need a license.
In order to get the thing into your posession, you or someone else needs to have copied it. In order to have copied it, you or that other person needs to have agreed to the license. Use your head, man, or bother to read.
That's because you aren't buying a copy of the software, you're buying a license to use the software.
Exactly right. And GPL'ed software is also licensed to you, not sold or given away.
Re:regulating use
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
This has NOTHING to do with whatever agreement the product was originaly produced under in relation to me other than if thier sale of it to me violoted thier agreement, but in that case it's thier problem as I am NOT a party to that agreement.
You become party to that agreement by purchasing the product. That is what "purchasing a license" means: whoever you bought the product from was party to the agreement before the purchase, and you pay your good, hard-earned money just so that you can replace them in that agreement. With your purchase, you assume all the rights and obligations of the previous license holder.
"With your purchase, you assume all the rights and obligations of the previous license holder. "
Eh no I pay them money for the product they give me. If thier under some obligation that they are supposed to require of any new owner and they fail to secure that before selling the product then they may be liable for breaking thier contract, but I'm not then automatically placed under it just because they didn't fullfil thier obligation.
If things worked your way and I bought a used car and the previous owner lost say wrongfull death suit for running someone over with I'd suddenly be liable for whatever money he still owed from that suit.
I hope they'll get around to reconsider some parts of the LGPL too, especially the fact that its "lesser" aspect is worthless in embedded environments, or more specifically, systems where there are no dynamic linking facilities available. With the ever growing popularity of embedded systems, the LGPL is starting to show its age, as well as its inefficiency in resolving the problem it was designed to fix in the first place.
Right now, portable LGPL projects that target embedded environments are hurt by this. A good example is SDL. SDL can be used in a variety of systems, and its LGPL nature allows it to be used in commercial applications (ie. games), as long as the library is not statically linked. However, in embedded environments you simply cannot use SDL in commercial projects, since you can't dynamically link, hence you lose the "lesser" aspect of LGPL, meaning it becomes no more useful than the GPL. It's a recurring topic on the SDL mailing list, and unless the LGPL is revised there is not much solution to this issue.
"But the right of private modification is also an important right that needs to be sustained, he said."
I know the LGPL allows private (proprietary) code to be linked with free (open) libraries.
How does the GPL v2 support private modifications? If you pass it on to someone, you must pass on the source......wouldn't changing this damage the whole premise behind the GPL and Open-Source software?
Re:Can Someone Clarify?
by
DylanQuixote
·
· Score: 1
Yes, but if you don't distribute, you don't have to give the source. Quite logical, no?
Playing field already level
by
Morosoph
·
· Score: 1
You can dual-license GPLed code.
Proprietry: get a special proprietry license from firm or individual.
GPL: get a special proprietry license from firm(s) or individual(s) OR abide by the terms of the GPL.
... is its own patent portfolio. Thus, large companies daren't sue.
Accordingly, the FSF, against their instincts, need to seek defensive patents on donated code, for the FSF has far more clout than any individual developer. Obviously, the FSF couldn't favour individual companies with cross-licenses, especially as it would deny them the ability to counterattack were a developer who hadn't donated his/her code sued, but MAD is very nearly as effective.
The problem is over just what does and doesn't constitute "derivative code".
The term "derivative work" comes from copyright law. The GPL is a copyright license. If your work infringes the authors' copyright(s), then your only legal resource is to comply with the GPL (which means you get the rights to distribute the copyrighted material), negotiate separate terms with the copyright holders, or arrange to no longer be violating anyone's copyrights. If your work isn't infringing anyone's copyrights, then you're fine; the GPL isn't an issue. It's just that simple.
If you don't like the vagueness of the term "derivative work", complain to Congress, not to the FSF. The FSF isn't in charge of that.
Tell that to the FSF. The GPL attempts to define what a derivative work is, for the purpose of the license.
--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
EULA is supposed to be a contract
by
roesti
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
There are a couple of things that are wrong with your argument.
Firstly, the EULA is not made visible when, and where, you buy the software - that is, you really should be able to read it when it is time for money to change hands. It's one thing for you to say that an informed buyer can read the EULA on the web before buying, but it's another thing entirely to ignore that a large proportion of buyers are not that informed.
Secondly, if you buy the software from a retail store, you have a pretty poor chance of getting a decent return/refund policy. There aren't many stores near me that have a good return/refund policy for computer software, so even if you decide not to use it, you can't get your money back.
Thirdly, if you buy the software from an OEM, you often don't see the agreement at all - the distributor agrees to include the manufacturer's product - and yet, you are a party to that contract, since you are buying and using the software. In that scenario, at least, the user cannot be a party to the EULA, rendering the agreement worthless.
I know I haven't provided a solid legal basis for claiming that EULAs are dodgy at best, but I can't be bothered looking it up in more detail. The point is that if you don't have a chance to agree or disagree to a contract, on whatever grounds, that contract simply cannot legally oblige you in any way.
First rule about GPL version 3
by
multiplexo
·
· Score: 1
Don't talk about GPL version 3.
Second rule about GPL version 3.
Don't talk about GPL version 3.
-- cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
Circumventing the GPL by dynamic linking
by
elegie
·
· Score: 1
Supposedly, the GPL applies to static linking and dynamic linking of GPL-covered libraries. One individual has said that proprietary software may be able to legally use GPL-covered libraries via dynamic linking. The idea is that proprietary software could be designed to use a GPL-covered library not included with the software; users would be told to install the library. The software would not contain any code from the library (header files could be redone with clean-room reverse-engineering) and thus would not be a "derivative work."
