In my submission of this story, I did point out when the new draft was due.
;p to you, Taco;)
-- /. is a bunch of nerds at a million typewriters. It's not a political conspiracy determined to undermine your beliefs.
Re:Draft Copy?
by
Mr.+Slippery
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
but the GPL really only covers the issue of _copying_, not mere use.
Yes, but in the bizzare world of copyright, there are those who allege that loading a program into memory constitutes making a copy.
I'm waiting for them to claim that looking at an image or piece of text creates a copy on my retina or in the neurons of my occipital lobe.
-- Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog You cannot wash away blood with blood
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?
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.
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).
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.
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*
GPL Server Hole
by
SashaM
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Hopefully they will plug the server hole. As it stands right now, the GPL makes no sense for server-side applications.
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.
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?
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: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).
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.
"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?
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!
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?
Comment removed
by
account_deleted
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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
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?
Will this version become comptiable with licenses with patent clauses, like the apache, IBM and CPL licenses?
I am trolling
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 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*
Hopefully they will plug the server hole. As it stands right now, the GPL makes no sense for server-side applications.
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.
That's why we have the LGPL.
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.
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?
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..."
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).
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
If you read the second page of TFA:
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?
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!
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?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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