Slashdot Mirror
GPL 3.0 to Penalize Google, Amazon?
Michael Ferris writes "Is this the start of a shakedown by the GNU folks? Michael Singer writes that Eben Moglen and the folks rewriting the GPL are looking at a proposal where companies would be required to pay money if they use GPLed software, even if they don't redistribute the software." From the article: "The current version of the GPL, which was last updated in 1991, fails to trigger the open source license if a company alters the code, but does not distribute its software through a CD or floppy disk...the [current] rule does not apply to companies that distribute software as a service, such as Google and eBay, or even dual-license companies like Sleepycat."
Call me paranoid, but I wouldn't want even the faintest chance that some nasty corporation managed to litigate itself in the position of being able to release a future GPL version, as in bold below:
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
That's handing control of the licencing of your code over to whoever is allowed to write GPLv1851, if I'm reading it correctly.Get your own free personal location tracker
the [current] rule does not apply to companies that distribute software as a service, such as Google and eBay
Google and eBay distribute HTML. That HTML is created by software that uses GPL code. So if I modify a GPL Office Suite, would I have to distribute the code if I email someone a document I made with it? Seems like a bad idea, in general.
I guess people could fork the GPL2.0'd code if the software developers switched to GPL 3.0
I think requiring companies to pay is a big time mistake, and to me, it
hails back to the days of the old BSD style licenses. The GPL works
so well now, precisely because it is unobtrusive. My company runs
GPL'd software because we are able to use it and make modification
without either redistributing the source code and we aren't required
to pay for that ability.
Requiring people to open all their changes or pay for them will put a
lot of businesses off when it comes to dealing with GPL'd software. I
don't think that is a good trade off to make, and I don't think it
will be healthy for the open source community in general.
A move like this will make the newer BSD style licenses and / or
licenses like the Python license much more attractive imo. Now that
open source is finally turning the corner, and solid technologies are
finally moving into the enterprise, why would we even entertain making
changes that will certainly hamper open source adoption?
This isn't a consistent position in my opinion. If you are
developing free software, it should remain free. The idea that you
can get someone hooked on software, and then pull the rug out from
under them and start charging them is ludicrous. If this were to
happen, I can honestly see a major fork in the GPL happening.
Doug Tolton
"The destruction of a value which is, will not bring value to that which isn't." -John Galt
Shouldent that be FAIBFSF? Free as in beer free software foundation?
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
I _REALLY_ hope this idea falls flat on its face. These companies are the brightest hope for Free Software. Screwing them over is incredibly idiotic.
I think this proposal is crazy. If you use software as a part of running your business, that software is benefiting you and indirectly providing services to your customers, even if they never see it. So where do you draw the line?
-73, de n1ywb
www.n1ywb.com
But who gets paid the money and who determines how much? Can rates increase as GPL'd software develops? Is money paid to Richard Stahlman [sic] to distribute through the FSF? Seems an easy way to get around this anyway would just be to have small closed-source scripts that would only be called from the GPL'd code. After all, what's wrong with that? (so long as they're not redistributing their code, just letting use of it as a service)
(\_/)
(O.o) This is Bunny. (> <)
"If you look at the market, Yahoo, eBay, IBM, Amazon, Google have all sunk millions into the GPL infrastructure," Olson said. "Not only are we changing the rules, we are changing them retroactively. With the new way, it lets the customer pay with either their source code or with their wallet."
Basically, in any other language: 'Now youve had time to build a good infrastructure on the current rules, prepare to be shafted'. If this comes to pass, then in my mind they are no better than Microsoft changing EULA terms with a service pack. Now that there are major companies with an infrastructure built on GPL software, the FSF are looking to essentially move the goalposts and if this is applied retroactively to current code (which from the articles wording I think it will be) then I personally think that its going to do more harm to the GPL community than benefit it in code donations as companies scramble to move away.
Please someone tell me that they cant do this retroactively, that its impossible under the current GPLv2 terms.
That if you are interested in seeing the software spread and be used, that you wouldnt do something like this. Kinda like biting the hand that feeds you.
I know that if I ran a company and I was compliant with a license, and the license changed to where I was penalized, I'd be less interested in using that software, but thats me.
(no, I didnt read the article)
We don't need an "overrated" so much as we need a "you completely missed the parent's point, dumbass..."
Just the implication of this terribly and inaccurately worded headline will be devastating to open source. This article is intentional flamebait. Zonk, please try to be a bit more responsible with the articles you post.
Regardless of what GPL 3.0 turns out to be, developers are not forced to use it. They can continue to use GPL 2 if they wish, just as they can choose to use a BSD license, Apache license, creative commons, or any other license of their choosing. Furthermore, software that has already been released under GPL 2 cannot be retracted, it remains available under GPL 2 forever.
Such a clause will really ensure BSD never dies.
Ingenous, charge people who don't redistribute free software! I can't think of anything Microsoft has considered better news in a long, long time. Free software is no longer free. It's sorta free, well could be free, under the right circumstances is free. Ah fuck it, let me get a lawyer....
Think of Google as just one gigantic document that only it controls. I'm very glad the GPL is addressing these large "networks". After all, the "Internet" is all about distributed, interconnected nodes based on open standards and code. Google is violating that spirit. It's architecture is almost identical to the way that AOL federates all its users.
Make google pay because they don't do anything good for anyone with that software they use.
The submitter isn't clear about the fact that this would not apply to everyone who changes software for commercial use but does not redistribute. This applies ONLY when "redistribution" of the software sort-of-occurs, because the software is used to provide a service. For example: any open source software Google uses in its search engine interface does not count as "redistributed", even though it _interacts_ with users of Google, because no actualy _binaries_ were shared with those users. For another example, if I modified the GIMP and then let people use my modified version over the Internet, but not on their machines, I would not have "redistributed" my modifications. This is considered by many to be a "loophole" to be closed.
Why is everyone always saying "Software should be free, unless you're a business, in which case, get your checkbook"? The GPL shouldn't mandate anything except that code be made available. I think corporations should be entitled to the same rights and privileges as private citizens.
REM Old programmers don't die. They just GOSUB without RETURN.
... that the BSD-license paranoids might have been right?
Ooops.
Bad idea, Eben. It might make a good optional license (the Greater GPL?) but that's not something for the core GPL.
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
1. Release open source.
2. Change License.
3. Profit!!
Nah, planning appears to only be in the preliminary stages at this point. I don't think companies will stand by and let the GPL screw them over. I'll wait until they release something concrete about the new GPL.
Not that it'll stop slashdot's trolls and flamebaiters from making snide remarks.
"It is the stillest words which bring the storm. Thoughts that come with doves' footsteps guide the world."
attached to something like the stock index or currency market to allow for inflation, so basically if you are a multi million dollar company who use GPL to make millions more in profit then you pay for it
Is opensource about preventing business? Or is it about making software that comes with the source so bugs can be fixed by smart people? This seems like sour grapes to me. Opensource began b/c people had problems with pieces of software and wanted to fix them. Well what is the difference between someone at google and RMS in the 70's? In my mind, nothing b/c RMS was getting paid (McArthur schoolarship I think) and the guy at google, who is just trying to get his work done, is getting paid by google. This seems simply anti-business to me. It will hurt projects that decide to use this license.
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
Isn't this 7 days late?
I mean, sure, they don't distribute all the work they do, but what they do is a trade secret, and not copywrited.
I think they need to strengthen the GPL more before adding more to it. I mean cisco and lots of other vendors sells products running GPL software (like linux) and there is no way to get the source code.
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
Frankly, I don't think this is even the case. Yes, the FSF has been talking about making a GPL 3.0 for a while now, but the proposal they're offering makes no sense.
The problem is that it infringes on one of the four freedoms, specifically the freedom to use. If such a provision were to find its way into any license that made it so that companies and individuals were not subject to the same terms, the license would be both discriminatory and non-free.
Simply put, this is somebody making FUD about the GPL. Don't buy into it for a second.
Haec merda tauri est. Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
so how long before the consumers is getting charged?
"If you look at the market, Yahoo, eBay, IBM, Amazon, Google have all sunk millions into the GPL infrastructure," Olson said. "Not only are we changing the rules, we are changing them retroactively. With the new way, it lets the customer pay with either their source code or with their wallet."
What about ex post facto concerns?
Or are those peculiar to things like state Constitutions?
I think most people understand what I'm trying to say already, but let me elaborate for those who don't:
Suppose the GPL is updated along those lines. What grounds can they find to charge Google and Amazon for past violation?
