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Exstatica writes "Finally, an update to that slightly outdated GPL (General Public License).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.
There's no rule that you have to use GPL software. If you don't want to use someone elses work, you are free to write it all yourself. Note that most ways of linking applications together do not trigger GPL clauses.
[...]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
Then you don't want to produce Open Source software, you want to produce freeware or non-commercial software. The GPL (and OSS) is not for you, look at some other license.
I was going to try to address the rest of your comment but I can't even figure out what it says. By the way, it's "patent". Note the number of t's.
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.
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
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
That is totally untrue. You are free to charge whatever you like for distribution of the binaries of GPL-licensed code.
It is software companies' business to sell software. It is how they make money. To force them all to switch to providing only support and customization would create expenses
Most software is not created by software companies selling their software in boxes on the shelves of your local computer shop. Most software is developed in-house or as bespoke software for individual customers. Licensing such code under the GPL doesn't diminish the potential for revenue for the code developer.
"access to a vast reservoir of free code", most of which is crap anyway.
There is a lot of crap free code. There is a lot of crap non-free code. And there are also many examples of truly excellent free and non-free code. Many of the dead projects on Sourceforge are hobby projects which people are using to learn. There existence in no way harms the truly great free software such as Apache (not GPL), the Linux kernel, gcc, Mozilla, Octave, etc.
Most people simply want their code to stay free and accessible, for which the LGPL is a much better choice.
BSD licenses or the public domain are better choices for people who just want their code to be available. However, the large number of projects licensed under the GPL would tend to suggest that you are wrong about what most people want.
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
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.
"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.