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."

Comments

I can't see this helping...

[chris09876]

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.

Re:I can't see this helping...

[Frymaster]

I'm worried that it will just add another 'compeletly separate' license

well, the lgpl has been around for a long while and it's caused no serious confusion so far. the fact is, if there are a lot of licenses it's easier to find one that suits your project and organization's requirements. choice good.

Re:I can't see this helping...

[NemosomeN]

Based on the wording of the GPL, you cannot release a GPL program under an old lisence. It states that the program is licensed under either the included version, or any subsequent version thereof, at the discretion of whoever is going to be changing it. The GPL is also "unmodifiable" (Something I personally don't like) I assume, technically, this also forces derivitaves of someone who chose to use GPL3 on a GPL2'd project would forever be locked in GPL3

Re:I can't see this helping...

[grahamlee]

You're allowed to release your code under whatever licence you want, assuming you're the copyright holder. In fact, some people even release code under licences that don't yet exist, for instance I can interact with the emacs source under the terms of the GNU GPL version 2 or, at my discretion, any later version. Wow. The GPL3 could annoy a load of emacs developers, but I'd still be able to treat their code as if those are the terms I agreed to. Interesting...

Re:I can't see this helping...

[squiggleslash]

While the GPL is "unmodifiable", there's nothing stopping you from adding additional permissions to a GPL'd project whose copyright belongs to you and other consenting individuals.

For example, Linus explicitly allows non-GPL'd software to run over Linux, though an addition to the LICENSE file. In this case, Torvalds wasn't modifying the GPL, he was essentially adding an additional license.

This is allowed because a license (as opposed to an EULA) is just a set of permissions. Each set of permissions adds to any you already have (including your default set of "fair use" privileges.) You can license any project you own under as many licenses you wish, and end users can pick and choose which (complete) licenses they want to agree to. (The word "complete" in that sentence is important.)

Also, while the GPL is unmodifiable for existing projects that do not belong to you, if you have a strong enough case you can persuade the FSF to agree to a modified version for projects you own, on occasion even if the result is a license incompatable with the GPL. For example, the Affero General Public License, whose history you can read about here.

Re:I can't see this helping...

[Rick the Red]

I see the opposite happening, too. Quite a few projects with that "any later version" clause may come to regret it. They've effectively agreed to this "major revision" sight unseen.

What's taking so long?

[IO ERROR]

This sums it up nicely:

Another change to the technical paradigm that the license must address is the issue of trusted computing and the threat it poses. "If I knew what the solution to the problem of trusted computing was, we would have a draft version of it in circulation by now," Moglen said. "There is also no belief now that the GPL violates the constitution or IP law, and we will not be held back by the actions of SCO [Group] and [its CEO] Darl McBride.

"I do not yet know what we will do in this regard, and we will have to choose among the options before involving others in the question of the license and its contents," Moglen said, promising that a document will be provided that gives the major rationale for the license choices made and the options considered.

I can't wait to see drafts, but I do also want it done right, so that the new GPL is strong enough to shove right up Darl McBride's ass.

Hopefully good will come out of this.

[nberardi]

Hopefully he will listen to many of the concerns of corporations and the GPL use with in. If they make a better GPL it will be awsome, because my company won't be so hesitant to use or develop anything under the GPL. My company's biggest complaint with GPL is anything developed using GPL libraries must be GPL and released. They just want to make money and contribute back when it's nessisary and important.

Re:Hopefully good will come out of this.

[Ziviyr]

No need to release it.

Re:Hopefully good will come out of this.

[Xpilot]

My company's biggest complaint with GPL is anything developed using GPL libraries must be GPL and released.

That's why we have LGPL libraries. But I think your company misses the point of GPL. GPL'ed code is like public property, nobody should be able to deny others access to the code, and if you use this property you are obliged to contribute back to the community. Making it "optional" would mean a lot of greedy folks wouldn't do it at all, which is against the intent of the GPL.

Re:Hopefully good will come out of this.

[Scarblac]

My company's biggest complaint with GPL is anything developed using GPL libraries must be GPL and released.

