Slashdot Mirror
Revising the GPL
Exstatica writes "Finally, an update to that slightly outdated GPL (General Public License). This story discusses a few changes that the new GPL will include. Will the new GPL draw users to it, rather then using other licenses such as Apache's License or the Netscape Public License?"
Thank you much for your vision and steadfastness in sticking to it.
As an exercise for the story submitter, figure out the difference between the two.
I really don't get how people mix them up. Granted, there are a number of things that people in general confuse, but "then" and "than" aren't even pronounced the same (well, at least they shouldn't be).
In any event, it just takes away from any credibility you may have had.
Using the GPL in many cases makes things a lot more difficult for the programmer. Making it difficult to connect applications together because one is not under the GPL and doesn't want to be. And to say if you release an Open Source Program with your patten on it then you paten is free for anyone to use. These really make it tough on the developer. I would like to be able to use pattened by me technology in my Open Source Program but I don't want just everyone to use it, I don't mind if everyone sees it or alters it a bit but I don't want it to become part of MS Office without me getting some Bucks for it. I would like to see clause like Patented Software in the GPL is implied open to anyone who is making their products GPL or the Code is implied to have use in that codebase, including forks or something else. Getting an Idea Pattened takes money. So the person should have the right to allow usage of the pattent to some extent.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
An area of investigation is getting GPL software to run on devices such as TiVo's digital video recorders, which use a specific version of Linux but won't run modified versions. But prohibitions on modifications violates the spirit of the GPL. "This is not what free software is supposed to be," Stallman said.
What the hell is wrong with that. I make some hardware, I put linux on it. I say here's my code, feel free to read it, to tell me what you think might need updating, and feel free to make your own, but my hardware will only run my version of the sofware. Thats freedom to me. If you keep putting stupid restrictions like this on the GPL eventually it will be too much work to release your code as gpl. It will be, will some random guy's hack work on my hardware device, did I comply with subset by law 005 that says on mondays of every 3rd month the software should auto display a list of all devs who worked on the code and automatically download the source.
To me, this is loosing sight of what freedom is about. Yes you must protect the rights of the people who worked on the code so some company can't snatch it up and not give back, but when you start talking about imposing restrictions on hardware your taking it too far. As long as the company gives you an easy way to get their source they are giving back to the community any changes they made, that should be good enough.
In my opinion, most GPL problems are caused by an inadequate definition of the term "derivative work". When the GPL was first written, most applications were entirely monolithic and had few dependencies on other code. These days nearly all large projects are full of components, loaded or linked to in a variety of ways, and the present wording of the GPL prohibits any contact of such nature between GPL and proprietary parts.
The LGPL does allow linking, and I see it as a much fairer license because it lets your code stay open, but does not prevent other people from licensing their own code differently. I think that the OSS community will get considerable benefit by allowing proprietary software to mingle with the free, as it allows the former to gradually convert to the latter rather than in one painful jump as the GPL requires. This way a company can still make money from its software for a while and then release the code when the work is paid for.
And that's why Linus isn't the guy who's writing the new GPL.
He may be an excellent programmer, a visionary, or whatever else, but by his own words he is not a lawyer and not necessarily qualified to critique the GPL. I don't have anything whatsoever against Linus, and actually think he's a pretty spiffy guy, but this has nothing to do with him or his opinions.
Would you look to him for nutritional advice, or suggestions on buying a car? If not, then why would you put a lot of weight behind his legal opinion, considering that he's said time and again that he has basically zero interest in such things?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Lots and lots and lots of other licenses (including the oldest of all - releasing something as public domain) - let you show people source.
The benefit of the GPL is that you can't put one little critical component in your proprietary license and get rich of of all the GPL developers whose work you are stealing.
The Reciprocal Public License doesn't let the bureaucrats get away with that.
I don't know why Stallman is such a sucker for huge bureaucracies. Maybe he is a red.
Seastead this.
Linus may be good at programming, but he's NOT a lawyer.
People who consider themselves "laid-back" or "friendly", or who criticize the FSF for its pedantry and wordy license have probably never been in a courtroom.
