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Exstatica writes "Finally, an update to that slightly outdated GPL (General Public License).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?"
The recently released Apache Software License (ASL) 2.0 already includes a patent clause. To the best of my understanding the ASL does not have anything in it against patents per se, but ASL's patent clause is only triggered when actual patent litigation occurs. This, as well as an interpretation of the current GPL patent stance is explained in great detail here.
AFAIK most GPL licensed software is governed by the current GPL license "or later". What is stopping anyone from writing their own GPL 3.0 license?? Does RMS have some sort of monopoly over the license or is it a community thing??? John.
The old GPL has several gray areas, hopefully the new GPL has more provisions. Updates that improve the quality are always a good thing. Add another kilo of force for the bullet train that is Open Source...
1) The FSF can create different versions in the future, and everything under the old licenses is effectively retroactively dual-licensed. The FSF consists of little more than Richard Stallman. What happens when Stallman gets hit by a bus? Who controls the FSF (and through it GPL) then? How many millions would even partial control of the GPL be worth these days? Maybe loosen those "troublesome restrictions"?
2) The LGPL is all based on object "linking". What the hell is the legal definition of "linking"? The idea of linking will become increasingly irrelevant in the future; it's like a 1980's OS-specific license.
3) What happens to the legal status of GPL'ed projects when some company manages to retroactively claim a patent on some double click feature? At that point, does it not become illegal to distribute the software under the terms of the GPL? Won't that invalidate the whole license for that software package?
Considering the billions and man-centuries now tied up in GPL'ed software, this all scares me.
Braddock Gaskill
That's why Version 2 says you can distribute under any later version of the GPL.
That was a good article, but as always the "viral" thing is nonsense. I can understand them bringing it up, but why do they always say "raising the specter that the inadvertent or surreptitious inclusion of GPL code in a proprietary product would require the release of all source code under the GPL" without adding the obvious "OR stop using and distributing the GPL code"? Oh well. Maybe clarifying this aspect is also something that Version 3 can do.
It sounds like clarification is mostly what the GPL needs. It's not so hard to understand now, as long as you aren't afraid of it, but certainly things like what "derivative works" means could be made more clear.
The patent issue surely could use more clarity. I'm not sure I like the idea of a mutual-defense patent clause. That might be scary for a corporation simply because there is so much free software that they are using. If they had a patent issue with GIMP to pick a random example, would they have to stop using Linux? Probably shouldn't deploy Linux then...
Certainly making it explicit that releasing code under the GPL that may be protected by one of your patents is also a grant to use the patent is a good, necessary change. Software patents are bad enough (may they die, and soon); we definitely don't want people to be able to directly sabotage free software by putting their own patented ideas into it and then attacking.
Anyway, life goes on, the GPL continues, and the inevitable victory of freedom (in software) gets another day closer.
The enemies of Democracy are
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.
Any ideas what this is talking about? At first glance it kind of bothers me because it sounds like the FDL invariant sections, and possibly worse, since "...you must keep that working." Meaning now you have a legal obligation to supply some correctly working functionality in the code. I always thought a big part of open-source licenses was "no warranty" to avoid these sorts of things. Not to mention the freedom to do modify the code as you like, including removing parts.
I could be totally misunderstanding this though. Any insights appreciated.
Let's say I have patent A. GPL'd program B uses the method described in patent A. Now a third party C downloads the software B. What do they have patent rights for?
a) Program B as-is. If you modify it, you lost the license. Obviously unwanted.
b) Any and all programs. In this case, Microsoft can now use patent A in MS Office (but not the code). Obviously unwanted.
c) B with derivates of some sort. What is desired, but is probably the legally most difficult to describe.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I would love to see that happen. Aren't there other licenses beside the GPL that are considered "free software" licenses? I think that clause should mention them all, one by one, specifically.
Let us run this patenting the obvious nonsense into the ground now before it bites our legs off!
Suppose I use a layered gimp file to create a png-file, for a GPL'ed program. Does the license require me to distribute the layered gimp file along with my binaries? What is a "preferred form of the work for making modifications to it"? Perhaps the answer to this question will be clarified in the upcoming version of the license. (See prior discussion on linux.debian.legal).
Who is entitled to change the wording of the GPL.
Is the FSF democractic in the sense that the GPL license could be hijacked, by enough people joinin the FSF?
Could RMS in principle change the license to state that all the software belongs to him?
Who would be entitled to make new versions of the GPL if the leaders of the FSF died tomorrow?
Where should I look to learn more about this?
Here's what I'd love to see in GPL v3:
1) By accepting the GPL, you agree to irrevocably forfeit any patent that the software might possibly infringe on.
2) There is to be One GPL to cover all software written under the GPL. In other words, ``acceptance of this license is considered acceptance of this license for each and every work licensed under the GPL''. Same goes for violating it--if you violate the GPL, you've just violated the GPL for each and every work licensed under it.