Or maybe they would charge for continued use in the future?
assuming OS = free, why should devellopers have to pay for the license? Sure , i can understand for an LGPL license, but GPL should stay as it is. Besides, The entire batch of OS licenses need an overhaul.
perpetually dwelling in the -1 pits
looking at a proposal where companies would be required to pay money if they use GPLed software,
Wow, talk about sensationalism. Or maybe I can't read. But I did RTFA, and no where did I see mention of anybody having to pay anything for using GPLed software.
Instead, what I did find was an article which seems to imply that the FSF is trying to further alienate themselves from the real world by effectively prohibiting GPLed software from being used by for-profit organizations, irregardless of whether or not modified software is distributed. Thank God for alternative OSI-certified licenses that promote the continued development of open source software without the political trappings of the GPL.
This is just speculative FUD. RMS and Co are only concerned about the patent nonsense we are having to condent with.
Get a grip you paranoid people!
How would people decide how much the changes made to software is worth? What are the chances that someone will try to extort money from companies who use GPL 3.0 software that they wrote? They have a couple of years to iron out those questions, I'm sure they will work out the details. Releasing this article at this point just seems foolish to me.
free the GPL free yourselves.
I heard the next version of the GPL will require everyone to throw pies at Bill Gates.
At least, that's what I heard anyway.
When whatever changes come up, they will be reviewed and we can rant and rave about it at that time.
Nothing is founded, no concrete written agendas were tossed out by the article and all we have is a hypothetical situation that would be very different from the current model.
Like many have said and will say, it's usually a good idea to specify the version of the GPL in which you release software. Unless you really don't care what kind of changes are made at a later date.
I'm not saying all of this isn't going to come true, but at this juncture we could very well be required to throw pies to comply with the next redistribution agreement.
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
Corporation will be able to do anything they want with your software once its copyright expires and it falls under public domain. On a large timescale, the interval of time where the GPL is active is insignificant. The significant intervals are "software does not exist" and "public domain".
I would like to think that the story submitter would have read the article, but nope.
Do we want to trust a source that can't even bother to check their articles for typos?
Who is Richard Stahlman???
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
This is a bad move for propagating linux, but it makes sense. Right now, a company can benefit from Open Source projects without having to give anything back to the community because they do not have to share their innovations as long as they do not distribute the code.
Thus, Open Source code essentially becomes is the product of free labor for corporations.
By altering the license, those who make $ off of Open Source should pay for the otherwise free labor of others.
However, doing this will kill Linux support by companies, just when it is becoming mainstream. In the long run, Linux's success is based on the fact that it promotes innovation through the GPL. If we want Linux to spread like Paris Hilton, we need to make sure this idea is killed.
Moglen has stated: "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". [ref.]
And frankly, it's not really a loophole. Web services are not distributing software, they're running a service using software. That's obviously open to interpretation, but I haven't ever heard anyone distribute under the GPL and complain about someone using their software as a web service. There has been at least one derivative license which has addressed this issue.
In the end, GPL 3.0 will likely provide an optional provision which will 'trigger' GPL source distribution requirements for a web service, at the option of the copyright holder; that is really the best choice. Rather than getting into an enormous philosophical debate over whether the idea is "good" or "bad" or "punitive" or whatever, let's simply have two clear licenses and give the option to the copyright holders to decide under what terms they will license their property.
A common criticism of the GPL (and of RMS's philosophies in general) is that it seems so "communist". Modifying the GPL to include a "redistribution of wealth" scheme will probably make it more difficult to argue against such accusations.
Slashdot: come for the pedantry, stay for the condescension.
My god, I hate it when HP,MS or whomever does this. Now the GPL goes this way, UGH. It's not the fact that they are changing the GPL, that's bad enough but the fact they are retroactivly changing is what makes it so bad. This is the kind of shit the the bad boys do. I hope this idea goes no where or you can see any the profesional devs go elsewhere really quickly.
Imagine the problems this provision would cause for free online games such as MUDS and MMORPGs. The original DIKU mud license permitted private modifications but prohibited charging for use. GPL presently permits both. Allowing private modifications encouraged implementors to develop their own unique worlds which included special original game code that players could only learn about from within the game. This new provision would mean that anyone playing the game would have to be given access to all of the modified source code. This make cheating very easy and take away much of the fun. Probably noone would use this new GPL to develope a free online game.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
That new constraint would be a totally different principle for the license. The current principle is that if someone gets an executable from you, they also can get the source code, just as you got the source code from which you made your executable. Just using the source code, or customizing it for your own use, doesn't require distributing the source. The new principle would be requiring anyone who customized the source to release all customizations.
This will stop many programmers, many of the best programmers, from using source code under that license. We could no longer keep any of the value of the software we created to ourselves. What is a "web service"? Is my email-processing CGI a "web service"? Any software in the same workflow as any other software under this license would have to be released. So many developers won't make small customizations, because that would force us into the source code distribution business, with all its overhead. Or we might just ignore that provision, or the whole license, en masse.
The GPL is successful because it is a fair contract, even though it's revolutionary. Its enforcement teeth are rarely tested, because it's so close to an equitable agreement among peers. Which has resulted in lots of value contributed by profit-driven organizations, despite the claims of many that the license is anticapitalist. Upping the ante, to require private customizations to be published, could stop the rising tide of acceptance that is pushing GPL to be the default, and any proprietary license to be radical. And then the caution it would inspire: investing in GPL'd software might force acceptance of ever-more demanding licenses, like a GPL4.0 that required redistribution of even software that wasn't changed at all, just to get users "to pull their weight".
The GPL2.0 isn't broken. Let's not "fix it" in a way that could destroy its success, and our chances to benefit from one another's work without onerous burdens.
--
make install -not war
I oppose a change to the GPL which requires modified, but undistributed, code to be bound by the GPL. I am a strong believer in the philosophy that if I legally possess something, be it hardware or software, I should be able to examine, disassemble, modify, and use it any way that I see fit (within legal - not contractual - limits).
Car companies can't prevent me from modifying my car: why should a software company prevent me from modifying my software?
They are just looking at it; just like they might be, for example, looking at a proposal to charge $699/CPU (dammit, why does that sound familiar?).
If Google (for example) distributes GPLed software in their Appliance, then that is, by definition, redistribution and hence they must release the source to the customer of the said box.
On the other hand, if Google uses GPLed software to provide a service, then I see no need for them to go about distributing the source too.
All of this uncertainty is just more fuel to Microshaft's FUD-machine, that GPL is baaaaaad.
Sorry if I need to put in simple terms what others are no doubt able to express in a far more eloquent fashion.
but...To all intents and purposes..
GPL = Free
This is why people give to it, this is why people use it.
This is a sensitive time, muddy the waters even slightly and the tremendous growth in both use and acceptance of Open Source could be undone overnight. Right now I know that GPL means I pay nothing - if I may have to pay money, I may as well go to M$ - at least I know how much they will charge me.....
The linked article makes no mention of paying money.
The issue is about distributing software changes, not about paying anyone money.
In the Old Days, it was largely true that to use software you or your organization had to have a copy of it. The GPL mandated that if someone gave you a copy, they had to give you source; therefore other then a few outlying cases, if you used GPLed software you had access to source. It's proved to be a smashingly good idea.
But in this brave new world of the internets, it is becoming much more common to use GPLed software without having a copy yourself.
The question is therefore how to update the GPL to promote and preserve people's right to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software.
Consider: how do we preserve your right to keep running the software if the remote service provider can change it, or stop offering the service?
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
A lot of organizations out there would scrap their entire open source infrastructure in a heartbeat if they thought this would come to pass. From military applications to enterprise systems for banks, it would face wholesale expulsion. What else are they going to try and do with it, force my vote in the next election? Leave politics out of my software licenses please.
Sounds like the folks at GNU are trying to pick up on Darl's strategy at SCO.
The whole point of OS is to make it a community project. In the case of most big projects, there are so many contributors that compensating all of them fairly would be nearly impossible. So again, the question is asked, who does the money go to?
I've licensed things under GPL before, I did so with the absolute expectation that I would never be monetarily compensated for it, regardless of who used it. I did NOT do it so someone else could profit from it by shaking down end-users.
In my mind, it doesn't matter if Google is profiting by using Linux to provide content on their servers, or if Joe Sixpack is profiting by creating artwork with GIMP on his desktop. They both have every right to do so.
even for that commie RMS...
The entire basis of copyright is that information should not be free and that the creator/owner of information should have the right to charge what they want for copies of their creation. In contrast, the OSS movement argues against this on the basis of moral error (information should be free/not owned), impracticality (technology means that information wants to be free despite owner's wishes), or alternative business model (information is offered for free, but service is not).