There is also a discussion about situations involving open-source license compliance. For instance, it mentions a situation where a software package uses a specific library (there are copylefted and non-copylefted versions of the same library.) If the software is not copylefted, can it be designed to look for and use the library when it is run, even if the library is copylefted? What if the copylefted version of the library is recommended over the non-copylefted version?
So what if I modify the Bison source so it prints out a full copy of itself (let's do it the easy way; file IO). Then I could get a copy of Bison with no liscensing restrictions that I could make proprietary modifications to. This sounds like a Bad Thing.
--
This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
"not governed by the gpl" is not the same as "no restrictions". actually, if it's not governed by the gpl then i think normal copyright restrictions apply. then you have LESS rights than what the gpl would give you.
Not at all. If I make an image in the GIMP or have something plotted in gnuplot I get copyright on the output unless the software liscence says otherwise, because they are not derivitive works. I normally would have full copyright on the output of programs I run.
In this case, Bison was producing a derivitive work of itself (by including some of its code in the output) so the Bison writers would normally have some right to the output. I think the point was that the writers say in their liscence that even though the output of their program is a derivitive work, the user of the program gets full copyright to the work.
The problem here is that it opens them up to abuse, as I could change the source to print itself out, and then I get full copyright on the produced text.
--
This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
Yes, because expecting just a moderate level of competence from a website that asks for money for subscriptions is too much to ask.
I get ten pieces of mail a day asking for money. I throw them away. A request for money is no statement of fitness. If Slashdot wants more money they'll improve the things potential customers want. If they don't they won't get those customers, and, eventually, somebody else will provide what they're willing to pay for and get the money. Ah, the Market.
-- My God, it's Full of Source! OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Let's say you read the EULA and were OK with it. You then bought XP and installed it. Six months later MS changed the EULA. What now? Are you bound by the original or the new one.
That doesn't matter - there will be a hotfix before the change anyway, and that will have a new EULA. You're free to take that XP machine off the net if you don't want to install the security updates. Security updates are a way of ensuring your agreement to their license changes.
Oh, does that seem unreasonable to you? How about that the EULA once changed to allow Microsoft remote access to your computer (XPSP1). What if you are prevented from allowing this by law (e.g. HIPAA)?
Typically people just ignore the EULA. This needs to be tested in court so the ramifications of such an action are clear. It doesn't matter what your company lawyers tell you, other than to CYA, what matters is what a Federal Judge is going to say about it, and who knows what that will be.
-- My God, it's Full of Source! OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Let's say I invented XML, so Microsoft says, "we invented using XML for a calendar", and everyone who wants to do it has to pay.
You just need to patent using Windows for Patent Law work. Sorry, all we have left to do at this point is to make fun of the patent system.
But to the matter at hand - it sounds like what you want is a license that says, "all patents enbodied in this work are freely licensed under the condition that all derivative patents are freely licensed" plus what the GPL says.
Maybe you can find a lawyer here or on Groklaw or someone affiliated with Larry Lessig to help.
-- My God, it's Full of Source! OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
-- Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog You cannot wash away blood with blood
FSF just clarified LGPL and Java
by
steve_l
·
· Score: 1
We have just got a clarification from the FSF on LGPL and Java: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html
Essentially, it means what it ought to mean: its only the library that is LPGL, not anything you build from it. Inheritance of class or interface is also allowed.
Slashdot Mirror
Where can one view a draft copy of the new license? If the answer is we can not, why can't we?
I know it's mostly apples to oranges, but considering how infrequently the GPL is updated comparing this with both the size and likely tweaking of a standard MS EULA would hopefully be a good arguing point with possible Linux converts. Anyone know of a repository of EULAs and how frequently they get updated?
Since RMS's office is now in the Gates building, maybe he has been assimilated and GPL v3 will include terms allowing Microsoft to make use of GPLed code and not release their sources, since the GPL has t erms allowing you to use a subsequent version
"By using this software, you agree that Microsoft is teh suxx0rz!!!!"
Hopefully they will fix the kernel panic issue...
Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
Africus aut Europaeus?
Will this version become comptiable with licenses with patent clauses, like the apache, IBM and CPL licenses?
I am trolling
They're trying to drain our precious bodily fluids...
I got mod points to burn, so I'll shoot...
Hopefully, they'll include the clause to allow companies to tahe GPL'd software, rip the copyrights out, and incorporate it into their own products and claim ownership.
This would solve the "problems" with the GPL all the "analysts" keep huffing and puffing about, and would allow our good friends at MS to use GPL code in their products and file suits against the authors who wrote it for "copyright violations."
FLAME ON!!! >:)
It is now known as the GNU/GPL license.
The GPL works very well at the moment. Introducing a new version could confuse what is at the moment a very easy to understand concept-- if you alter GPLed code you have to let everyone use your alterations as GPLed code as well-- as well as creating schisms in OSS development. As far as I am aware some software-- including the Linux kernel if I'm not incorrect-- don't license to the GPL itself or "GPL 2 or later", they license to one specific version.
The open source community is going to have to deal with patents at some point, since patent abuse will soon be the #1 defense commercial software has (Mr. McNealy of Sun has been making some fascinating comments lately) now that they can't compete on merit or any other fair method. However I hope they are very careful with exactly how they introduce this into GPL3. Patents are already nicely covered in the GPL by requiring that you cannot distribute a GPL program if there are patent restrictions on it. But if a line gets in like "by releasing this program, you grant a universal license to open source software to use all applicable patents" it could hinder uptake of GPLed software by companies fearing that by distributing GPL3'd code they would be at risk of accidentally licensing patents without realizing it.