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
Its a great concept, but what is really happening is the restrictions on how you can use GPL'ed software are growing. Eventually, this license is going to have so many restrictions that it will be impossible to release your software under the GPL.
I like what the GPL does for the community. I've watched it help projects grow and prosper. But with statements like the one made above by Stallman, I see wall building between buisness and GPL'ed software. As you've said the GPL isn't about programers, but shouldnt it be about programmers? I mean if you alienate the programers, you wont have software.
This is bad for software development, and will drive people to other free licenses. These maybe the ones that allow companys to keep their changes hidden. Not only that but by making the restricitons harder you drive off the guys with the money, the buisness. What I hear from Stallman is a vison of a world where we all work for mcdonalds and code after work hours. That buisness model just will not work. At least not for me.
I want to be able to leverage my peers work. I want people to be able to leverage my work. I also want to give and receive reconition for my work and others work. I just see future versions of the GPL making it too much work to use other's work, or to release my own under the GPL.
I want to write software and not have a read my code and test my hardware before release. I also want to write code and make a living off it. Not make a living off something I dont enjoy and write code.
As much as you have been criticized for being an extremist in these matters,
I'd like to add my 2 cents:
To the extent that you have been, thank you for being an extremist in these matters. We have visionary extremists on the other side of the argument (eg: Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison), so we need somebody who can articulate the extremist communist view. Many institutions in the world function best in a communist or socialist structure; for example, US military defense, which is funded according to ones ability and provided equally to all citizens(*). Given that information has a zero cost of reproduction, we have to at least have someone hypothesizing: "Communism may be more efficient in this case."
* and occasionally provided to other countries, both willing and unwilling, haha. (it's a joke. laugh.)
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
I still won't be able to consider the GPL truly free, as it places restrictions and requirements, which is not free. The only truly free license is BSD.
"Free License" is an oxymoron. There is NO SUCH THING as a "truly free license" in all respects--by definition a license explicitly grants what rights you have or do not have.
The important aspect of "free" depends on how you define "free" and what "free" most importantly applies to. I'd plot the openness of software on a 2-axis grid. The X-axis represents the freedom of the developer, the Y axis the freedom of the code itself.
Each axis has a magnitude of freedom associated with it. At the bottom of the scale there is closed and "gratis free"...there may or may not be a monetary cost for the software, but rights are limited. Then there is "libre" free at the high end of the scale where rights are unfettered.
I contend that if you plot a point for BSD and GPL licenses on such a grid you'd find that NEITHER is completely free. GPL would be towards the top-left corner of the grid--it confers maximum freedom to the code whilst placing restrictions on the developer to protect the freedom of the *code*. Stallman, Raymond and Torvalds prefer the GPL because it encourages the free flow of information.
The BSD would be at the lower right on that grid. BSD gives complete freedom to the *developer*, but I wouldn't consider it FULLY free because it allows the coder to take derivative works and place them under different licensing (closed OR open). The "rights of the code" are granted and revoked at the whim of the developer who creates or "steals" the code. Microsoft took all freedom away from BSD-licensed code when it incorporated it into Windows NT/2K/XP/2K3. Branches of the Ingres and Postgres databases led to CA Ingres and Illustra/Informix Online Dynamic Server and in the process the code lost all its freedom.
So what is important to you is "developer freedom"--perhaps because you profit from a "commercial" derivative of open software you developed or modified, or some other reason. In that case, even BSD isn't "truly free" as you still have to put the proper attribution in your code--you'd be better to release without a license at all to the public domain.
Personally, if I am going to let everybody see and use code I worked hard to create and generously shared with others I want to make sure people don't take excessive advantage of my generosity, so I think restricting developer's freedoms in certain respects is a fair tradeoff for being able to see, modify and re-distribute my code for no monetary cost.
Beyond the political/philosophical points above, I also thing there are proactical reasons behind some people using the GPL over BSD (why the pragmatic Torvalds released the Linux kernel under GPL). I think the GPL encourages "vertical development" of open applications--that is, it discourages code forks, because those derivative works must also share code and the two variants can still "cross pollinate". Of course, one could argue that it limits the full potential of an app because you cant sell it for thousands when the recipients can copy it for free. Linux has still been quite successful though.
BSD seems to ENCOURAGE forking...in GPL, projects may "cross pollinate" but the projects keep building on their foundations, where BSD apps may fork into many instances, where in some cases the code is never shared again. Looking at Linux--it is GPL and while there are many distributions there is one foundation. With BSD there are several flavours on independent development tracks.
Given that, I think my open license of choice will be one with GPL-like restrictions to encourage CODE freedom.
You don't have to use a GPL'd spell checker in your word processor. Write your own friggin' spell checker! What's so viral about that?