I can see that Google and others have gotten tremendous value from the labor of others and GPL would like a cut of the action. But GPL can't have it both ways. Either the information is free (including Google's freedom to earn great profits from it) or information is not free and information has owners who can use copyright/licenses to extract profits from the information.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
TFA is a little skimpy, i guess since they are still working the issue. I don't fully understand what it is trying to say.
What does 'distribute software as a service' mean in this context?
Is it that the GPL will say that the HTML/javascript web pages that Google serves up are derived works of the underlying (modified by Google) GPL'ed software? The underlying GPL'ed server binaries aren't sent out to the client. In effect, do they want to say some types of output of GPL software is a derived work?
Or is it more straighforward thing kind of like BitKeeper. You can use our stuff for free as long as the use is noncommercial, but if you make money off of it, you need to pay? Regardless of whether you modify it or not?
Anyone got an explanation?
I have a small but nice piece of GPL code out there that I do not want to get paid for, neither do I want it to be used by people that give their clients less freedom than I did when I decided to distribute it.
I mean, it's out there for anyone to use gratis, however it does not mean that I am allowing anybody to pimp it, that is why GPL2.
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
From the first "you", you learn that "you"="code's user". It's called English reading skills.
I want to see someone defend both this empire-building agressive new GPL license burden, and deny the claims that Linux extremists threaten their own success.
--
make install -not war
The Google Appliance I got has a modified flavor of RedHat GNU/Linux including FSF controlled works such as bash and glibc. They provide no written offer of source code and fail to honor any requests for redistribution of the source code.
Before trying to get Google to honor additional requirements, why doesn't the FSF consider enforcing the requirements they already have in the current GPL?
The buisness world is on a very good wicket. They are getting us to make the tools they use to enslave us.
Just becasue something is free as in beer doesnt mean it is devoid of all responsability from the users behalf.
If a company's buisness model is dependent on free software then its in their companies best itnerest to be very generous to the programers who maintain the software they require.
It sounds like the GPL v3.0 is trying to make the commercial world a little bit more responsable.
Have some faith, RMS and his apossals do nothing but good. They'd never betray us.
-Emoticon
Nowhere in TFA does anyone call for making users of GPL'd software pay for using it. Nothing in the article even implies that, much less states it explicitly.
I'm no Slashdot basher, far from it. But this it hands down the worst summary I've ever seen on this site.
Boycott everything - they're all trying to fuck you one way or another
Jeebers, if you think that the GPL has it hard now with FUD from Yankee Didiot's, Microsoft TCO FUD, in fact especially Microsoft TCO FUD, then you can imagine how difficult it will then be if people have to pay simply to use modified GPL software (yes, yes, I know that it applies to stuff like web services etc).
It will also in all likelyhood do a great amount of damage to OSS, especially in enterprises and companies,even if it doesn't kill it outright there.
So, again, NO!
Look at the article description (especially the link) and then at the article itself. There are a number of differences and misleading statements made if you actually read the stuff...
future submitted patches can be GPL v3 only. the original author already gave permission for all of their work to continue and be relicensed under v3 in the future if the overall project decides to go that way. if that author doesn't like it they don't have to contribute to the project that has moved on to operate under the new version.
GPL is DEAD...switch to Creative Commons.
I wonder if the Debian guys and girls would consider this change to be compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines? I suspect probably not, which would bar GPL3 software from being included in Debian. That'd be an interesting turn of events.
-Stephen
April fools is over. This is dogshit stupid.
With the advent of the internet, it's now easier for computer programmers to freelance (see the well known Rent-a-Coder website). My impression is that under the current GPL, a programmer possibly could legally do contract work by adding to a GPL'd project without being required to release the work -- so long as the buyer will never distribute the program via CD, floppy, or internet (i.e. keep the program "in-house"). Someone, correct me if this is not true.
It appears that closing this loophole will also close the doors for programmers to freelance in this manner. That is they won't be able to sell their programming service of enhancing a current GPL'd project -- unless, of course, the solicitor agrees to either pay or release the code. The other option is to force the programmer to pay the GPL fee and roll this expense into the contract costs. I think this issue has to be debated and discussed at length, because we can't go about and make a gut decision of saying this provision is a good addition to the GPL just because we want to make big companies like Google, Amazon, etc. pay. After all, it could affect freelance programmers -- this could very well be their bread-n-butter. Let's not get into the question of whether personal enhancements of GPL'd programming tools (e.g. IDE's) are required to be paid or released under the proposed provision, that could be a sticky situation.
Linux at home
Hold on. The GPL is not a EULA. You are free to use GPL'd software that you have legally obtained, without accepting the terms of the GPL, but you cannot redistribute the software because it is protected by copyright law, which prohibits redistribution. I'm pretty sure that there's nothing in the copyright law to prohibit using a copyrighted piece of software that has been legally obtained in order to provide a service directly to customers!
EULAs put restrictions on what you're allowed to do with software you have obtained, and you're not allowed to use the software unless you accept the EULA, but the GPL is not a EULA, so unless they want to turn it into one, I don't see how they can put restrictions on how you can use the software.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
If I write an entirely new application using GPLv3 code from several different sources, and someone modifies my code and uses it internally without contributing source back to me, do they have to pay me, or the original authors of the pieces?
This is completely infeasible. Licenses with terms like this generally get categorized as non-Free by the FSF itself. While it may be true that they can enforce copyright for undistributed modifications, they'd have to resort to BSA-style raids to enforce this.
I hope this is just a bad joke.
There's no failure quite as dissatisfying as a complete and total solution to the wrong problem.
So it's a week late. That doesn't make it any less funny. Especially amusing is how seriously virtually everyone in this discussion has taken it.
Nobody can be penalized for using software licensed under the existing GPL version 2 license, and the article is quite misleading to suggest that that may be the case. Licenses cannot be applied retrospectively.
However new works distributed under the GPL 3.0 license would be subject to this restriction. That isn't likely to cause considerable pain to either Google or Amazon.
Unfortunately the license has rather more serious implications particularly for things like embedded devices. Say you are an ISP and you use a particular router, which includes some GPL code, to support 250 customers. Since those customers are benefitting from a GPL-inclusive service, are all of those customers entitled to download the sourcecode ? In many respects this new license could be unattractive for many commercial vendors who may chose not to deal with works licensed under it.
OK they already do with the MS tax if they use MS, but people/companies are trying to get away from any "tax".
Slapping on a fee means other 'free' (BSD, MIT licensed) options will be looked at, and adoption of the new licence (and any code under it) might become less and less common; along with possibly less and less code release under it.
I can't see that helping the OS movement in a positive way.
AC comments get piped to
There are already a lot of misconceptions about GPL floating around in corporate America. Even within my employer (who happens to be a major Linux proponent who's currently engaged in a high-profile lawsuit against another 3-letter corporation ;) there exist project managers who are fearful of GPL to the point of paranoia.
Even though the exact changes to GPL 3.0 have yet to be spelled out explicitly, these rumors will only add fuel to the FUD being spread by Microsoft and their minions. We're fooling outselves if we think Microsoft's PR department won't jump on this.
It's not hard to see how these changes could be (mis)construed to suggest that if you modify GPL software, even for in-house use, you must either pay a fee or release the source code. Companies will choose to err on the side of caution and give all in-house GPL software the boot. Let me repeat: it won't matter whether these accusations are correct or not. Companies will err on the side of caution.
I hope that the GPL crew will come forth posthaste with clarifications. Rumors such as these are terribly damaging to GPL and public goodwill.
whats the big deal?
But that only works if every existing author had the "or any later version" clause in their GPL notice. If they didn't, then some parts of the project are GPL 2.0 (or even 1.0) only. To throw a 3.0-only patch into that mix is to create a project that cannot be distributed under any one license.
Meh, this is just all a bunch of hand-waving by one of the people involved in making the as of yet unproposed changes, and yet another bunch of even slightly more misleading hand-waving by the troll who submitted the article.
Nowhere in the article does it say anything about money except "With the new way, it lets the customer pay with either their source code or with their wallet." which has always been the case anyway.
It's fundamentally different in spirit and less free. Actually the clause in GPL which allows using future versions of GPL is a terrible clause.
We arent that desperate.
We shouldnt need to use "product placement" style advertising to demonstrate the usefullness of FOSS software.
If companies that use free software are more profitable then market forces will decide.
If companies try and avoid using FOSS because it encourages competition then its only a matter of time before they crumble.
the military forces you to SHARE YOUR BODY
and the chinese government, which makes most american tech, and is responsible for wal-marts success, forces you to do ALL OF THAT AND MORE.
why dont you write some screeds about that, you hypocritical shit eating numb nuts?