Just as version 2 was/is being tested in court we have to go for a new license which will no doubt leave us open to all sorts of patent problems that those untested proprietary licenses don't have. The end is nigh
For me the weaknesses that need to be addressed in the GPL are most definitely patents, the confusion around dynamic/static compiling + web services. Get rid of this issue of two licenses (GPL/LGPL/ or the new trend that is even more confusing GPL + Linking Clause?!?) which causes a lot of problems for reuse of code. Having a 'viral license' just scares corporate use of our code. Other issues are enforcement of trademarks, so that companies can have commercial offerings by offering a particular 'brand'. At the end of the day the license must continue to protect its most important aspect, that all code changes to the software must be contributed back - preferably in a free downloadable manner (mailing $15 for the source code when the binary is available free online goes against its principles).
The lack of explicit answers to questions about remote linking and the like are causing increasing problems with the GPL. Currently, you can not statically link to a GPLed library, nor can you dynamically link. However I believe you can dlopen a GPLed library as well as including the functionality in another program which you communicate to via RPC, provided that your program is functionally still useful without the helper program. Further, you may not link against a GPLed appliation but you may communicate with it via RPC, TCP, etc. Finally, you only need to give a copy of the source to a person who you give a copy of the binary to. This of course means that you can put a GPLed application on your webserver and you never have to give the source to anybody if you so choose, even if you make the output freely available, or if use of your application only makes sense by remote execution. So what does 'distribute' mean in this interconnected world? If I can ssh into a box and run a binary, has it been distributed to me? What if I can run it via a web server? Or a caching proxy? And I understand you don't have to release source provided you only use the application internally, but the definition of internally has a few surprises for most lay people.
Now, did anybody follow all that? And I'm not even sure I got it all right. The next version will be long overdue.
You can measure the wisdom of a law document by how *rarely* it gets updated. 13 years is impressively long for a field as dynamically changing as computing. Nice work.
god points certainly include running of code that is not signed by a large corprate entity like IBM and MS mentioned in the article.
I always had concerns over OSes and hardware blocking code from running and how it could be used to attempt to restrain competion
I heard Marvel is going to sue the creators of the GPL due to the fact that various words and phrases from the document can be mixed around and formed into well-known Marvel comic-book hero quotes.
News Reporters Make Tasty Polar Bear Treats!
I wish that the LGPL would be clarified so that organizations like Apache would/could use it. I think what needs done here is a significant clarification to the terms about reverse engineering. More importantly, a clearing up of the terms of this license as it relates specifically to Java and dynamic loading of code. I think, generally most developers who use the LGPL, for their own code, believe that it is clear enough and that Apache is being too conservative about it.
From my own perspective, I tend to agree with Apache and that I am *very* hesitant to recommend LGPL code for use in my company's products. I say this because, I expect my company to honor the open source licenses, I just am not sure in the LGPL case how far that goes, in respect to reverse engineering and dynamic loading with Java.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"The GPL is just a way of turning humans... into this." [Holds up printout of Linux source code]
"28 days... 6 hours... 42 minutes... 12 seconds... The copyright on the UNIX source will expire."
"You only THINK you've won! While your back was turned, I switched licenses!"
(I did the best I could.)
*is run over by rotten tomatoes*
III.j. For justice, all your base are belong to us.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
As far as i know GPL as updated in 1991 hmm lots of changes in the coming years for IT.
http://askaralikhan.blogspot.com/
According to TFA, GPL 3 will be authored by Eben Moglen and RMS.
That's all fine and everything, since the current GPL got to us that way.
I will be shocked and dismayed if they don't open up the process, though. The GPL is more fundamental to FOSS than any other document, and I'd hate to see it developed in a cathedral.
They'll surely do it as an open collaboration.
sigs, as if you care.
Hopefully they will plug the server hole. As it stands right now, the GPL makes no sense for server-side applications.
look here: http://web.novalis.org/history-of-fsm/slide-47.htm l
in this page shows a link to the license that inspired the update the would become GPL version 3
Well, we have only ~6 weeks to go in 2004. If the draft came out in early January I imagine we could call that 'soon', particularly since v2 has been in place for a while.
I was going to make a snarky comment about (defining soon) == (the Clinton defense) but decided to behave.
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
Tahn how will we access the pr0n on teh intarweb? AppleTalk?!! -_-
Is that some extractive of flour? I suspect you meant to say "fluoride".
Sean
Maybe what we are seeing here is just the media's equivalent of a blog thread kick/bump message... to remind the people that are supposed to be doing GPL V3 of that fact :-)
"Newsflash: RMS sneezed and boogers came out. More at 11." Wake me up when something actually happens.
Someone had to do it.
An interesting quote from the article:
if the FSF uses its leverage correctly, it could affect what kinds of trust are recognized in the network.
"But if we don't use our leverage correctly, we could wind up in a world where free software is injured very badly, where you can modify code but you cannot do anything with that modified code because the hardware will not run that code because it cannot be signed 'Microsoft or IBM,'" he said. "If that happens, free software will be excluded from hardware, and that is not an outcome we can tolerate."
Is the GPL movement strong enough to establish de facto standards on trusted computing? Is it even possible to build trusted content and software with modifiable GPL code?
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
There's a lot of other OSI-approved licenses out there. Expand your knowledge of the options, and pick the one that's right for you.
IANAL, but you might even consider ammending the GPL for your specific needs. I've seen a couple projects out there that are under the GPL, but with noted ammendments. I think the LAME MP3 coder is an example of such a project.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
According to this slide the Affero GPL is a prototype.
get 7 free Japanese lessons.
that it will be non-viral now and Microsoft will be happy with it. I believe they will call it "an even playing field."
