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Exstatica writes "Finally, an update to that slightly outdated GPL (General Public License).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!
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
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.
You're actually totally confused about who the GPL is trying to protect and what the freedom is about. It's about the freedom for the end user (say, me) to have and modify the source for for the software I use. I don't know if Tivo actively attempts to prevent modified versions of Linux from being run on it's hardware but if so I agree that it's a violation of the spirit of the GPL. The reason I'm getting the source is because, as a user of the product, I want the freedom to modify it. The GPL is only incidently about protecting the programmer, the primary beneficiary is the end user.
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
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).
> 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.
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.
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?