Well, that's not even true. There is no need to release anything.

The GPL only states that if you choose to release (distribute) the code, it must be under the GPL.

Re:Hopefully good will come out of this.

[mopslik]

it is my understanding that using GPL code for inhouse tools without releasing source is acceptable

Correct.

but using GPL base code as part of a project sold to a customer is where the problems start.

It's only a problem if you are morally or contractually prohibited from releasing your source code. In this case, as you suspect, you won't be able to use GPL'd code.

One thing to keep in mind, of course, is that the GPL states that your source code must be "available". This doesn't mean that you need to include it with your product (although it would be nice!), you just have to provide it when asked. If nobody asks for it, you don't really have to advertise it.

Re:Hopefully good will come out of this.

[Pecisk]

Hey, maybe you can use LGPL libs instead, because it was the purpose of the creation of the LGPL - allow the usage of GNOME/GTK+ interface in the prioritary apps. For example, almost all GNOME libs are LGPL now.

Re:Hopefully good will come out of this.

[pthisis]

Linking against a GPL library (e.g. cygwin) requires the result to be GPL'd.

An LGPL'd library (e.g. libc) can be used by non GPL'd software so long as you provide the ability to upgrade the LGPL'd library (dynamically linking satisfies this condition, as does providing object files and a link script).

Both of the above assume that copyright actually applies (if, e.g., your work isn't legally a derived work of the GPL'd or LGPL'd code then things are rather different).

Re:Hopefully good will come out of this.

[Nimrangul]

No, public domain is public property and noone can deny access to that code. GPL stuff is private stuff that is granted to the public under the condition that all works generated from it remains in the same position.

Re:Hopefully good will come out of this.

[DShard]

"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.

Re:Hopefully good will come out of this.

[GigsVT]

Has any company ever been forced by a lawsuit to open-source software it distributed because it used GPL'ed code?

No. And there likely never will be. It's the same as your latter statement, if they don't follow the GPL, they have violated copyright law, and could be held liable for damages in a civil suit. Any other remedy would be an extreme and new precedent.

Re:Hopefully good will come out of this.

[Tim C]

But that's not what's happening. If I use a GPLed library in an application, unmodified, then in what way am I denying people access to the code of that library by not GPLing the rest of the application?

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. As I understand it, if all you do is use the normal output of some GPLed code, then your code is not required to be GPLed. To me, the "normal output" of a library is the result of making the API calls.

Re:Hopefully good will come out of this.

[arkanes]

As far as I know nobody has ever been forced to do this, nor is it likely they would. What's more likely is that they'd be barred from distributing and would need to re-write the product without the GPL components. Most companies who base something heavily on the GPL (like embedded linux on devices) cave without a lawsuit.

Re:Hopefully good will come out of this.

[beliavsky]

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.

Re:Hopefully good will come out of this.

[leinhos]

A good discussion of this appears here. One point made is that the headers to the library may be covered by the GPL, and those headers *are* part of the application code. There was some discussion about releasing the *headers* as public domain, which may release any linked code from the GPL, but at that point you'd be better off releasing the library under LGPL.

Re:Hopefully good will come out of this.

[Anonymous Coward]

"How could monetary damages be computed?"

Well, luckily (sarcasm) they don't have to be computed. The big boys have gotten laws passed that include statutory damages. So now their pet laws are causing them trouble? Oops.

A Nony Mouse

Re:Hopefully good will come out of this.

[Haeleth]

Linking against a GPL library (e.g. cygwin) requires the result to be GPL'd.

Bad example:

In accordance with section 10 of the GPL, Red Hat permits programs whose sources are distributed under a license that complies with the Open Source definition to be linked with libcygwin.a/cygwin1.dll without libcygwin.a/cygwin1.dll itself causing the resulting program to be covered by the GNU GPL.

This means that you can port an Open Source(tm) application to cygwin, and distribute that executable as if it didn't include a copy of libcygwin.a/cygwin1.dll linked into it.

(source)

GNU Readline is the canonical example of a GPL'd library that makes no exceptions for other free software licenses.

Re:Hopefully good will come out of this.