Thou Shalt Not Commit Thy Software for Commerce
Thou Shalt Smite Thy Microsoftie
Thou Shalt Bow To Thy Benovolent Leader RMS Thy God And Have Ye No Other God Before Him
That Shalt Not Take the Name of GNU/Linux In Vain
Thou Shalt Mod Down the unholy SlashDot Troll, For He is an Abomination unto Thee
Thou Shalt Not Click on false Gmail Links
Thou Shalt Not Fall to the Evil Seductress BSD, for She is an Unrighteous Whore Unto Thee
Thou Shalt Close Thine Ears Upon Hearing the False Testimony of the SCO, the Lies of TCO, and the injustices of the CMDRTCO.
Thou Shalt Moderate this Post to the Heavens, That All The Earth May Know of the Great And Fearful GPL.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I think it's quite important sice lots of software have a license which says "this software is licensed under the GNU public license version 2 or later". AIUI, this means that all that software will be auto-licensed under version 3 as soon as it's available?
Lets hope they don't screw up . You know the existing GPL has a clause:
..
"9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
of the General Public License from time to time. "
Lots of work ships with the "any later version" clause
BTW, Forcing people to "give back" to those they got code from is a bad thing and is not how it's written today. That disallows forks.
GPL "Protects" your "rights" to the software while stripping the rights of anyone else to modify the software for their own use. The GPL doesn't keep commercial entities from suing you; it keeps them from adding to your code without giving it back.
Let's look at the SCO argument. In basic terms, IBM altered SCO UNIX to become AIX, and so SCO owns all alterations IBM did to AIX. In basic terms, if you alter GPL code, you must distribute your source, meaning you must give your work to the public because you based it on somebody else's work.
In contrast, the BSD and MIT licenses (roughly equivalent) give you copyright, but allow anyone else to use the code, change the code, and protect their changes. In effect, these are roughly equivalent to GPL to the originator of the data; but leave the rights of any third party to their intellectual property in their hands if they choose to augment your software with it.
I believe that Open Source Software would be much easier for the industry to accept (and sodomize) if we stopped trying to armtwist vendors into releasing their own IP and instead let them base their solutions off ours without fear of having their hard work taken away from them "For the Common Good" (Marxism).
To prevent the OSS community from getting shafted by vendors blatantly stealing their work and hush-hushing the original contributors, we could reverse the original (later removed) non-advertisement clause of the BSD license, mirrored on OpenSource.com. The original clause is shown below.
Perhaps a suitable replacement would run along the lines of the below.
This would explicitly allow vendors to endorse their products by advertising that they were derived from an OSS product or from work done by a specific person in the community. It would also require the vendor to indicate where he got the code from in the software (Help:About or --version are good places), on the packaging, and on the Web site.
As for patent clauses, I can't comment on exact wording; however, since in this new license we are not requiring the vendor to release his new source, it would be fair to lay down the following conditions about patents:
I believe this license would be most fair to vendors of derivative works and to open source developers at the same time. Perhaps someone should get one together and have a lawyer look over it; I'll pass it by the FSF. The title "BSDM" (BSD/Moser) would be appropriate, since it's my idea. :)
Disclaimer: IANAL
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Not meaning to be a troll here. I liked PD software. But even trolls can be right about some things.
If it were done when 'tis done, then t'were well it were done quickly... MacBeth
Those who create and wish to share are the Good Guys, while the Bad Guys are vile lawyers and manipulative billionaires. This corner of reality is like living in the pages of a four-color comic book.
-FL
finally removes the word "suckers" and is totally written in leetspeak.
Most of the article seems to talk about changing the GPL to help defend free software against patent attacks.
I'm not sure if this will be possible. Defending against someone infringing on your copyright is easily done with a license (as the GPL currently does), but someone with a patent need not agree to anything before trying to sue to pants off of you.
Perhaps they plan to put a stipulation in the GPL that prevents you from suing others for software patent infringement if you use GPL software? If they do this, then it might give large companies a reason not to use GPL'ed software (not that I really care if they do. I'm just pointing out that they might rather keep their lawsuit possibilities open than use free software).
I'll be interested to see this draft...
Eviscerate a faggot today! C'mon! It's the new sensation!
I'm ashamed, I R'ed TFA!
But I'll live. Anyways, the purpose of a license is to give people the opportunity to state the terms that they're willing to agree to. There could be a billion licenses, they still must be understood and a greed to.
Now maybe there needs to be an intermediate license. One that all licenses are compatible with. Modifications to code could go in this license and be passed on between software of different licenses. But for that too happen we need better component management tools. There still isn't a tool that let's me write a short script that joins all the code that I want into an application. If there were such a thing it would be very easy to determine where the boundaries are between different pieces of software.
Then again witness the arguments against making modules separate from the kernel. I agree that as long as corporations couln't care less about the quality of their drivers I would want the open ones, and drivers can be written more easily tied to the kernel, but the current situation isn't feaible, and look at the argument given: That modules were an after thought. Excuse me, are you kidding me. An after thought, as if there is no logical need for the separation? Ughh.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Actually, private derivatives are allowed. Having the freedom to make derivatives one does not share with others in any form is required by the definition of free software:
Also, use of a program (that is, merely executing the program) is not a power regulated by US copyright law. And the GPLv2 specifically states that it does not control this activity:
So, no, "if you alter GPLed code you have to let everyone use your alterations as GPLed code as well" is untrue.
Also, you have (perhaps inadvertantly) repeated one of the most misleading parts of the article (and the editorial linked to the article): Associating the GPL with the open source movement profound miscredits who did what and what goals the GPL was written to achieve.
