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.
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: 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.
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.
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
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.
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
-- "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
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?
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).
-- rage, rage against the dying of the light
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.
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.
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.
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: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:New Terms
by
cpeikert
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Since RMS's office is now in the Gates building...
Actually, it's not -- it's between the Gates and Dreyfoos Towers, but "officially" on the Dreyfoos side. See?
Re:Draft Copy?
by
maxume
·
· Score: 2, Informative
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: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
> 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.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to be mean, but RTFA:
The changes planned for the next release, Version 3, a draft of which is due next year,...
-dave
http://millionnumbers.com/ - own the number of your dreams
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.
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.
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.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
According to this slide the Affero GPL is a prototype.
get 7 free Japanese lessons.
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.
I have this bad habbit of bringing facts to the irrational discussions on Slashdot.
they [b]must[/b] be publicly visible
Have you ever looked? Here let me help
Windows XP Home here
Windows 98 Downloads here
A whole bunch more
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
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?
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).
rage, rage against the dying of the light
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
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.
It's a gnu (aka wildebeest).
Alan Cox is definitely not one of them.
Linux Torvalds, however, distributes the Linux kernel under that license.
See This post (and thread) on the linux-kernel list.
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?
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:
Since RMS's office is now in the Gates building...
Actually, it's not -- it's between the Gates and Dreyfoos Towers, but "officially" on the Dreyfoos side. See?
Are you sure?
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
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.
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
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
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):
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:
As another poster pointed out, Alan Cox is not one of the developers who avoids "any later version", but Linus is.
rage, rage against the dying of the light