[squiggleslash]

It depends on the meaning of the word "forced".

Several companies have released code under the GPL after being threatened with a lawsuit. But no Judge has ever stood up and said "Abide by the license! Release the source, or go to jail!" - to the best of my knowledge, no lawsuit has ever gotten that far before the parties choose to settle.

Re:Hopefully good will come out of this.

[DShard]

In the United Sates, copyright violation has _laws_ describing monetary damages per infringement. Those are on the order of thousands to hundreds of thousands in statutory damage (which are essentially punishment and are not connected to "profit" or "lost business")

check out section 504(c) for clarification here. Notice it also has provisions based on "lost business", but they are seperate from the statutory ones.

If, for example, Microsoft used a nifty feature copied directly from the HURD (hahaha) in longhorn and was found out two years and 10 million copies later they could easily owe billions of dollars in restitution.

Re:Hopefully good will come out of this.

[Minna Kirai]

But that's not what's happening. If I use a GPLed library in an application, unmodified, then in what way am I denying people access to the code of that library by not GPLing the rest of the application?

You aren't. But you are denying them access to the code of your own application, which is something you promised to supply at the time you used GPL code in your project. (If you didn't intend to make that promise, then you were simply breaking copyright law)

Re:Hopefully good will come out of this.

[TargetBoy]

If you write a JPEG library and give it to me for free, would it be fair for me to write a JPEG utility using it and sell it, given that basically all I wrote was a UI?

You assume that writing the JPEG library is the HARD part. From what I have seen, crafting a well throught out and easy to use GUI is the truly hard part.

IMHO, GPL sofware would be FAR more attractive and accepted if the viral license didn't apply to library calls in the least. Think of it as a gateway to broader use of the GPL in business. Once the suits get comfortable with the idea that the GPL is compatible with capitalism, it will be far easier to sell the idea of having a GPL'd piece of software as a loss leader for another product or service.

Re:Hopefully good will come out of this.

[Vince Mo'aluka]

if you use this property you are obliged to contribute back to the community

You certainly are not. You are only obliged to provide source code IF you decide to distribute your modifications.

Re:Hopefully good will come out of this.

[Sloppy]

The GPL only states that if you choose to release (distribute) the code, it must be under the GPL.

Actually, that's one of the things that some people want to change, though I have no idea how they'll pull it off.

The current situation is this: You can start with some software that is available by the terms of GPL, and create a derived work. But instead of redistributing it to others, you can just make your derived work available as a service (for example, a web app). You don't distribute the software -- it always runs on your computer, but simultaneously is used by other people.

The question this raises is this: in what way are you then bound to the terms of the GPL?

Since you're not distributing the software in any form (a binary or source or whatever) a lot of the GPL terms don't get triggered. (Some might even argue that you're not bound by the license at all.) You don't have to supply the source to the program to anyone, even though a lot of people may be using it.

The result is that users still end up becoming "hostage" to a single entity, with no way to alter or maintain the software that they use -- even though the software is technically GPLed and the main goal of GPL is to prevent that very thing from happening! Oops.

Thus it's likely GPL3 will have some provision that addresses this situation. The terms will have to be triggered by derived work creation rather than distribution.

The catch here, is that this is sort of idealogical poison. A lot of Free Software people don't like the idea that mere creation of a derived work that you never release, is a violation of copyright which can only be made legal by licensing.

For example, if a programmer creates a patch to some proprietary software, and only distributes the patch (not the original software itself) does the programmer need some kind of icense from the copyright holders of the original software? Ick. There's some tricky and murky and unpleasant stuff going on here.

Re:Hopefully good will come out of this.

[Mad Bad Rabbit]

If you write a JPEG library and give it to me for free, would it be fair for me to write a JPEG utility using it and sell it, given that basically all I wrote was a UI?

Yes, because you're not selling the JPEG library itself (or if you are, your buyers are very stupid since they could've gotten it for free). Your customers are paying for the added value of the UI you wrote; why should I resent you selling it, just because it prereqs my free code?