This latest revision of the GPL has almost nothing to do with "OSS" development. The open source movement (which doesn't like to talk about software freedom) did not exist when the current version of the GPL (version 2) was written. The free software movement (which is based on software freedom) predates the open source movement by over a decade. This upcoming version (version 3) of the GPL will be the first version of the GPL written since the open source movement started. As far as I know, nobody from the open source movement is writing the next revision of the GPL; it is still written by the people at the FSF (most notably, RMS and Eben Moglen, both of whom make it quite clear in their speeches that they are doing work to promote software freedom). So, the open source movement is receiving a great deal of credit for work it did not do and the danger of tying the GPL with the open source movement is that the open source movement's philosophy, which doesn't object to proprietary software, will be conflated with a license built to create and maintain a commons where software freedom is the rule.
Digital Citizen
Comment removed based on user account deletion
For this type of software, will we be able to use it in software that's under GPL 3? GPL 2 won't allow for additional restrictions, nor will it allow being mixed with other software that isn't under GPL 2.
As far as I can see, the only way that GPL 3 can allow compatibility if you are able to 'downgrade' to GPL 2. If that option is available, that may make it difficult if not impossible to achieve the goals that the FSF has in mind.
Another possibility is to try to get the original authors to rerelease their software under the new licence. This may be possible in cases where a central authority has the redistribution rights to do this (such as the FSF has with much of their software), but a lot of GPL'd software isn't quite so careful. Many patches may have been included into a piece of software not by giving full redistribution rights but instead under licence of GPL 2, in which case those authors technically need to be contacted to allow for their use in GPL 3 software.
Another possibility is that it could split the set of GPL software in two: one under GPL 2, and another under GPL 3. I have a feeling this won't happen, but it wouldn't be great. People of like minds who want to share their software would not be able to simply because of licensing issues that may be too hard to resolve at this point.
Anyway, I'm sure Moglen and RMS are taking this into account while they work on the licence. I hope it's put together in an open manner, so that all these kinds of issues are addressed.
A good thing is, no one says you can't stick to the current GPL if you want to (in the case that they really mess something up on GPL3)
Here's hoping Moglen can make some sense out of it all.
Agreed, it is the point of GPL, but not LGPL, which says 'apps are OK, but other libs must be LGPL or GPL'.
In java, everything is a lib, so a strict interpretation of the situation says that you cannot import LGPL code into an Apache or BSD licensed project. Apache takes that strict interpretation; there is no clear urgency on the FSF side to fix it (as LGPL is somewhat deprecated).
I think it is a shame that BSD/Apache code and LGPL cannot coexist better.
Can someone explain the meaning of the GNU/FSF icon /. uses? What is it exactly, and why? It looks like an Indian ('cuse my PC... "Native American") with some strange jesters hat, sucking his thumb and holding a security blanket to me.
I really don't get it.
GPL doesn't restrict your right to modify software for your own use. In fact, it grants that right which would otherwise be illegal or questionable. GPL does impose some conditions on your redistribution of that derivative work (i.e. provide source code and GPL) which are there to ensure other people have the same rights you are granted. Or don't you think others deserve the same rights as you?
I used to be amazed at how many people got upset that they can't take someone else's work, and profit from it any way they see fit. Now I know that's just some peoples definition of business.
The FSF has been working with Affero to address this issue. Check out the list of GPL-incompatible free software licenses under the section called "Affero General Public License" which says:
The Affero General Public License is online as well. I'm sure both organizations would welcome your feedback.
Digital Citizen
I noticed the link in the article about SCO saying that the GPL is unconstitutional.
. as p
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1581586,00
My question is:
Has SCO ever indicated which part of the Constitution the GPL violates? Or is it just a general statement without any backing?
Can someone provide the section of the Constitution that the GPL specifically violates, that other licesnes (such as the ones SCO uses) wouldn't?
"he drew his sword Ringil that glittered like ice... and he wounded Morgoth with seven wounds..."
Let's hope they get it right the first time: since apps are released "either [under] version X.x of the License, or (at your option) any later version", if they put a flaw into 3.0, every program written up until then would be subjected to the problem.
And lawyers only know how to beef up things, expecially when documents in legalese exceed the one line length (usually they only find it slightly more difficult to mess around a "there's only one rule: there's no rules" statement).
42.
By the way, to my untrained eye the Affero GPL (an alternative license suggested by GNU themselves) sucks. Section 2a reads:
Gigantic loopholes include:
I think I understand what they're trying to do, but again, is it a good idea? Does anyone have a good idea about how to really accomplish it? Are there any licenses right now that don't have the glaring holes of the Affero GPL?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
"Also forget the fact that your governments funnel tax money into teaching religion in public schools, something that Americans frown upon."
..." yada yada.
Yeah, no republican would ever want to put prayer in school or the ten commandments anywhere near a school, would they.
"Tell the world you have more freedom than Americans
If that's all you can come up with as an argument that America is somehow more "free", heh, open your eyes man.
"8. Compare Bush to Hitler even though Saddam Hussein was the one doing the gassing."
Dead by gassing or by bullets/depleted uranium, does it really matter how?
Parent is not flamebait; it's a valid observation.
Here's a draft copy btw; follow the warning at the top and don't use it yet. It hasn't seen a lawyer test; but it does display the spirit of the desired license.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
you can put a GPLed application on your webserver and you never have to give the source to anybody
That's exactly why I opted for the Open Software License over GPL for my latest web app. I want it to stay free (speech-wise). Nobody should be able to hide their modifications if used in public.
With the Open Software License they say basically the same things as in GPL, but a published webapp counts as "distribution".
IANAL, so could anyone enlighten us about any possible compatibility problems between the OSL and the GPL?
I have significant code I have been working on for some time. I have placed GPL language at the top, etc. in anticipation that I would publish it as soon as I felt I and it were ready.
One thing stopping me is that the code has lots of quite new ideas in it that I feel could become quickly widespread in use, in some cases as an alternative to existing, increasingly encumbered and controlled, standards.