Lawyers can make *RMS* seem laid-back and friendly. In court you could spend MONTHS discussing what "make the code available to others" and "make sure improvements stay that way" means! (In fact, his second clause "make sure improvements stay that way" doesn't mean anything.. make sure improvements remain improvements? What?)
Linus should stick to the politics of the kernel, he seems to be good at that.
However the SCO situation should be all the proof you need that he doesn't know what he's doing in the legal department.
The FSF writes wordy licenses for a reason. Actually two reasons. The first is so that YOU can understand it (that's why it has the "fluff" at the beginning). And second is to minimize ambiguity in the courtroom.
The FSF also centralizes copyrights with time-consuming paperwork, for a reason. People used to ridicule this, I *hope* they shut their mouths now. Thankfully SCO has lost it's teeth.. can you imagine if they decided to subpoena ALL LINUX COPYRIGHT HOLDERS?
So, thanks FSF for actually PAYING ATTENTION to the details like jurisdiction or defining "derivative work" because the lawyers will tear that apart.
And thanks Linus for being laid back and sticking to what you know.
If there's anything I dislike more than Microsoft it's monoculture. Why do so many members of the GPL camp attempt to position the GPL as the monoculture of open source? I belive in open source first of all, and free software as well, within limits.
Instead of asking whether the new GPL will become the next Super Mrs Pacman, why don't we instead ask whether these changes to the GPL makes the GPL better suited to the projects it serves?
In my view, the GPL serves best for platform initiatives, such as Linux. I prefer the BSD license for protocols and standards, such as the TCP/IP stack, which have no purpose unless everyone adopts a compatible implementation, on both sides of the fence.
> So the way to tell if your project is a derivative
> work or not is to determine whether or not,
> without having received permission to distribute
> the code at all, distributing your modified
> version of the work would constitute copyright infringement.
This is not very helpful either. To give you a concrete example: suppose I take a GPLd spellcheck software, make modifications to it and embed it into my proprietary word processor. Recognizing that the spellcheck code was not originally written by me and that my modifications form only a small portion of the code, I would release the spellcheck module modifications under the GPL as required. But consider the word processor, which is still proprietary. Under the terms of the GPL, the word processor will now be considered a derivative work, even though it only links to the spellcheck module and contains only my own code. (This is indeed the intent of the FSF, as they explicitly state it in their rationale for using GPL for some libraries)
The copyright law does not provide for such a circumstance since it only applies to modifications made to the original work. It is because of situations like this that GPL is called "viral". I would call this theft, since it forces me to adopt GPL for my own code. The usual counterargument of "then don't use GPL code" is fine with me, and therefore I don't use any, but I think the GPL fanatics hurt themselves more than anyone else by this. If they were truly interested in having their code used, they would have licensed it under LGPL.
The BSD places restrictions and requirements too - you have to keep the original author's name in the source code. If you're going to say "no restrictions and requirements" then you can only really use stuff for which the source code is in the public domain. If copyrights hadn't been extended this might not be that much of a problem, but as things stand you're going to have to accept some restrictions to be able to get anything done. A license which gives you the four freedoms is good enough for me.
I am trolling
"The next version likely will have a mechanism for dealing with GPL software that has been modified and that runs on publicly accessible computers. Today, a programmer who wanted his or her GPL software to run in this public fashion could insert a programming command that would let the public download a version of the software if it's been modified. However, with the current GPL, the organization running the software could simply remove that section of the code. Stallman is considering a provision that would prohibit its removal. "If the program has such a command already, and you modify the program, you must keep that working," he said."
This strikes me as strongly inconsistent with the principles of Free Software. Why should I be forced to include functionality that I don't want in my derivative? What if it is technically not feasible to retain this functionality? What if I think that section of code is poorly written and I don't want it in there? Imagine there is a self-contained subroutine in such a program, say, a compression algorithm. I want to use that code in my own GPL product, which is, say, a desktop application. Since that program is covered by the new GPL with this crazy clause, I have to somehow include those other lines of code in my program, which does not have any webserver functionality to begin with? That is absurd.