If you are able to sell the UI, this implies it's not trivial to write. Otherwise, customers would have written their own instead of paying for yours; or I would have whipped up a free one and included it with the library. So, it seems fair for you to be able to charge for it, if you feel the need to do so.

upgrades.

[k4_pacific]

From TFA:
Eben announced his intentions to upgrade the GPL with a new processor, a better graphics card, and more memory. This will enable resource intensive software to use the GPL as well.

Re:Acronym

[LiquidCoooled]

no it doesnt....

GPL = General Public License (GNU)

and

GNU = Gnu's Not Unix

Nice!

[myom]

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

[slavemowgli]

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?)

Re:You gotta love contradictions

[gowen]

the interview with Linus states that the GPL is supposed to undergo its "first revision in 13 years".

Insert the word "major" between "first" and "revision", and everything will become consistent.

Re:You gotta love contradictions

[kwalker]

It's not a contradiction, but a misinterpretation.

The GPL version "2.2" is the DEVELOPMENT VERSION, which Prof. Molgen submitted to RMS for debate. To my knowledge, no one is using it (I haven't even SEEN it yet). The latest PRODUCTION VERSION is version 2, dated in 1991, the version that almost all GPL software is currently licensed under.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

software patents

[dextr0us]

Wouldn't a liscence benefit some developers that is akin to a patent? You GPL your source, but then patent your binaries? That way, your binaries are still protected intelectual property, resalable, for a few years, and then are freely distributable?

I think about 7 year old software, and some of it I could still use, and not have any piracy guilt. If i could get my hands on an older copy of After Effects, or any other 7 year old adobe product, i'd be set, and legal!

Re:software patents

[GigsVT]

You can't patent an implementation.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

The Creator

[wombatmobile]

From the eWeek article:

"Linus Torvalds, the creator of the Linux operating system"

Not a good start for this process...

Mod eWeek -50 Flamebait

Re:The Creator

[aug24]

Nah, that's exactly right. Cos an operating system doesn't include a desktop, a media player and , it just does device and memory management. Linux is exactly that: an operating system.

See here

Justin.

Web Services

[kuwan]

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

Re:Web Services

[GigsVT]

The GPL doesn't work that way.

See, you don't have to agree to the GPL unless you do something which would be violate copyright if "All Rights Reserved" were the license.

Downloading and running a program doesn't violate copyright even if all rights were reserved, assuming the person you are getting it from is duly authorized to distribute it to you (lets assume they are).

Using the program internally and modifying it also fall outside the realm of copyright law.

Only distribution triggers copyright law restrictions, and only then does the GPL apply.

So even if they wanted to, the GPL couldn't make the requirement to submit internally used changes back to the maintainer, without putting it into the weaker legal realm of a "click through" agreement, like an MS EULA, which is probably not enforcable except in UCITA states.

Re:Web Services

[Mant]

So what if I make a web service written with GPL software available to the public? It only sits on my servers, but anyone can make a SOAP request and get a response.

I'm not distributing a binary, but people can use the service. Do I have to make the code available?

As things like web services become bigger this becomes a more important question.

Re:Web Services

[Sloppy]

it's interesting that some in the community want this.

But it shouldn't be surprising, if you look at things from a user's point of view. If you rely on a software service (running on someone else's computer) -- perhaps it's even something you pay them for -- consider what happens to you if you ever want to add a feature or fix a bug. You're going to experience the same frustration that RMS felt with his damned printer driver 20 years ago. ;-) You don't have the power to force the vendor fix the bug, but you also don't have the power to fix it yourself or hire someone to fix it. You're totally at your vendor's mercy. How ironic that this can happen even with GPLed software.

Right now, the only safe solution for users ("safe" in terms of having a guarantee that freedom of maintenance is available) is to avoid using services (whether they are GPLed code or not) the same way you'd avoid running proprietary code.

This is an undesirable situation, and I guess some people think they can fix it by changing the GPL. IMHO, it's not quite so bad. You just need to stay conscious of when you're using someone else's service, remote procedure calls, etc. Web browsers have created a seductive illusion that one needs to be always aware of.