Hmmm... perhaps you should read the GPL. Then maybe you should learn a little about copyright so you actually understand it. Then reread the post you're responding to, and your post.
Think about these things for a while, then ponder the myriad ways you managed to prove, in just two sentences, that you are too stupid to live.
Little Girl: "Daddy, can I have a pony?"
Father: "No."
Little Girl: "Ok, how about just a candybar?"
Father: "Ok."
You see, they float a totally batshit idea like charging Google money for using GPL software, and everyone screams, then they come back and say "Ok, how about this other (relatively minor) change to the GPL?" and it suddenly seems much more reasonable.
Wait and see. In a few weeks the "more reasonable" GPL changes will start drifting out of Cambridge.
so that whole "free as in freedom" was a bunch of horse crap.
I believe that the freedom to let people decide for themselves is an important freedom to preserve.
That is why people should do with code what they see fit. Whether that means contributing to the code base or not. It doesn't matter because that's nobody's business.
This control-freak element among the GNU people is alarming: they might end up creating a system that is not unlike vendor lock-in. Coercing everyone into releasing code. Getting companies to cough up dollars for some cause or other.
A benign dictatorship? No such thing. Power corrupts, remember that.
run all month now? Or are these just leftovers from the 1st?
The (allegedly) proposed terms would require companies that use GPL software to write web applications to either pay up or give away the core of their services for free. For example, this means Google would have to give away their search engine code free.
This unfairly penalizes web services. The non-virtual equivalent would be to require Merrill Lynch to give its internal application software out free simply because it runs on Linux, or to require Oracle to open source its database software because it decided to ship a Linux version. That is plainly dumb.
A sufficiently clear dividing line separates the infrastructure/platform from the application running on it. Typically, the application merely uses the operating system or application platform without actually modifying the code running on it -- at most, shared library binaries are called. Just because an application is a web application should not require that it is open source.
While actually using the open source code in the application should trigger the 'code release' clause, merely putting it on the web should not. To require that is to make true all of Microsoft's 'viral GPL' crap.
Some people need to understand that you can't force people to support open source by beating them over the head -- you have to make clear the benefits of participating in the community. The 'regime' (allegedly) proposed by the article makes no sense and would serve to alienate pretty much everyone except the most irrationally fanatic and tactically blind people.
I don't think I understand the issue here except as a cautionary tale. Anything already released is under the existing GPL (or in some cases a newer version at the recipient's discretion).
As a cautionary tale it has some value.
Programmers who were suckered into signing over their work to the FSF could find their access to future version of that work restricted in ways they never intended or expected.
Programmers who released their own code under GPL but retained the copyright have little to fear from this except that they may want to purge the "future versions" clause immediately (not perfect but pretty good if you get right on it). Frankly, I would never put such a clause in my work anyways: "I assign these specific rights but I would like to also include a loophole to specifically ensure that, at some point in the future, someone will be able to use my work in a way that I never intended." That's pretty stupid in my books.
The moral: never sign your work over to a law firm no matter how noble the current staff is.
Way to shoot yourselves in the foot FSF...
I will bet all of those hypocrites have Google set as their home page and use Gmail as well. Web services such as Google and Yahoo benefit the opensource community greatly. Would it even be possible to troubleshoot opensource software deployments without Google? These people are crazy. I am sure a lot of damage has been done just by that headline. Drop the politics FSF. Opensouce is a great thing and it worries me when I look at who is at the helm.
But I want to say it myself (as if this is a vote). I think this is a _really bad_ Idea. I would never release my code under a license like that. I might be willing to write a license like GPL2 + patent clause, but if someone wants to tinker with my code, they don't need to give it back to me unless they release it.
In my view this is a tipping point for open source.
-Nuke the moon
To summarize, when Olson talks about money, it's in the context of Sleepycat selling "versions" of Berkeley DB that aren't covered by the GPL. There's nothing to indicate that GPL 3 will require anyone to transfer money to anyone.
Nothing for 6-digit uids?
Since so many people, including the submitter, seem to completely misunderstand what the FSF means here, perhaps an example will demonstrate:
Case 1: I download the Gimp and make a bunch of additions and changes to it. I then want to sell my modified version on a CD. That's just fine, but as the Gimp is under the GPL I have to include the sources.
Case 2: I download the Gimp and make a bunch of additions and changes to it. I then want to sell my modified version. I distribute a small proprietary program which opens an X connection to my server and runs my version of Gimp over the network. Under the GPL as it stands, I am not 'distributing' my modified version of the Gimp, and I don't need to share the source with anyone.
The difference in user functionality between these two cases is zero (well, assuming a fast server and network). But I have managed to successfuly circumvent the GPL.
This is what the FSF wants to stop.
WOW Well if this is even partially accurate it's the end of enterprise GPL. Frankly you can forget about the GPL for anything more sophisticated than shell scripts. This'll even knock-out academic and government uses. I'd love to understand Olson's motive for promoting this change prior to its final determination. Throwing a statement like this into the water is either the result of malice or stupidity. It's not going to matter whether the FSF does a total about-face and buys ad time on CNN to disavow the change - these statements will be seen as a signal of the FSF's future direction and intent. Its a confirmation of the worst fears of the most FUD-ish critics. JEESUS H CHRIST -- IDIOTS this is what we get for trusting a bunch of ideologues. AND BEFORE you flame me, consider what this change implies regarding the FSF's regard for the free software community - "it doesn't matter what we've said, what you've promised people, how this'll affect your existing work - the FSF is 'Free Software' , we own the movement, you're the sucker for trusting us"
The commerical adoption of open source software has been been a tremendous boon to the open source community. People like Linus Torvalds (and many others) are getting paid to write software instead of doing it in their spare time. That's *really* *good*. We're getting BETTER software that we can use FOR FREE.
The FSF folks aren't stupid. This is going to be FUD, you just watch.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Although article (and title, especially) doesn't explain anything, I can only way "So what"?
I'll keep on using GPL v2 for my software, as will many others.
If someone (for whatever reason) chooses to use v3 (in whatever form it will be) - so be it.
This doesn't look like anyone is forcing me to publish my sources under GPL v3.
Google and eBay allow end users to run programs on Google and eBay servers that create HTML for the end user. If I go to Google and do a search, INPUT occurs on my computer, PROCESSING occurs on Google's computer, and OUTPUT occurs on my computer.
That's not the same as you distributing a document you created. In that case, INPUT occurs on your computer, PROCESSING occurs on your computer, and OUTPUT occurs on your computer.
The question is: What's important in determining if a program has been "distributed"? Clearly if I give you a CD with the program and you run it on your computer, I've distributed the program. Clearly if I take GPL software and modify it and I run it on my computer only, I have not distributed the program.
But if I take GPL'd software, modify it, and then let YOU run it on my computer...
Did I distribute it, or not?
Your immediate answer is probably "Who cares?" But now what if I charge you to run this modified program on my computer, for example, by charging a fee if you use my auction program? Now I'm using software provided by the open source community for my financial gain, but not returning the modifications I made to that software to the community.
The extreme of this problem is that eventually, the internet becomes so fast and clients become so dumb that software is never "distributed" at all. I take an open source office suite and then modify it. According to the GPL, if I then sell that software on CD, or by download, so that people can actually run it on their computers, I must provide the source to it as well. But what if I'd rather just make money off of the GPL'd software I've taken without giving anything back to the community?
Well, then I just put the software on my own server, and instead of selling CDs or downloads, I let people provide input and receive output over a remote connection to the program running on my server.
And wala! People can modify and essentially provide GPL'd software without having to provide source.
paintball
It's much more fun to beleive the conspiracy theories!
Currently the GPL forbids redistribution of GPL-covered code linked with other code to form a larger work, when that other code is not also distributed under the GPL: the whole larger work must be so distributed. It is a "derived work", and copyright law is clear on this: one can not redistribute derivatives of copyright works without permission. It's that permission that the GPL grants, when you abide by its terms.
Of course, you are not prevented from redistributing GPL code *aggregated* with non-GPL code.
The problem arises from distinguishing between derived and aggregated works: what if I distribute a GPL app that I write, with a bunch of GPL shared libraries that I didn't write (complete with source), and a nonh-GPL proprietary library, essential for the application, that I did write, without which the application is useless.
Is that an aggregate, or a derived work of all the GPL code I did not write?
On the one hand, there's no (legal) requirement that my app even run, and, since I distribute source, one can implement a version of the non-GPL library. The fact that it works when my non-GPL library is installed in the right directory (LD_LIBRARY_PATH, anyone?) is a happy coincidence. Redistributing my GPL app, with modifications is fine, but you can't redistribute my "essential" non-GPL library, rendering the app rather useless without it. You add value to the app, I license more copies of the essential library.