I feel that it may be good to take out lots of patent claims, not that I feel that offensive patent use is ever justified, but that I see Microsoft patent around such things as XML.
I would like to stop them or anyone else to the extent from patenting use of the technology for X or Y (as Microsoft does with XML, for example), when it is obvious to anyone that it is a technology that is general purpose in nature and should be open to all uses.
I need to discuss this sort of thing, preferrably on a forum with someone actively pursuing FSF agendas to talk about the pitfalls and what might be possible in this respect. I would be perfectly happy signing patent rights to a third party as long as they could be used defensively by myself and others to the widest extent possible.
(Let me make it clear that it would not be my intent to use such to control or enforce a particular usage in any way, as Sun or Microsoft, for example, often try to do when making a "public" grant).
...so when it becomes a patent war, what will happen? microsoft has already stated as much, and their activities support this...the next attack will be from patents.
so what, if anything, is RMS and IBM doing about this? or is it best to just wait and see?
I think it could cause several forks of projects if GPLv3 includes a requirement to make changes of modified versions available even to users using the modified version over a network; for customers of companies like Red Hat and Novell it would be very cumbersome to check every tiny modification they make in their, e.g., www hosting envinronment. Costs would be high and there would be pressure for RH/Novell/etc to ship with code using GPLv2. What a mess it would be!
Hopefully I'm just too pessimistic
for all of us with gentoo linux,
it's just a matter of
`emerge -u world`
1. Play armchair commander-in-chief, claim the United States war on Iraq was illegal, and revel in the fact there were no WMDs. Your hindsight is 20/20, making you the perfect leader.
Most of the Americans who weren't sheep knew that there were no WMD's long before going in. The culture of terror that the Bush Administration pushed still scared the sheep into letting him start his war.
2. Support Kerry even though you know jack shit about politics in the U.S. Here's one for you: the Democrats bow down to special interests, such as the union thugs that burned a swatstika into a Republican politician's yard. Maybe, just maybe, people voted for Bush because they distrust the Democratic party more than the Republicans?
The difference between right and wrong is clear to most intelligent people. You don't have to be European to see that Bush is a terrorist and that Kerry was the lesser of two evils. You just have to be a scared hick to vote for Bush.
3. Bitch and moan that you couldn't vote for the President because you live in another country. If you think you know how America should run itself, why don't you move here? If you lived here, you'd at least be better able to afford a house.
As far as the bitching and moaning, they're scared. The entire world is scared. America was stupid enough to put a terrorist in power -- AGAIN. They have a right to be scared. One of the biggest hicks in the world is in power, and backed by 50 odd million scared sheep.
As far as the house, if you were educated, you'd know that a large portion of America can't afford a house, and we are quickly becoming a third world country. So don't point fingers.
4. Complain about religious fundamentalists in the U.S. Forget the fact that the reason why they are here is because they left you behind. Also forget the fact that your governments funnel tax money into teaching religion in public schools, something that Americans frown upon.
Um... your describing America. Not the way it was designed, but the way it is.
5. Tell the world you have more freedom than Americans, even though you can't own guns, have to pay annual taxes on your TVs, radios, and possibly taxes on your computers in the future, too.
The gun thing isn't even worth addressing. As far as the taxes go, you pay them to, just in different ways, and its already been announced that the specific taxes you sighted are coming (assuming this administration gets its way).
Just as a side note, ask yourself why Canada is the only nation in the G7 with a budget SURPLUS.
6. Think of your country's patent system as superior because it does not defend software patents. Completely forget the fact that your country produces practically no software worth buying. There's obviously no connection there.
Um, yeah. That does make their patent system superior, and realize that most of the winblows software you use isn't american anymore either thanks to outsourcing... or are you the type of person who considers your GM car american made just because the few who are getting rich off GM happen to live in America?
7. Smile smugly at the fact your country signed the Kyoto treaty, even though your country probably puts out as much as, if not more, air pollution per square unit of land than the United States judging by aerial graphs of chemical emissions. Your cities are well known for their smog and filth.
Their smog and filth has nothing to do with pollution, it has to do with over population. A situation that we are going to have very, very soon. And you and the bush administration want to make it worse by inviting everyone into the country. Great.
8. Compare Bush to Hitler even though Saddam Hussein was the one doing the gassing.
There was just a story on this in one of the big media magazines... Time I think... compare history for history, and America is exactly where Germany was when Hitler really started coming into power. The Germans thought Hilter was a good man doing good things just like the sheep of America (you) think about Bush. Your just not smart enough to realize it.
No, it means that it will be licensed under the GNU public license version 2 or later. If you mingle in some version 3 or later code, then the whole thing is v3, unless you take it out again, at which point you can distribute under the terms of either one, again.
Dammit, Jim, I'm a doctor, not a lawyer!*
(*Actually, IANAD. This post does not constitute medical advice.)
The way to preempt patents is to publish your ideas as widely as you can, in the most widely read (at least, available) journals you can get into.
Then, those ideas become prior art and can't be swooped up by someone else -- or if they do attempt to patent them, the publications can be cited to invalidate the patent.
You want the most widely known publications because the patent examiner is more likely to find the ideas there; they aren't real good at finding obscure references.
How many times does it have to be said before it sinks in? The GPL does not restrict commerce, you can sell your work for any price the market will pay and if you are selling the first and only copy then you don't have any competition, so that particular copy will sell for a high price. Once there are lots of copies around you have to either innovate or drop your price or provide additional services (e.g. support, training, strategic consulting).
By the way... paying your rent is not (and has never been) a valid excuse for anti-social behaviour.
Where do you get "flavours" out of this concept?