Re:Web Services

[jmkrtyuio]

Unfortunately, you are almost definitely wrong. Private modification of software, private copies of software and even running software (copying it to RAM) may come under copyright's legal purview.

Especialy where private means more than just myself.

Re:Web Services

[GigsVT]

It is possible... I think it would depend on the way it was done. Stick with me here.

As I said in the other reply on this thread, if you bought a reference book for your company to use, modified it, added pages, ripped pages out, etc, and used it internally, none of that would trigger any copyright protections.

If you Xeroxed the book 50 times to sit on everyone's desk, that almost surely would.

Now, with a GPLed program, the cost is usually zero. You can download and install as many copies as you want for free, and all of them would be legal.

Here's the tricky part. There is no difference if you download the software 50 times to put on each person's desktop, and then patch that each copy with your modifications, than it is to just distribute your modified version within the company.

Since there is a lack of a practical difference there, and the first case is strongly analogous of buying 50 copies of the paper reference manual and modifying all 50 copies to read the same and handing them out, I think it is safe to say that at least in the "zero cost" GPL case, copyright law can't apply to internal modification and distribution.

If you were to purchase exactly one copy of the GPL software for money, however, that would be a different story, the analogy no longer holds, since it's not the same as getting 50 copies from your authorized distributer, that would cost more money. And you would have to agree to the GPL to distribute it otherwise.

Re:Interesting thing about the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

*feeds the troll*

If you use GPL, FSF can arbitrarily change the GPL to anything they want at anytime.

From the GPL:

9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time... Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.

Re:Would you have to use it?

[LuSiDe]

Could people continue using the existing version, if it actually fits the bill better than the newer, possibly incompatible version?

(IANAL, just an interested geek.)

Depends on how the developers licensed their work. Most GPLed software is licensed under 'GPLv2 or later' which means that you may chose between GPLv2 or a later version.

The Linux kernel is an exception. Linux Torvalds licensed it only under GPLv2 and he removed the 'or later' part. So the Linux kernel won't be (automagically) GPLv3, as intended by Torvalds. From my understanding he doesn't trust Stallman / FSF on this one. If the Linux people want GPLv3 then they'll have to do major efforts contacting all these people who contributed to the kernel, i suppose (you also stated this but it only applies on the GPLv2-only software which is a minority!).

To sum it up: almost all GPLed software will be compatible with GPLv3 and users may use the GPLv3 license instead. Also, developers may chose to license their newer code under 'GPLv2 or later' 'GPLv3 or later' or 'GPLv3 or earlier' or even 'GPLv3-only'.

More on the APSL 2.0

[kuwan]

Following my own link and reading a bit more it seems that Apple has already addressed issues like Web Services and even Patent litigation against the licensor (Apple).

Regarding Services (Major Changes in Apple Public Source License 2.0):

1. Licensees will only be required to release source code of Modifications they "Externally Deploy" (new Section 1.4, and Sections 2.1, 2.2). "External Deployment" is defined to cover the external distribution of APSL'ed code or use of APSL'ed code to provide a service (including content delivery) to a third party through electronic communication with that party.

Regarding Patent Litigation:

5. The Termination clause relating to patent suits (Section 12.1(c)) has been narrowed such that the license will terminate only if a licensee _initiates_ an action for patent infringement against Apple. It will not terminate in cases where Apple first sues the licensee and they file a countersuit.

So #5 seems to cover litigious bastards such as the SCO Group, except only for patent litigation. It'd be interesting if at some point this was updated to include copyright infringement litigation as well. And #1 seems to cover Web Services. Maybe Mr. Moglen will reference the APSL in revising the GPL.

--
Join the Pyramid - Free Mini Mac | Free Flat Screens

it really is simple

[Anonymous Coward]

upgradepkg gpl

Surely they can't make too many changes...

[williamhb]

Remember clause 9 of the current GPL -- most GPL code either specifies "GPL version #.# or any later version", or does not specify a version at all in which case Clause 9 permits the user to choose any GPL version that has ever been published.

For existing code, a subsequent GPL revision can effectively only liberalise the usage rights - the user is free to choose to stick to the prior version. But oddly, perhaps this could could end up including "the right to restrict the use of modifications further" because of licence version creep. (See later in post for an example).

