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Exstatica writes "Finally, an update to that slightly outdated GPL (General Public License).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.
Linus, in a recent interview, says:
What else is there to say?
Join Tor today!
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...
Thank you much for your vision and steadfastness in sticking to it.
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
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.
GPL intentionally drives a wedge between the open and closed source communities. However it doesn't have to be that way. If your main purpose is to encourage open source, including making the source to any modifications available, then EPL already provides that. Unlike GPL, it does not put restrictions on the other code and licences with which it can be used.
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).
Making it difficult to connect applications together because one is not under the GPL and doesn't want to be.
The GPL doesn't make this difficult, it is the ambiguous definition of derived software works under copyright law. Until some court lays down some strict rules, this is a problem for everyone integrating different pieces of software.
Admittedly, RMS/FSF hasn't helped the situation by postulating a bunch of made-up informal rules based on "linking" when the legal reality is probably much more subtle (for example, the Linux Nvidia driver).
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
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?
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
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.
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.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
This is not bad grammar. There is nothing wrong with the syntax, other than the use of an adverb ("then") where "than" (a preposition or conjunction depending on how you look at it) should have been. This, of course, is just a spelling mistake.
..." could apply.
Semantically, it doesn't make sense, because the GPL as a license itself does not use other licenses. However, by logical elimination, you *do* understand that the alternative (introduced by "rather than") applies to the noun phrase "users" and not "the new GPL". There is no other noun to which the verb phrase (in the present progressive) "using other licenses such as
"He ain't there" is not grammatically incorrect. The syntax of this sentence breaks down using the following phrase structure rules, all of which are valid in English:
S -> [NP] + [VP]
NP -> [Pronoun]
VP -> [V] + [AdvP]
AdvP -> [Adv]
Perhaps you have an issue with the non-standard lexicon, which allows "ain't" as special case in the general contraction rules, but the lexicon is not the grammar. New words are formed far more often than new phrase structures are. They even occupy different areas of the brain (Wernicke(lexicon) and Broca(grammar)). Please note that this phonological phenomenon of removing the final consonant and changing the vowel preceding it ("ain't" started as a contraction for "am not") is not unique -- it happens in "will not" -> "won't" as well. In fact, using a 'standard' contraction rule would give you "amn't" which is against English phonological grammar.
You understood perfectly what the person was saying. You're just being an elitist snob. Next time know what "language" means, instead of being a sociolinguistic politicking arsewipe.
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
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.
Per the GPL FAQ:
Additionally, you can create a derivative license, per the GPL FAQ:
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
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.
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?
The GPL does not need usage rights because they exist anyway and there's a "no additional restrictions" clause. Of course it's possible that a really messed up country would say you're not allowed to read source code you own, but in that case I don't think a license would be enough to help them.
I am trolling
"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.