This is such a specific clause as to be ad-hoc and inelegant. If it were to be included it should be justified by a more general principle of Free Software. What comes to mind is something like the invariant clause of the GNU Free Documentation License. The author can indicate for any portion of the documentation that it must be included verbatim (and perhaps in the same relative position or something) in any derivative. As the recent controversy in Debian demonstrated, many people find this to be incompatible with the GPL on its own terms. In fact I believe that Debian resolved (for the version following Sarge) that all documentation under GFDL must be removed from Debian because it doesn't meet the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
This is a terribly non-constructive distraction that has Debian battling the FSF. Apparently Debian leaders could not reach a consensus with FSF over the documentation license. But they (Debian) have IMO persuasive arguments that the invariant clause is truly incompatible with other (and more important) Free Software principles.
I sure hope they don't include something like this in GPL 3.
Otherwise it can be used to write a piece of GPLed software whose main purpose is to infringe patents of some company and then get a free license from them because they are using another, unrelated piece of GPLed software - that they wrote themselves!
Also, consider a corporate merger. Company B might have used a piece of GPLed software that infringes on patents of company A and it would take some time to discover and replace it if the combined company doesn't intend to make the patent public.
Oh, I would very much like software patents to go away. But at this point, companies would rather avoid using - and contributing to - GPLed software completely than risk loss of their patents in an unpredictable fashion.
I'd have to refer you to LGPL section 6:
Bold emphasis is mine. There's nothing wrong with linking to the facilities given to you by the OS or complier, if they are part of the standard distribution of the OS/runtime environment.
You are just not reading all the details of a legal document. That's always a mistake. Always read the fine print on those.... *grin*.
Kirby
I realize that success has many parents and failure dies an orphan, and the GPL is clearly successful in spreading software freedom (it is also the most widely used free software license), but these differences are real and should not be ignored because they conflict with one's mistaken view that what we're seeing today started with the open source movement (and therefore should be framed exclusively in light of that movement's values, ignoring any discussion of software freedom).
The FSF has asked that their work not be lumped in with the work of the open source movement because the two movements (free software and open source) are different and have different ramifications. There is good reason why, despite the GPL being frequently misattributed as an "open source" license, you won't find the phrase "open source" anywhere in the GPL.
Misstating this difference gives the impression that the Open Source Initiative (OSI) or the open source movement as a whole had something to do with writing the GPL (any version). The GPL predates the open source movement and all the OSI did was write their rules for license acceptance such that they could place the GPL on a list of approved licenses. Writing the seminal license of the free software community is a far more significant act than placing a license on a list of licenses.
Digital Citizen
The GPL is not and never was about having code used, or even about providing technically good code. It is about pushing an agenda. That agenda is that all software must be `free' (for a given value of free, defined by RMS). If you agree with that agenda, then the license is fine. If not, then take a look at some of the other Open Source projects (e.g. *BSD, PostgreSQL, Apache, X) that use licenses that are about encouraging people to use their code.
Personally, I do agree broadly with the FSF's agenda, but I still dislike the GPL. I believe that a better way of demonstrating that the Open Source methodology is superior is to simply write better code. I have no problems with people taking my code and rolling it into commercial products, because I believe[1] that people will eventually choose a more free (as in freedom) solution over a less free one. When I have the choice, I will almost always pick a BSD or ASF licensed piece of software over a GPL'd one. It is possible to put together a very competent server platform with hardly any GPL'd code (gcc is still better than any BSD-licensed compilers I've encountered).
[1] well, hope. I try to maintain some faith in humanity, although it's sometimes difficult.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Bullshit. I can still use any of that code in any project I want. The code is free. The code written by Microsoft is not free, but it's not the same code that was released under the BSD license. It's their code, and they can do what they want with it.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
You don't purchase it. You get a majority vote on the board.
How do you do that? Some organizations are member based, and the members choose the board. Other boards are run more like exclusive clubs, and you are invited to join by the board.
In any case, the board is the ultimate authority. If the board of the FSF decided some future version of GPL should encourage software patents, then they can make this happen. What they can't do under the tax code is run the organization for their (or anyone else's) personal benefit. However within that they have pretty wide leeway to decide what policies will further the ends to which the organization was formed.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The copyright law does not provide for such a circumstance since it only applies to modifications made to the original work.