This is something that might be concerning to a whole raft of programmers who have released code under the GPL. Are Richard and Eben about to decide to "grant" rights to those pieces of code that the author never intended to grant? Or restrict rights, through version creep, they never intended to restrict?

Example 1 (version creep)...

Say I write package A, and release it under GPL 2. You are allowed to modify it and use it as a web service without being required to release your changes. But then a hypothetical GPL 3 is published which requires the publication of modified webservice code. No problem, you can still use GPL version 2. But then, someone integrates my package and some GPL version 3 code. The result has to be a GPL 3 package. But that means it is a modified version of my code which can no longer be modified for webservices without requiring the source code be published. It is a version of my GPL 2 code that does not have the full GPL 2 rights I released it under. Result: "That's not free!" I cry, and get very grumpy...

For anything other than extremely small changes to the GPL, version interoperability could get messy.

Example 2 (granting unintended rights - a bit of an extreme example)

A hypothetical GPL 4 is published which somehow allows integrating with non-Free code. A lot of people's business model (GPL is free, non-Free licence costs) gets instantly scuppered. The result is probably that the hapless company will attempt to invalidate all their GPL licences, claiming that they could not reasonably have expected the FSF to make this clause change, and therefore the modified licence is not valid. Result: lawyers at high noon.

For anything other than extremely small changes to the GPL, companies who have built their business around the GPL might start kicking up a stink...

they care when it is too late

[LuserOnFire]

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.

on Web Services

[MattW]

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 .tpl (template) files. The .php scripts are clearly labelled as GPL licensed but no such label is attached to the .sql files or the .tpl files.

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

[oliverthered]

'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).

Re:Where is the beef?

[LuSiDe]

Its been in the air for quite a while and one of the possibilities is (in laymen's term) some 'anti-patent clause' similar as copyrighted copyleft-work (the 'flipover' aspect). You've seen the other possibilities in the eWeek / Moglen article.

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:

Licensing

The SFLC is directly involved in its clients' FOSS license development efforts, including development of the GNU General Public License v3 by the Free Software Foundation, and offers licensing assistance, particularly license development and implementation consulting, to FOSS developers other than its clients. The SFLC is also available to provide community-wide license review and compatibility analysis, for the purpose of identifying and addressing the causes of unnecessary FOSS license proliferation.

PJ of Groklaw also writes:

Did you note the Center will be working on the next version of the GPL, for starters? So, what do you think? Is this not a grand idea? Here is the press release: [...]

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!

Future versions of the GPL

[caluml]

I dislike it when projects say "This is under the GPL v2, or any subsequent version." Imagine if an evil company bought out the rights to create the GPL (could it happen?), and released a GPL v99 that said whatever they wanted.
I think any lawyer would never advise you to agree to something whereby you accept any future versions.

Re:Future versions of the GPL

[DJProtoss]

no, because it says v2 or any subsequent version. If they did make a hypothetical, evil GPLv99 you could quite happily keep on using your code under v2. You wouldn't have to take it. As a result of this, you can't make the GPL any less free than it already is.

already taken care of

[Xtifr]

The part that you're citing is in the preamble. The preamble is not controlling - that is to say, it's not actually part of the license. The actual license starts after it says, "The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and modification follow."

The only part of the GPL itself that mentions patents is section 7 (note that if you can't cite a section number, what you're quoting is not part of the license itself). Section 7 merely tells you that if a patent license or court judgement makes it impossible to distribute under the terms of the GPL, then you cannot distribute at all. This covers the case of the IBM patent grant just fine - code using those patents can be distributed under the terms of the GPL, and thus you can continue to distribute the entire work under the terms of the GPL, so you're fine.

Extreme GPL

[Animats]

I'd like to have, as an option, an "Extreme GPL" for truly free software. The Extreme GPL would forbid resale of the software value, in any form, including compilations. This would keep packagers like Red Hat from taking free software and putting a price tag on it. Can't sell it. Have to give it away. Because it's not yours to sell.

