Slashdot Mirror
Moglen's Plans to Upgrade the GPL
Nick Irelan writes "Although it most certainly won't be easy, Eben Moglen is attempting to upgrade the GPL. He sees an opportunity to create a version of the GPL that will be able to adequately suit the needs of modern programmers. If they are implemented, his ideas will be the first major change the GPL has experienced since Richard Stallman wrote the original version. Eweek has an amazing article about Moglen's work. Linus Torvalds discussed what he believes should happen to the GPL with Eweek as well."
I agree that the GPL has some issues that should be cleared up..., but with such a major revision, I'm worried that it will just add another 'compeletly separate' license. Some projects might still want to have the old GPL license, while other projects might want to be released under the 'version 3' license. I think it will add more confusion to all the licenses that already exist.
I store my recipes online (the way nature intended)
This is not a day too early, and a bit modified GPL version might be enough to make it possible to implement and develop open source software in my Swedish (but with 80% of the operation in other European countries) mastodont government organisation. The other branches of the corporation have already a pro-GPL and OS attitude, but the anti-OS, pro-MS main coproration has this far been against it because of GPL's actual (but mostly perceived) restrictions.
Nice with some good news at the end of a work day. =)
You gotta love contradictions. The first article states that the current version of the GPL is "2.2", which was "released August 2004"; the interview with Linus states that the GPL is supposed to undergo its "first revision in 13 years".
Obviously, both statement's can't be true at the same time. What's correct now? (And considering that the articles are from the same publication, doesn't anyone actually *check* what's written for factual accuracy before it goes live?)
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The issue of Web services has to be considered, he said. Some in the community are calling for a strong copyleft license with code that is used and changed to be returned to all. Others want the opposite.
"I do not believe that we will be reach consensus on this front, so I believe the license will have to accommodate options as to the question of Web services, but this must be squared with the ideological pursuit of freedom," he said.
I thought that this was interesting. So if a change like this were made it would make the GPL similar to the initial versions of Apple's Public Source License. In the first versions of that license you were required to submit any source code changes you made even if you didn't redistribute the software and only used it internally. My understanding is that if you're a Web Services company and you use modified GPL software, you don't need to contribute back the modifications you've made as long as you don't redistribute your modified software to anyone.
I doubt that the GPL will ever adopt this requirement, but it's interesting that some in the community want this.
--
Join the Pyramid - Free Mini Mac | Free Flat Screens
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
"1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program."
found here. So you really do have to advertise the fact your software uses GPL code.
Though I hardly think this is bad for companies as _they_ knew this upfront. If you want to dip into the community well, you better be prepared to put more back in. If that is to onerous then you have zero right to use it.
Thanks for the info.
How could monetary damages be computed? For illegal use of a commercial product, the damages could be some multiple of the license fees that should have been paid, but GPL'ed software has no monetary cost.
"I understand the legal arguments, that as the library is linked in to the resulting binary it is *technically* a derivative work, I just don't happen to agree with them."
And I don't happen to agree that the simple act of using a program is making a copy and should be controlled by copyright, but that's what has been decided.
Hey you, you are copying my work from your hard drive to ram. That is illegal, only I have rights to make copies of my work.
Never mind that I sold it to you to be used and you boght it to use it. As a matter of fact, you have already made one illegal copy by moving it from the CD I sold it to you on to your hard drive. Now you want to make another illegal copy everytime you want to use it! Tell you what, I will license those copies if you agree to this whacked EULA. Never mind your first sale rights. You can sell the CD if you want. Better get rid of those illegal copies though or I am comming for you.
A Nony Mouse
Too many people making software, and either not putting _any_ license on it, or they just pick one semi-randomly.
The key would be to make it understandable by non-laywer type people. Then it would start being used more. Also, when it comes out, there should be compairisons, not only to the previous version, but to other popular ones out there. That way a person fully knows what options are out there.
The issue of Web services has to be considered, he said. Some in the community are calling for a strong copyleft license with code that is used and changed to be returned to all. Others want the opposite.
"I do not believe that we will be reach consensus on this front, so I believe the license will have to accommodate options as to the question of Web services, but this must be squared with the ideological pursuit of freedom," he said.
This is *very* interesting. There is an enormous engine of online services that is running as a for-profit enterprise using GPL software. phpBB, OSCommerce, and more are provided commercially, quite possibly with modifications.