The working code is 100% identical. All that's different is unused strings used for tracking the code. Nobody blinks an eye with
static const char rcsid[] = "$Id$";
and this is nothing more than a variant that tracks who the code was distributed to. Unless they have a clue and strip out the strings.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Number 2 is not possible for Internet distribution, because you cannot have a "written offer".
If you claim that an offer presented through a web page is not a "written offer", then you claim that every agreement to purchase a product or service over the Internet is invalid, as it is possible to display the "written offer" without printing it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Patents are very expensive to file, and if you want more than just a US patent you need to file in all the major countries (you are talking thousands of dollars in fees typically). If you use a lawyer to draft the patent (and you really need to) then your fees skyrocket.
By copyrighting your code explicitly you establish prior art should a similar patent ever get granted and a legal battle ensue.
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
use of a program (that is, merely executing the program) is not a power regulated by US copyright law.
Use of a program involves copying it into main memory, and courts have ruled that 1. only the owner of a copy of a computer program has any such rights under 17 USC 117, and 2. it's possible for the owner of a copy to waive section 117 in a contract and for the copyright owner to require such a waiver as a condition of obtaining or decrypting a copy.
In addition, even if a RAM copy isn't an infringing copy, doesn't operating a public Internet accessible service using a copyrighted program count as performing the program publicly? (A computer program is a "literary work" under U.S. copyright law.)
does anyone know if this will stop me from using GPL'ed components (like Mircosoft COM)?
That would be terrible because then they would put restrictions on the output of programs; and I'm no fan of restricting USAGE.
Actually, I'm no fan of GPL, but if GPL v3 puts such restrictions on software it is doomed in the enterprise.
In order for the GPL to apply to output, the output would have to be covered under copyright from someone else.
Would running a computer program be considered "performing" the program? If so, would transmitting the output constitute performing the program publicly?
Some Linux friendly companies, such as Novell and especially IBM, have patents on computer-implemented inventions that they could use to retaliate against Microsoft should the need arise.
I hope they fix this. It's just pitiful that they ignored it.
OH NOES!!! IT APPEARS YUO DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY FOR DIS HERE PIZZA! WAHT EVER ARE YOU GOING TO DO!?!?
Considering Messr's Moglen and Stallman will be certainly involved in any GPL3 litigation, I'd be fine with them writing GPL3 without a lick of input.
At it's worst, opening the authoring process would mean that Moglen and Stallman could be stuck with language that they're not happy with, yet are forced to support in court. Put another way, everything they've learned so far is going to infuse the language they use. To argue with every joe schmoe would mean they'd waste an inordinate amount of time writing a zillion 'well, back in 98 we had a case like X that would have made that problematic' responses. Man, I'd kill myself before opening up the editorial process that far.
That said, other replies say they're open to suggestions and discussion. That's just about where I want 'em to be.
A couple hours ago, I started to answer someone on the /. story about Linus being too cathedral-ish (they thought a committee would work better). Someone walked in and I had to close a few windows quickly, so let me just offer up my (deleted) remark from then:
If you don't like it, feel free to fork the process and start things up in your preferred fashion. All the tools are free for download, all the prior source is there, all the discussions. Just become an expert and you can offer an alternative GPL (or Kernel). Frankly, about halfway through, you'll probably agree that these guys are doing a smashing job and it'd be easier to help them than to reinvent the process yourself.
Forks happen. But they happen rarely because it's not trivial to gain a consensus of enough supporters to keep things alive and move forward.
People need energy to live and produce. To create, one must consume. The trick is living in balance. --In making as clear and uncluttered a conduit of power out of yourself as possible. The level of clarity is determined by your Intent.
The Bad Guys are the ones who have knots tied in their systems; they are more interested in one-way transactions of energy, or coming as close to achieving one-way transactions as they can manage. Accumulating power for themselves is more important than in feeding the overall system of which they are a part.
When people join with the ethic of feeding easily to those who need, (but only to those who share the same ethic, otherwise the system is bled), as well as taking from the system when they themselves are in need, then the whole grows out of proportion to the sum of its parts. I don't think it is possible to create energy from nothing, but I think that these types of systems appear to do so because they have a way of grooving themselves to more easily accept and polarize the ambient energy of the world around.
--For example. . . When several people are working on an exciting and worthy project, others who are not even associated with that group feel compelled to help out or offer resources. I see this happen all the time.
-FL
It does not work when Microsoft goes out filing incremental patents.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It does not help for incremental patents. Let's say I invented XML, so Microsoft says, "we invented using XML for a calendar", and everyone who wants to do it has to pay.
"... for the first time in a while."
Is that a metric while or an imperial while?
The last version was written in June of 1991, making this the first update in almost 15 years.
This is my sig, there are many like it, but this one is mine...
Also, use of a program (that is, merely executing the program) is not a power regulated by US copyright law
No, but in order to use the program, you have had to copy it. And in order to copy it, you have had to agree to its license. And licenses can impose all sorts of binding conditions on you. Therefore, a license on a copyrighted piece of software can regulate its use, although the GPL chooses not to.
I hope they'll get around to reconsider some parts of the LGPL too, especially the fact that its "lesser" aspect is worthless in embedded environments, or more specifically, systems where there are no dynamic linking facilities available. With the ever growing popularity of embedded systems, the LGPL is starting to show its age, as well as its inefficiency in resolving the problem it was designed to fix in the first place.
Right now, portable LGPL projects that target embedded environments are hurt by this. A good example is SDL. SDL can be used in a variety of systems, and its LGPL nature allows it to be used in commercial applications (ie. games), as long as the library is not statically linked. However, in embedded environments you simply cannot use SDL in commercial projects, since you can't dynamically link, hence you lose the "lesser" aspect of LGPL, meaning it becomes no more useful than the GPL. It's a recurring topic on the SDL mailing list, and unless the LGPL is revised there is not much solution to this issue.