Let's say these are pages in a tech manual. You write some additional pages, and publish a manual 2.0 which contain the same original unmodified pages. Will a permission to print the original manual be sufficent under copyright law? No. It is a derivate work, even if the original work is unmodified. Absorbing it into a greater work *is* a modification.
As for the rest, the GPL is an offer. If you provide your code under the GPL, you can use ours. Your wording of it makes me want to reach for the "-1, Flamebait" or "-1, Troll" button. It is not designed for maximum use. If it were, it'd be BSD licenced or public domain (which is even freer than the LGPL).
It asks for something in return. To use business terms, let's call it a cross-licensing agreement, if it makes you feel better. Is that theft too? Do you have some natural right to use someone else's source code? Hint: Ask Microsoft if you can have a copy of theirs. You have misunderstood the goal of the GPL. The GPL "fanatics" are not hurting themselves, because the goal is not to maximize use but to promote the freedoms of the GPL.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
1) I start to get worried when an implementation of a nice clean idea (such as Free Software) starts getting bogged down in special cases and exceptions. The philosopher in me wants to distill it down to first principles. The programmer in me wants to refactor and see how things can be more cleanly generalized. Special cases are often bad, and reflect a fundamental flaw in the general coverage of an idea (for example, whether you agree with its intention or not, the Assault Weapons Ban was a pretty Bad law, due to the fact that it almost entirely was based on special cases and exceptions with no general definition of what constitutes an "assault weapon.")
The GPL's need to make an exception for linking with OS libraries, for instance, therefore bothers my sensibilities. And Stallman's thoughts of adding clauses to the GPL so you are forbidden from removing certain kinds of features ("remote download of modified versions" or whatnot) knocks my sensibilities completely over, as do thoughts of restrictions on where the GPL software can be used (can't use them on hardware that only runs a specific version!).
2) "I'm trying to stop people from creating new licenses," Fink said. "To the extent we can create a license that has a broader buy-in, that stops proliferation of more licenses, that to me is goodness."
Uhm, what? No! Variety is the spice of life, and it's up to the creator of the copyright to decide which license they want to put on their work. You cannot "stop" them from creating, or using, new licenses, and you should not want to or try to, either! That to me is badness. What's the point of license homogeneity?
The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
The fact that it gets out of hand sometimes (think tax codes), I can accept, but I don't think that's the case with the GPL.
Actually, on this one he's probably in a leakier boat than most of us. He's specifically stated that he's not interested...and if we've followed this thread this deep, we are.
OTOH, there are all these other's around him who have opinions that he knows, and is in a position to make character judgements about. So he can choose which license based on a consensus of peole he trusts. (This is how he does a lot of his management of the kernel software, so he's skilled at this!) And he can attend when those he trusts *in this area* tell him that this is a good choice. Or he can ignore it if he chooses. The GPL is a pretty good license just as it stands, and perhaps the kernel doesn't need to go on to version 3.
I wouldn't choose Linus for legal advice, but I would expect that he would get LOTS of legal advice. From people he trusts.
Actually, on this point I'd trust RMS to delineate the important issues to be addressed, and Lessig to address them. But this doesn't mean that I will necessarily believe that their choices will be what is best for me. I might decide to stay with GPL version 2. (I certainly won't decide until after I've looked over version 3, and I've heard many different people opining about what it means. I consider myself more able to decide about people's honesty over the net than able to decide about whether some particular legal agreement has unpleasant gotcha's hidden in it.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
As long as software patents are not a fact (in Europe at least), we should try to use the 'software-patent' terminology as cautiously as possible. The current US-Japan(-big business EU) oligopoly is not only trying to buy their way into EU law, making use of various legal and procedural tricks, but they're also trying to change the language and make the term 'software patents' sound natural. Resist!
(and explain all oligopoly related trickery to anyone who'll understand..)
"they" don't trust you. Hence they want your box sealed (hence closed) so that you cannot fiddle and use works on your box authorised for another box. Hence RMS labelling it treachorous rather than trusted.
Trusted would be where you could verify that the application you use is signed by whom you expected and trust it I suppose.
This form of trusted should be able to exist with the freedoms protected by free software. The former probably cannot.