On the other hand, the proprietary library, the foreign GPL libraries, and my app together, constitute a derived work of the GPL libraries, and must be redistributed en masse under the GPL.
If the libraries are statically linked into a monolithic executable, there is little argument that the whole source must be redistributed. The situation is more controversial if a mere aggregate of files is distributed: some argue that not distributing the proprietary library under the GPL is a violation, other's don't.
I tend to believe that if the GPL-covered peices can be redistributed indivudually, without the proprietary library, regardless of whether the result is useless, there is no violation: the fact that the code is actually only useful when the proprietary library is present is but a happy coincidence. What if I distributed a GPL version of the library, and offered a proprietary replacement, with far better performance?
This controvery gets even muddier when one considers alternate ways of effecting program linkage. In effect, the "functional derived work" exists only at run-time, and, indeed, the maner in which the parts of the aggregate are combined, can, itself, be the subject of restrive licencing, and patent. What about linkage via a remote procedure call mechanism? Y'all remember RPC/XDR over TCP/IP, right? Suddenly, self-assembling functional derived works become a reality. Protocols like SOAP, used to support "Web Services" exacerbate the problem.
This leaves a big, gaping hole in the GPL: socket wrappers were a common "hack" to "get around" the GPL: just layer a RPC mechansism around the proprietary library, and a GPL wrapper to call it from the app, and you were all set. And, that didn't even address the issue of inter-machine communication: 127.0.0.1 and Unix sockets are ubiquitous.
Of course, the minute one's app "links" with proprietary code on a different server in this manner, the GPL loses all force, for one did non distribute the proprietary part.
It is this area that the GPL v. 3.0 tries to address, IMHO, perhaps by more differentiating between linkage and aggregation. This can be done, of course, but then the license starts to lose some of its roots in copyright law.
The problem with such an approach, though, is, what constitutes linkage: does an exchange of HTTP requests and responses? What if there is ultimately GPL code satisfying that request? Surely, if I use a program provided by a vendor
You could've hired me.
Think about it...
I work for a major bank that uses OSS (and linux) heavily and, to be honest, we don't want to not contribute our changes back. Maintaining patchsets against ever evolving OSS is a PITA. You want new/different functionality, you write a patch (on company time) and make your case, nobody wants to be stuck constantly trying to apply your 'customizations' to a constantly evolving set of code (let alone mention how bad things get if the OSS version everyone else is using takes a split in the opposite, incompatible direction).
On a side note, Sleepycat is an awful reference for anything to do with the GPL. They've twisted it in ways that none of us would like (redefining 'redistribution' to include putting their binaries/code on a private (read: company intranet) netowrked filesystem, etc.)
I can tell you I'm going to be an author that makes sure my projects don't have 'or any later version' from now on.
I like the GPL and the FSF, but I don't like that the FSF could decide to change how my software is licensed in a way I don't have a say in.
What if your customers are paying for a search of internet websites?
If you take open source software and adapt it to provide searches of websites, and allow your customer to actually run the program (they send a query to your server, your server processess the query, and sends the result back to the customer) - it seems like the only difference between that and sending a CD so they could run it on their own computer is one of where the processing power comes from.
I agree that requiring companies to pay is the wrong solution however. The correct solution is to require companies that do this to provide the source code.
paintball
"All your base are belong to us!"
(*) Accept
( ) Do not accept
The existing payment model is fine, and does not need to be changed: The only payment required for GPL'd software is providing the source if you distribute the software.
The change should be to require that the source must be provided whenever you allow someone else to RUN the software.
paintball
All I see is business adapting, adopting and taking what they need from GPL and other free software. Sun, Apple, Microsoft, IBM. They're all doing it.
This is an idea that has been floating around for several years now. The GPL works by giving provisional permission to do things that you're otherwise prevented from doing by copyright law. If you do those things, then you have to accept the GPL or be in violation of copyright law. Pick your poison.
Copyright law gives IP owners the right to control (within the limits of fair use) the following actions:
The GPL version 2 grants the right to do the first three things. It does not grant the right to do the last 2. The legal idea is that a site like Google is a public performance of the software. To date no court has ruled on this notion, but at least some lawyers think that courts are likely to rule this way. Therefore the GPL version 3 would also grant the right to publically perform and display the software.
If the GPL version 3 comes out with such terms, and a court rules in the way that Stallman hopes that they will, then companies are caught on the horns of a dilemma. They are committing the wrong of publically performing a copyrighted work. Version 2 of the GPL grants them no permission to do so, so they are open to lawsuits. Much of that software comes with terms saying that they can choose to use it under the terms of version 3. If they follow the terms of version 3, then they can avoid those potential lawsuits.
This is, incidentally, a fundamental flaw in the GPL as it is currently constructed. Changing laws and interpretations for copyright may lead to people needing to seek permissions not granted in the GPL. There is no good "upgrade" mechanism in the license as it stands. (Unless you've done what the FSF wants and given the FSF the ability to come out with a new license that people can choose to accept. But in that case your gesture will be likely to be used as the FSF wants, not as you want. As in this instance.)
As I pointed out here, the technique would be to seek a court ruling which would make the current GPL insufficient to the needs of Google etc. At that point the availability of code under version 2 of the license would be a moot point since Google couldn't publically perform that work without permission.
The FSF board consists of respected people like Eben Moglen and Larry Lessig. They aren't going to allow the betrayal of the FSF.
Then why would you release your work under the GPLv2?
...especially because RMS said recently that the changes will be details. There is a line in www.gnu.org's license list mentioning that the GPL v3 may be compatible with the Affero General Public License, which seems to implement something similar. However, I definitely don't think it will end up as absurd as this article makes it out to be.
When they contribute back to GPL'd projects?
This seems like a *SERIOUS* blunder..
I wouldn't make companies pay $$. At the VERY MOST.. if someone contributes via services.. make them release their changes back to the project.. don't be a dumbfuck and try to charge them..
It's not about the money.. Its about the freedom. If you do something like this.. companies will be turned off and turn away from GPL'd projects..
Remember.. HALF THE PEOPLE WHO WORK ON GPL'D PROJECTS ARE ALLOWED TIME TO DO SO BY THEIR EMPLOYERS.. technically.. any work done on employers time belongs to the employer.. so it is these businesses that pay and sponser the development of such products..
jmho
The road between democracy and tyranny is paved with secrecy in the name of security.
The GPLv2 explicitly says. Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. Copyright law gives copyright owners control over public performance. The question is whether a site like Slash, phpBB, Google etc is a public performance of the copyrighted work. If courts rule that it is (no court has ruled on this either way as yet), then the GPLv2 is insufficient to the needs of Slash, phpBB, Google etc.
Hence the need for a GPLv3, which would likely include terms on what you need to do to be allowed to publically perform the work.
Why is this article under Linux? The article has nothing to do with Linux... it should be under GNU.
The GPL is a viral license. It infects software and forcibly propagates itself. Viruses tend to have a benign stage (GPL 1/2) and a malignant stage (GPL 3). They infect, they spread quietly until they are pervasive, then a critical threshold is reached and the virii begin destroying the host.
Welcome to version 3. Let the malignancy begin.
The "ASP" model of computing was not an invention of the Internet generation. Multics, which everyone has heard of but few people used, was developed for the very purpose of writing an OS for an "computer utility". CompuServe, Tymnet were services started in the 1960s that sold computer time. The purpose of ARPANET was to allow remote access to expensive, centerlized, scarce computing resources.
It could be argued that the ASP model of computing is the most natural. The late 80s, 90s and early 00s are a freakish period where computers were cheaper then networks. Think clients are not very powerfull, and with extreemly fast networks, accessing extreemly powerfull and reliable centerlized machines. Duh.
The FSF must have had their heads in their asses if they diddnt see this coming.
Part of what has powered the acceptance of GPL software in the business area has been the fact that if you are just using the software internally you are not forced to release any changes you have made to the code.
If you start forcing companies to release changes which are specific to their business/business model then watch as packages such as Linux are dropped like a stone.
Copyright law doesn't cover use of the software - only distribution. If someone is not distributing the software, copyright law for the software does not apply. So how can you make a service provider release code for something they aren't distributing?
For this to work as described, the user would have had to sign a contract. Otherwise, it will be just as unenforceable as a EULA (you already had a right to click the Next button on your own computer, etc).
It specifically states there is no restriction on running the program, or what you can do with the output.