Not all software should be under the Extreme GPL, but the option should be available to developers who want it.

Re:Extreme GPL

[Dwonis]

What for? That pretty much goes against the whole concept of free software.

Reframing GPL authorship to move away from freedom

[jbn-o]

We ought to have discussion about the GNU General Public License (GPL) v3. The GPLv2 is an important license, the most widely used free software license. We should have critical discussions to help make the GPLv3 better, and of course defining "better" requires understanding the goals of the license.

But there's a profound unfairness in the two articles linked to here. They are filed in the "Linux & Open Source" section on the eWeek website, and not by accident. The GPL was initially written well before either the Linux kernel or the open source movement began and it was written to serve the purpose of furthering software freedom (an issue the open source movement does not want to talk about because it gets in the way of making their pitch to business, this movement's main audience, on "solid pragmatic grounds rather than ideological tub-thumping", as their FAQ says. This name-calling is starkly less insightful than the analysis the Free Software Foundation offers about the open source movement). So, there is simple miscrediting going on here, but it's also ironic that is no "GNU/Linux & Free Software" section at this website. Such a section would be far more accurate for describing stories about the most widely used and most important free software license.

When version 3 of the GNU GPL is released, it will be the first version to come out that had a chance of being edited by someone involved in the open source movement. As far as I can tell, nobody from the open source movement has had a hand in revising any version of the GPL. The GPL was written by people from the FSF (and the listed author is the FSF). Yet the GPL is routinely cited as an open source license by proponents of that movement, essentially taking credit for work that nobody in that movement did.

The Linux kernel is but one program in a complete GNU/Linux system. It's ironic that this license is so pivotal to the development of the GNU/Linux OS but GNU can't get just a share of the credit.

Of the two men featured in articles which are linked to in this Slashdot thread, one is an authority on the GPL and a co-author of the GPL, the other is someone who exhibits no significant insight into how the free software community came to be or what the GPL is here to accomplish. I'm grateful that Linus Torvalds began the Linux kernel and continues to work on the most widely used fork of that kernel, but this is not about the technical inner workings of the Linux kernel, where Linus Torvalds is unquestionably an authority on the matter. Torvalds is no authority on the GPL or software freedom in general. If you point your friends to these two articles, please don't give Moglen and Torvalds equal billing here. Equal billing would either diminish the attention we should pay to Moglen's comments on this matter or give Torvald's comments more attention than he deserves on this topic.

Re:on Web Services - ASP Loophole?

[waterwheel]

I believe this is known as the ASP loophole?

Your phpbb case is a good case in point. There are lots of folks who take GPL'ed software, modify it and charge a fee for it. As long as you're only distributing the output from the program (i.e. the web page) and not the code itself you're within the limits of the GPL.

I believe this model is very widely used. Disallowing this type of use in the GPL is going to have a lot of far reaching repercussions. Plenty of companies won't have an OSS solution to use as the base for mods. ASP's won't use it because of this, and many companies won't use it because they'd be forced to provide their paid work to their competitors.

End result, a dramatic decline in the use of OSS software. This is A Bad Thing.

(in short, the ideology of forcing release of code in some instances will in effect smother many aspects of opensource due to the reality of how it's used).

That's one possibility

[MattW]

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.

Patents & the GPL

[polyp2000]

One of the suggestions is that the new GPL should address patent concerns. While one half of me thinks this should be addressed - the other half thinks that doing this might show an acceptance and recognition of software patents by this chunk of the Open Source community. This could be a dangerous thing to do.

Re:BSD: Do what thou wilt

[m50d]

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.

But wait, there's more!

[DG]

I don't know about you, but I've never written a perfect program.

I assume that anything that gets released with source will have that source tweaked by someone to fix some bug somewhere.

I want those bugfixes to make their way back into the "general release" source. A bug fixed by one should be a bug fixed for all.

So for me at least, it's not that I'm afraid of the program being "stolen", but rather that I want to encourage the bugfixes to come back to me, and not be locked up in a box somewhere.

DG

Add a "patent shredder" to GPL

[IQGQNAU]

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

Oh no!

[iminplaya]

Here we go again!