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.
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.
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.
Don't forget: "Get rid of the people who use every possible chance to bitch about slashdot and keep coming back."
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
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: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: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
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.
Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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.
Don't forget: "Get rid of the people who use every possible chance to bitch about slashdot and keep coming back."
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
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.
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
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
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