Changing from a distribution license to a usage license is a VERY significant change in the spirit of the license.
Quote Last para, Term 0
The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program
Term 9
Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version,
Agh! I just shot my foot... my fucking foot!! ...like MS and others needed any more ammunition to fire at the GPL. I for one vehmently disagree with that proposal.
I assume that this is based on the same idea that Bruce Perens was floating back in 1999, that websites are a public performance, and this can be used to mandate access to applications which are not distributed, only interacted with on the web.
I know that back then various luminaries, including Bruce Perens, Richard Stallman and Tim O'Reilly expressed concerns about the ability of this kind of closed application to lock people in while having no obligation to open their own code. If they think that the legal theory will work, I would be amazed if the GPLv3 did not include terms along these lines. And no, they would not differentiate between individuals and corporations. Nor would they block any particular kind of use (as long as you are willing to distribute your software).
Isn't this mindset violating the first (0) freedom of free software:
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
By charging for running a service using a free program you are restricting that freedom, in essense you are saying "you are NOT free to run the program for just any purpose, you are FREE to run the program most of the time, or, any time if you have enough sufficient money." No, that just sucks.
Next we will have the layers come in and redefine free like the Markeing drones in the commercial world do ("free as in you only pay the postage and handling fees").
I still hope one day there will be legislation that finally defines the term free as "something without any cost or obilgation."
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
Wow, thanks FSF folks. You think the minor and stupid threat of legal action against Linux using corporations by SCO chilled use of Linux? Even talking about a change like this could do far more damage. It is incredible that they would even talk about something like this. If I'm a company like Google, why would I go forward using GPL software when the people in charge of the license talk about changing it to make me pay when I'm not redistributing my code? What's next? I run a website on Apache, I have to pay the FSF for the privilege? Sheesh.
arguments over intentions, principles, interpretations are now moot.
The FSF has signalled its intentions, and forced these on the entire FSM , they've confirmed the worst fears of every tech legal counsel and CTO in the world - not only is the license legally suspect, its capricious and the parties behind the Free Software movement will act with malice.
This is a f*cking betrayal.
Can you guess what the response will be the next time you recommend a GPL product - are you willing to further risk your reputation by trying to ensure your clients that the FSF doesn't really mean what it's saying
And don't give me some BS about what it 'really' means - you don't know !! This has been the basic problem w/ GPL adoption from the start - it's legal standing has never been formalized, the courts have never rendered an opinion on the full document. And just when we start getting enterprises, academia, and governments to adopt the GPL -- BLAMMOO -- the FSF cuts our throats.
I have read on some places now and then that Google runs a modified version of Linux and a modified version of Apache. It had some differences, I just remember a 64Kb disk cluster size, I think.
http://www.internetweek.com/lead/lead060100.htm
In fact, I can't think of why this clause should even be part of GPL 3.0. I can't think of a single case where it would actually apply in a sustainable manner.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I saw a present by Moglen at the OSDL conference and this is not consistent with what he said would happen with GPL v3. I suspect this much ado about nothing...
Although the intent behind the GPL is laudable, and the wording of the GPL in its current form achieves this goal reasonably well, it is always a bad idea to have a small cabal of minimally accountable people control such an important lever.
The GPL is a single point of control over the vast majority of the FOSS movement (~60-75% of all projects according to Wikipedia). The wording of the GPL impacts not only the fate of the FOSS movement itself, not only the fate of the work product of each individual participating in this movement, but also the fate of all the companies (large and small) that have chosen to assume the risk of depending on this software.
Given the GPL's extreme importance to such a large and growing audience, we should all take a hard look at who really controls it. The GPL is controlled by the FSF. The FSF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit; it has a board of directors who have responsibility for oversight of the President who runs FSF day-to-day (RMS is the president). The board of directors is elected by "Members" (NOTE: If you join the FSF off their website, you are an Associate Member which is a NON-VOTING position). I'm not sure how one gets to be a full Member.
Now let's not kid each other here: We all know how sketchy the oversight of a Board of Directors can be; we all know that groups of theoretical "equals" can be strongly influenced by a small number of strong personalities; and we all know that "Strong Personality" is a very accurate two word description of RMS (and I doubt Eben Moglen is far behind). I think those among us who are objective (and especially those among us who have personally interacted with RMS) can agree that RMS is on a personal jihad and he's using the force of law to achieve his ends. The question is, do we all want to participate in that same jihad?
Of course, one can respond by saying: "There is a competitive market for licenses - no one is forcing developers to use the GPL." This might be true on paper but it's not true in practice. We're software developers, not lawyers. I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of developers release their work under the GPL simply because "that's the one I've heard the most about and that's what everybody else does", and NOT because they researched other available licenses and arrived at an understanding of their implications, and especially an understanding of who controls these licenses.
So where does that leave us? We have a single pseudo-fanatic who has substantial control over the single most important component of our movement. This should scare the shit out of all of you.
Me? I'm going to either change to a non-GPL license or stay with GPLv2.
It's funny how the FOSS movement parallels Russian history: RMS (Lenin) started a revolution to overthrow proprietary software (the Czars). But the new regime became a dictatorship (Communism). It's now time for the proletarians (FOSS developers) to revolt again and achieve self-determination (free, accountable, and transparent democracy).
How could this even be considered to be an enforceable restriction? It is hard enough to catch people that break the GPL even when they distribute binaries derived from GPL code. Services do not need to advertise the code that they use in any way.
They do provide me with a variety of free, useful services in order to sell my eyeballs and Google's knowlege of my interests and habits to their customers, which are companies interested in potential consumers.
The GPL has led to a terrific and amazing revolution; our information infrastructure, which is one of this generation's most crucial assets and contributions, is effectively given to the public trust, rather than locked away as a tool of the powerful to exploit the rest. Furthermore, mankind can use the tools of the past to move forward, rather than reinvent the same tools over and again.
The usage of GPL software to provide services strikes me as completely within the intent of the GPL, and unlikely to spur the kinds of abuses that the GPL was intended to discourage. Would anyone benefit if everyone that provided a service derived from GPL'd code were required to pay? Hmmm, would anyone EVER then run a GPL'd webserver, or any other service run on a GPL'd OS? What users of GPL software would be liable, any whose services indirectly contribute to anything providing revenue? Such a GPL would be the death of free software.
Copyright law gives copyright owners control over public performance, and the GPL v2 does not grant this right to users. If a judge ruled that running a website was public performance of the software used to do so, then the GPL v2 would suddenly be insufficient to the needs of many website owners. (No judge has ruled on this question either way.)
The GPL v3 would then presumably grant the right to publically perform the copyrighted work, but on terms similar to current terms for distribution.
From the point of view of the FSF, this would put companies that are hosting an application on a website in the same boat as companies that are distributing an application to their customers. In fact given their philosophy, if the interpretation copyright law gave the FSF the ability to do this, it is hard to imagine that they wouldn't want such terms.
It doesn't seem to me that it would be technically difficult or too expensive for the likes of Google and Amazon to switch to a proprietary solution if GPL'd software loses its economic advantage (assuming there actually is one).
For those that haven't yet put their toe in the "free software" pool, the water is beginning to look a lot deeper.
But it sounds like RMS is finally going to clear up the ambiguity he created when he coined the term "free software" to describe GPL'd code.
So the FSF is now adopting the SCO business model?
From what I am reading it comes down to the following.
GPL your software, but you are not distributing it. Pay license fee.
Closed source software, but you are not distributing the source. Pay nothing.
I think this would really halt many people and companies from using the GPL as their license if this were to happen.
TruePunk | Games
The FSF issues a series of documents (the various versions of the GPL), which software authors may use as a license for their software, if they wish. Therefore, if software is licensed under a scheme that requires certain payments, then it is because the authors, not the FSF, choose to license it that way.
If the FSF changes the GPL in a way I do not like, then I will simply stop using it as a license for my software. You can too.
Of course, there is plenty of software licensed under GPL2 "or any later version". But the "or" means that a company may, if they wish, continue to license under GPL2, which means no payments.
You know how many marriages are ruined by money disputes? Well guess what money's going to do to the GPL movement?
The GPL explicity allows any usage, and the GPL also does NOT apply to output from the program.
From Section 0
The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
"If someone releases updates to a GPL 2.0 licensed product, but those updates are only available under the GPL 3.0, and you do not want to abide by the restrictions in the GPL 3.0, then you might be SOL for those updates. That's about the worst thing that can happen."
Isn't that how proprietary companies force an upgrade? Accept our terms, or else...