This means that in the new GPL, there will be a GNU-supported variant which requires a web service provider running a modified version of GPL software *as a web service* to release the source code to any changes they made. I'd love to hear major projects weigh in on their opinion. Would future phpBB/mysqladmin/OSC versions use this variant, or would they opt to allow non-released versions which ran only as web services to remain in the hands of the modifiers?
It will be interesting, too, because there may be disputes over what exactly is covered. For example, phpBB distributes a lot of *.php scripts, but they also have a slew of materials like SQL Schemas and
Morever, web services are very technically different because so many are written in interpreted languages. You can't modify Apache without compiling it. But with phpBB, you can open up a file, make a tweak, and it instantly takes effect on a live site. If you pre-install a GPL web service for your customer as a provider, how do you then make sure they're apprised of the license terms and don't inadvertantly commit themselves to a source code release because they edited some file in an application you installed for them?
I can say I'll certainly be watching this development with great interest.
'anything developed using GPL libraries must be GPL and released'
That's two piles of shit.
1: You only have to offer source code to the people you give binaries to, now if that's within your company then you don't have to release to anyone else.
2: Lets say I develop against ATI's opengl implementation and dynamically link against the library and I distribute the application closed source, then a user is using MESA a GPL version of opengl to the runtime linker links my application against a GPL library.
This does not mean that your application has to be GPL'd.
In short, because a dynamic linked application doesn't include any part of the GPL'd code the GPL can't cover your application. This is because GPL is based on copyright and not EULA and copyright can only be enforced if you actually include a copy of something.
On the same basis I can create a patch against a GPL application that contains none of the original application, I own sole copyright on my patch and it does not have to be GPL'd until it is included in a copy of GPL source code that is released (releasing the software to myself doesn't count).
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
One interesting thing to note is that he requests feedback. The FSF wants your feedback! Actually, i think they also want open debates / discussion.
One way for feedback is the Software Freedom Law Center recently launched. On board are e.g. Moglen (FSF) and Lessig (OSI), among others, and they provide free (beer) license defense, litigation support for FOSS licenses. I think they'll also appreciate your feedback.
Quote:
PJ of Groklaw also writes:
Feedback, especially when constructive, is important! Even if you dislike politics, visions, law/licensing this is still very important to the GPL, the FSF and the FOSS community and their developers, contributors and last but not least users!
WE DON'T NEED NO BLOG CONTROL.
If "Stalmans voice" is the final descision, then the GPL will never "meet the needs of modern progrmmers". He doesn't even know what such a thing is.
The GPL needs some serious overhauling, or rather the LGPL needs some more libreal use and the GPL use curtailed to make Linux a usable development platform. But whatever happens RMS should be the last person doing it. He screwed it up royally the first time and his entire insantly rabid anti-commercial stance means that he is in no position to do Linux any good by redoing any part of the GPL. The GPL currently kleeps most really good sofwtare away from Linux, it's the exact opposite of what Linux needs. Most people USE their computers to accomplish tasks, the computer is not ususaly the task in itself.
Not all software should be under the Extreme GPL, but the option should be available to developers who want it.
I outlined this in another post, but that's only one scenario. Yes, I agree: code bases which close the loophole by including web services in the "need to release source" requirement will then get less use. But there's another possibility: that people concerned about a disproportionate number of people using their code without contributing changes may then release because they're no longer concerned about "ASP theft" of their code because the current GPL does not protect it. I know some variant licenses have tried to close that loophole, but none carry the weight of the GPL or the legal power of GNU behind them. So this variant license would ENABLE as well as DISABLE certain behaviors... it just remains to be seen what the net benefits and costs are.
Bluntly, yes. I want to make my program free, but I want everyone who uses it to have that freedom. And unfortunately that means restricting some freedoms by using a strong copyleft license, i.e. GPL. But I think that's worth it.
I am trolling
The prospect of metaprogramming tools raises threats and opportunities for OSS. The biggest threat is that they could be used (legally or not) to strip copyright from OSS. On the plus side, innovation in the next version of the GPL could solve the patent morass by adding a "patent shredder" to "copyleft". I propose the introduction of a "Greater GPL" in GPL Version 3 to address these issues.
http://www.pagesmiths.com/category-ip.html