"But the right of private modification is also an important right that needs to be sustained, he said." I know the LGPL allows private (proprietary) code to be linked with free (open) libraries. How does the GPL v2 support private modifications? If you pass it on to someone, you must pass on the source... ...wouldn't changing this damage the whole premise behind the GPL and Open-Source software?
You can dual-license GPLed code.
Proprietry: get a special proprietry license from firm or individual.
GPL: get a special proprietry license from firm(s) or individual(s) OR abide by the terms of the GPL.
GPLed code is in fact less onerous.
Wikileaks, no DNS
... is its own patent portfolio. Thus, large companies daren't sue.
Accordingly, the FSF, against their instincts, need to seek defensive patents on donated code, for the FSF has far more clout than any individual developer. Obviously, the FSF couldn't favour individual companies with cross-licenses, especially as it would deny them the ability to counterattack were a developer who hadn't donated his/her code sued, but MAD is very nearly as effective.
Wikileaks, no DNS
If it's like Windows, it'll shortly be updated to GPL v3.1, then to GPL95.
It'd be much more amusing if the next new name would be "eComGPL"
The problem is over just what does and doesn't constitute "derivative code".
The term "derivative work" comes from copyright law. The GPL is a copyright license. If your work infringes the authors' copyright(s), then your only legal resource is to comply with the GPL (which means you get the rights to distribute the copyrighted material), negotiate separate terms with the copyright holders, or arrange to no longer be violating anyone's copyrights. If your work isn't infringing anyone's copyrights, then you're fine; the GPL isn't an issue. It's just that simple.
If you don't like the vagueness of the term "derivative work", complain to Congress, not to the FSF. The FSF isn't in charge of that.
Firstly, the EULA is not made visible when, and where, you buy the software - that is, you really should be able to read it when it is time for money to change hands. It's one thing for you to say that an informed buyer can read the EULA on the web before buying, but it's another thing entirely to ignore that a large proportion of buyers are not that informed.
Secondly, if you buy the software from a retail store, you have a pretty poor chance of getting a decent return/refund policy. There aren't many stores near me that have a good return/refund policy for computer software, so even if you decide not to use it, you can't get your money back.
Thirdly, if you buy the software from an OEM, you often don't see the agreement at all - the distributor agrees to include the manufacturer's product - and yet, you are a party to that contract, since you are buying and using the software. In that scenario, at least, the user cannot be a party to the EULA, rendering the agreement worthless.
I know I haven't provided a solid legal basis for claiming that EULAs are dodgy at best, but I can't be bothered looking it up in more detail. The point is that if you don't have a chance to agree or disagree to a contract, on whatever grounds, that contract simply cannot legally oblige you in any way.
Attack its weak point for massive damage!
Second rule about GPL version 3.
Don't talk about GPL version 3.
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
Supposedly, the GPL applies to static linking and dynamic linking of GPL-covered libraries. One individual has said that proprietary software may be able to legally use GPL-covered libraries via dynamic linking. The idea is that proprietary software could be designed to use a GPL-covered library not included with the software; users would be told to install the library. The software would not contain any code from the library (header files could be redone with clean-room reverse-engineering) and thus would not be a "derivative work."
There is also a discussion about situations involving open-source license compliance. For instance, it mentions a situation where a software package uses a specific library (there are copylefted and non-copylefted versions of the same library.) If the software is not copylefted, can it be designed to look for and use the library when it is run, even if the library is copylefted? What if the copylefted version of the library is recommended over the non-copylefted version?
So what if I modify the Bison source so it prints out a full copy of itself (let's do it the easy way; file IO). Then I could get a copy of Bison with no liscensing restrictions that I could make proprietary modifications to. This sounds like a Bad Thing.
This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
Yes, because expecting just a moderate level of competence from a website that asks for money for subscriptions is too much to ask.
I get ten pieces of mail a day asking for money. I throw them away. A request for money is no statement of fitness. If Slashdot wants more money they'll improve the things potential customers want. If they don't they won't get those customers, and, eventually, somebody else will provide what they're willing to pay for and get the money. Ah, the Market.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Let's say you read the EULA and were OK with it. You then bought XP and installed it. Six months later MS changed the EULA. What now? Are you bound by the original or the new one.
That doesn't matter - there will be a hotfix before the change anyway, and that will have a new EULA. You're free to take that XP machine off the net if you don't want to install the security updates. Security updates are a way of ensuring your agreement to their license changes.
Oh, does that seem unreasonable to you? How about that the EULA once changed to allow Microsoft remote access to your computer (XPSP1). What if you are prevented from allowing this by law (e.g. HIPAA)?
Typically people just ignore the EULA. This needs to be tested in court so the ramifications of such an action are clear. It doesn't matter what your company lawyers tell you, other than to CYA, what matters is what a Federal Judge is going to say about it, and who knows what that will be.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Let's say I invented XML, so Microsoft says, "we invented using XML for a calendar", and everyone who wants to do it has to pay.
You just need to patent using Windows for Patent Law work. Sorry, all we have left to do at this point is to make fun of the patent system.
But to the matter at hand - it sounds like what you want is a license that says, "all patents enbodied in this work are freely licensed under the condition that all derivative patents are freely licensed" plus what the GPL says.
Maybe you can find a lawyer here or on Groklaw or someone affiliated with Larry Lessig to help.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Your parent meant "v2 only" as opposed to the "v2 or later" language that is more common.
We have just got a clarification from the FSF on LGPL and Java: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html Essentially, it means what it ought to mean: its only the library that is LPGL, not anything you build from it. Inheritance of class or interface is also allowed.