"Like voting? And do corporations get the same negative sides as private citizens, like going to jail? If you won't send a company to jail, and give it a vote, you can't equate them to private citizens"
2 00 5/03/worldcom_and_en.html
http://tornandfrayed.typepad.com/tornandfrayed/
Whilst there seems to be a lot of alarmist over-reaction to this story, the principle behind it seems valid. The following is a real world example. crossfire is a MORPG (it can't fairly be called massive at this time, since it has dozens rather than hundreds of players). It is released under the GPL 2+ It has been around for years. Graal online is a proprietory MMORPG which charges monthly fees to access. It runs a (now heavily modified) version of the crossfire server. They took the server, tagged on a pretty front end and charged some amount each month. The client is also proprietory. As far as is known there is no stolen code in the client (this is based soley on screenshots though, since the source code to the client is hidden away). However, with the exception of the graphics, it is apparent from the forums that large parts of crossfire are still being served to these clients. Parts of it they have rebranded, but kept otherwise identical. Unfortunatly under the GPL2 there does not appear to be way to get these guys to contribute back, they have taken a Free software game, made some code tweaks and run their own server, which they base their business model around. The clients won't store much if any of the game content, but they are served it by the server. But, since the server binaries are not distributed, nor is the source to it. Unless the clients use some of the original code (and they might do, though this can't be proven), the GPL 2 is not sufficiantly powerful enough to get them to play fair. The GPL 3 however would seem to be. It's just a shame that it wasn't around 3 years ago.
"Today thinks has changed. Often people use software without getting a copy, just over the internet or other networks. And this is a gap in the principle of the licence because it creates a situation were people use a program but don't have the freedoms described above."
In other words technology breaks a social construct. The MPAA/RIAA found this out, and now it's the FSF's turn.
However well intentioned, beneficent dictators are dictators nonetheless. We suffer their foibles as well as their goodness. Taking a one dollar salary doesn't equate to abdicating the throne.
Sergey Brin, Larry Page, Jeff Bezos, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and their ilk are all cut from the same cloth; they are pretentious strumpets; presuming to know best; all symptomatic of a cultural mindset that conflates concentrated power with innovation and progress. We worship greatness and make a mockery of teamwork. Hitting the winning run doesn't mean you won the game alone. Why then, do we place such stock (literally) in individuals who have done nothing more than pick the fruit grown by others? It's not rational, it's primal. The structure of our society does not reflect what benefits us most, but is rather something akin to a wolf pack or a coop full of chickens. We can rationalize about supply side economics or shareholder value all we want; it does nothing to obscure the fact that we're nothing but a bunch of monkeys.
that those sections are an explanation of what the FSF believed copyright law to say and are not meant as a grant of permission.
That is why that is section 0 and not section 1.
Finally note that your interpretation of the second sentence of paragraph 2 contradicts what is stated in the first sentence of paragraph 2. Public performance is explicitly not in the list of things in scope for the license yet you think that the license grants that permission? If there is any ambiguity in whether permission is granted, a court must rule against you because it is extremely clear that there was no intent to grant permission for anything other than copying, distribution and modification.
There are Nazis everywhere, on both sides of every fence.
Microsoft officials were quoted Monday saying, "ah-hahahahahaha".
for more light on this issue, check out this itconversations open source conference audio: http://itconversations.com/shows/detail386.html it shows what fears businesses have when considering open source, and gives more weight to the argument that we do not need to make the gpl any more difficult than it already is.
I don't see where the FSF has signalled anything. One person (who owns a business based on the OSS) who is advising the FSF has gone on record with what he'd like to see to increase his business' revenue. I'm sure that other people have different views are are making them known as well.
Nothing for 6-digit uids?
This is why people should be embraching the BSD License, where "Free" means Free.
Common sense is not so common.
That is all there is to say. Being free and forcing free are two different things. One is actually free and the other isn't.
:-)
If GPL 3.0 implements this silly idea then it certainly will be killing itself off at present. The altruistic idea of forcing all code into the open into todays unethical commune is silly. It will put the good guys, the guys who play fair in a bad position and the corporations and businesses who don't in a golden position.
The idea in and of itself is the holy grail but it would be at the expense of the good guys. Where's the gain; for anyone, except for people opposed to opensource in the first place?
My mom always told me there are some people who are so blinded by altruism that they don't realize they are being stupid. They don't see that they've already accomplished their goal so they walk to the end and lose. I've seen it happen a couple of times. It'd be hard for me to see it happen here.
Wow i'm shocked to even have read that. Guess the end times are near
...i think i can hear bill gates cumming in his pants from here.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
There most certainly is. For example, if you take OOo and serve it up as a web page, shouldn't you be required to release the changes you've made to it?
If I understand what you're saying, your suggestion is that the right to view the code should be attached to the viewing of the web page generated by the code. I feel that I should point out the logical extension of this, which is that anyone who compiles something with GCC would then have a responsibility to provide GCC source code to whoever used the resulting compiled program. Which would be a decidedly odd requirement. My mum uses OOo to produce documents and presentations. If I told her she had to be ready to provide source code to her clients, she'd switch back to MSOffice in a blink.
I stand by the unobtrusive approach of the GPL2.
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
Wouldn't it be a bit ironic if the agenda of both RMS and FSF all along (as far back as the late 1980s) was to infiltrate business, academia and governments until a critical mass was reached. Then put the screws to the entire software industry and reap massive revenue from retroactively extorting licensing fees out of all who were unfortunate enough to fall into their web. You know it could turn the FSF into a billion dollar enterprise and RMS into a real powerbroker in line with Ellison and Gates (instead of a fringe figure). But that could never happen (ahem).
Let's at least wait and see what Moglen and RMS have to say directly about this. This wouldn't be the first time Slashdot's readership has played the whisper-around-a-circle game.
This is how the mainframe time used to be paid for. Only they don't count the API calls but rather CPU cycles.
You can't handle the truth.
You said it exactly, if not clearly:
If the Free Software Foundation screws this up, it will be the end of the GPL.
While you have suggested that the FSF controls the wording of the GPL, there are a lot of factors that go into deciding on a license. I happen to like the GPL for much of the free-time software that I release myself, and that is because I've read every clause in the GPL and feel that it fits what I would like, unlike the BSD license or several other FOSS licenses.
For example, the Gnu Free Document License has a few very weird quirks, and because of those quirks there is some reluctance to releasing documentation under that license, despite the "seal of approval" from the FSF. That is why for right now Wikinews is in the public domain, because of the short commings of the GFDL. To do a scholarly quote of a GFDL'd document in a for-profit publication (like a newspaper), you have to include the entire text of the GFDL somewhere in the publication (not tiny either). It just makes it difficult to work with except for republishing books (technical manuals, etc.) that are released under the GFDL where printing out the license would be trivial compared to the content being published.
In this case being discussed, copyright falls into a real grey area because technically the output of a piece of copyrighted software (like a compiler or word processor.... really!) is under copyright of the company or individual that wrote software being used. In this case, they would be using the GPL to suggest that if the output of that software is the result of the use of GPL'd software, and that output is distributed through public channels, then the copyright is voided and you don't have the right to copy any of data unless you've complied with the terms of the GPL. Essentially, these companies (like Amazon or Google) would not be able to post web content without explicit premission of the software authors of the software they are using (like the Apache software team or MySQL AB).
The philosophical problem being discussed is what should happen when somebody (Amazon) uses GPL'd software, makes substantial modifications for their own internal use (they have a team of software engineers and an economic reason to make the changes... to improve their websites in this case), and then refuse to "give back" to the community those changes that have proven useful. With v. 2 this is not required.
If v. 3 of the GPL were to require this updated software to be given back to the community (by forcing people who distribute content generated by GPL'd software to also offer the source code of the software used to make the content), Eben Moglen feels that would be a good thing.
IMHO (IANAL, but I do know copyright law as much as most of them) I think this would be an Achiles heel for the GPL if it were added. This legal theory (output of software is copyrighted by software copyright owner) is not explicit in the copyright law, but more of something that is through common law practice. It makes more sense when you are thinking of a video game (where the screenshots of Doom3 are under copyright of ID Software) or a weather forecasting engine, but just where do you draw the line? This could get ugly if pushed into courts, and have a huge impact not only on the GPL itself, but on software publishers in general, or even most ordinary computer users.
By ugly I mean it would make SCO vs. IBM seem like a sandlot game, as there would be no real clear resolution of the situation, and new legal doctrine that would have to be developed regardless of which way a judge would decide the issue.
If I were Richard Stallman (and I'm not), I would leave things well enough alone and be grateful that the GPL has started a revolution in thinking. Sleepycat software should be happy that many people are using their software, and that not only is their software being used, but used in high profile situations that they can brag about. Quit trying to squeeze every last ounce of money from ev
Perhaps BSD and it's licencing won't go unnoticed after GPL 3.0. Think about it, it may offer companies more freedom in the long run. I'm just sayin'.
bo
bad_outlook
--
Is this vague enough for you?
as though I've just been exonerated. I've been saying for a while why I have issues with RMS, and if this license goes ahead as depicted here, there will finally be irrefutable evidence of what I've been saying...Namely, that the man is a megalomaniac whose intentions are not anywhere near as glorious as he has made out.
Stallman needs to be careful. He exists in a community whose tendency is, once it has identified problems, to simply route around them. If the mask truly comes off and he exposes his real agenda of wanting control over people, rather than being the advocate of libertarianism that he has claimed, he will run the risk of being rendered completely irrelevant. Although I'm actually hoping he continues to be imprudent, because I want people to see the truth about this man. Once enough people have, then we can all move on to other licenses which more genuinely serve our purpose.
If they add this kind of fee, or any kind of fee, then this is no longer free software. It's commercial software, plain and simple.
Lots of companies have written software and had licensing terms where it costs money, except that it's free if you're an individual, a developer, a non-profit, or an educational institution. For instance, Sun did this with Solaris before they made it free to everyone, and I believe the Ad-Aware anti-spyware program has similar licensing terms. This is exactly the same thing, with only one difference: the FSF is specifying the members of the set (of who has to pay) by inclusion instead of exclusion. But, that distinction doesn't make any difference, since the members of the set are basically the same! (And yes, another difference is that the source is available, but the source is often available for commercial software too, if you buy a source license.)
IMHO, the goal of the GPL should be to create a body of useful free software that is open and not vendor-proprietary. To do this, the GPL should enforce give and take, but that doesn't mean that somebody has to be compensated with money every time someone uses the software!
The thing about software is that you can make copies and an additional person can use it without taking away anything from those who are already using it. Furthermore, if the goal is to create a world where open, standards-based computing is the norm rather than proprietary bullshit, then think about this way: every time a commercial interest uses free software and makes money (off someone else's labor), that's a good thing. Why? Because it's one less system that is built around some proprietary software product! Overall, that increases the mindshare of open source, and it moves the world one tiny step in direction where open, interoperable, non-proprietary computing is the norm.
So what? The use of the word " fails " above sure seems to apply there is something wrong in letting a company use the software and not charge them. I certainly don't see that there is. Others may not either. How to you deal with all the software that authors wrote and gave away by GPL with the deliberate intention of letting businesses use it freely in their own internal applications? This will get harder and harder to deal with when code released under the current GPL in mixed with code under this new "someone must pay" GPL, such as in a release of a Linux distro.. And how do you even police it? Does someone expect companies to self incriminate themselves or expose confidential internal software to audit just because someone thinks that it might contain GPL software?
I don't even see the point of making such a change. If anyone needs to be contributing back to GPL authors (a premis I reject), then it should certainly be the large distributers who have built multi-millon dollar businesses on the business plan of selling what other have written and make available free (some Linux distros come to mind) and not some company who's technology guys accept some GPL code that is offered freely for an in-house project (major or minor).
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
"No, it means that Google's applicances and Google's servers would now be treated the same. For example, if Google changes Linux to run better inside the Googleplex, then those changes would have to be given back to the community. If Google writes a program from scratch that runs under Linux, then it will still be protected."
In other words, everyone is back to the "reinventing the wheel" development process, and the only thing OSS has going for it is that it's a free platform.
If the FSF didn't agree with this interpretation, why didn't Moglen simply state that Olson's statement was his own ? The fact that he'd declined to comment indicates to the legal community that this interpretation is valid within the context of the current deliberations.
just wait a few days, this whole thing is likely to brew into a galaxy sized sh*t storm.
This is crazy. I agree with the comment above where the guy says that everyone will just fork old versions and continue. Those proposed changes are crazy and WILL NOT FLY. Go back to the drawing board , morons, you can't force google to release the changes and improvements to linux.... I'd love to see them too.. but stop dreaming and do something productive. IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN ! I like the license the way it is right now. It seems to have worked out pretty well for MySQL, for example, and linux is innovating at an amazing pace. Please don't fuck up a good thing.
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
....
Version 4, April 2, 2005
Project Codename: Fake GPL
Free Software Foundation, Inc.
(With an extra space in front of Free)
02111-1307, USA.
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this document, for the low low price of $5 per copy. Changing the document is not allowed without a prior arrangement for publication, 555-1234 for details.
This agreement is entered by the FSF, original authors of the program, and an end-user. In consideration for using FSF licenses, the author promises to assign no less than half the interest in the software to the FSF; the FSF outlines these rules by which the end user and the original author must abide in use, modification, and distribution of the software.
This document contains the rules by which you can use, alter or publish parts of the software. You are legally bound to follow the rules described herein.
Rules:
This software is NOT Public Domain, shareware, careware or the like
You may under no circumstances make profit on *ANY* part of the software in any possible way. You may under no circumstances charge money for distributing any part of the software - this includes the usual $5 charge for "sending the disk" or "just for the disk" etc. By breaking these rules you violate the agreement, and hence will be sued. All fees will be the distributor's responsibility
You may not remove any copyright notices from any of the documents or sources given to you.
This license must *always* be included "as is" if you copy or give away any part of the software (which is to be done as described in this document).
If you publish *any* part of the software, we the authors and the name of every FSF board member must appear in the article, and the article must be clearly copyrighted subject to this license. Before publishing you must first send each of us a message, by snail-mail or e-mail, and inform us what, where and when youcare publishing (remember to include your address, name etc.)
Any running version of the software must include the name of each author in the startup disply sequence for a duration of no less than 30 seconds.
You are allowed to alter the software, source and documentation as long as you do not violate any of the above stated rules.
--- Try and figure out what license most
of this wacky parody came from... Qvxh
this will kill commercial adoption of linux... maybe RMS is worried that the CEO of IBM now has more clout in the Linux community than he does. Pure sour grapes.
Amazing magic tricks
OK, for starters, I'm a Student Ambassador to Microsoft who's heard their side of the story as far as .NET is concerned. I've also seen the FOSS side of things and have really begun to come around to this idea. However, this article REALLY scared me.
.NET Winforms! The thought that Google or Yahoo, who have arguably helped the cause of Open Source more than the FSF and similar groups put together, would have to pay retroactively for GPLed code they use is ridiculous...
If this even happens or gets seriously suggested, FOSS will take a huge hit! At least Microsoft is generally not so galling as to up the license on a specific piece of software or start charging people to use ASP.NET or
Insert deep cynicism...I kind of had a sneaking suspicion that the FSF (Lawrence Lessig, etc.) leaned toward a socialist to communist mindset. But this would be a direct hit on big businesses and a redistribution of wealth in favor of the FSF so they can give speeches at universities and explicitly support devices that promote piracy. Woohoo!
This sig donated to Pater. Long live
I think some FSF folks got pissed of by the fact that Google guys got rich (partially) by leeching on GPL software, heh, heh....
1. I just don't see how is anyone going to police and eforce (let alone investigate) ASPs and companies for GPLv3 violations (non-released modifications to GPLv3 code)?
2. It's getting easier to see the value of Microsoft's approach with 100% indemnification. In the future GPL users will not only have to make sure that their code does not violate commercial code and/or patents, but they will also have to check if their internal modifications violate GPLv3.
Why would a company modify a GPL'ed software for their needs, if they didn't plan to MAKE MONEY by using it?
Here we are with the "water is wet" thread again...
Perhaps he's just managed to read the Affero General Public License v1 and has decided that that's the way that the GPL v3 is going to look? But apparently he hasn't already read the coverage of this rather crappy license that debian-legal gave in 2003 and then informed the FSF (and RMS), explaining that it couldn't possibly be DFSG Free, let alone satisfy the 4 freedoms?
Oh, right. Must not have actually checked all that out. Gee, does Mike Olson even use the GPL at all? Why would he be reviewing it anyway? Well, lets see: hrm... this sure looks like the 3 clause BSD license to me. Yerp. No GPL in sight at all. Ok, so someone who doesn't even use the GPL, (to my knowledge) isn't a lawyer, and isn't a prominent member of the copyleft side of the Free Software movement is reviewing a license that no one else has seen?
I mean, I can understand slashdot editors missing this bit of trivia in their rush to approve/reject a story... but surely Michael Singer at internetnews would have bothered to actually check if Mike Olson was the "insider" he was claiming himself to be?
http://www.donarmstrong.com
As a CTO of an IT organization and avid open-source fan, I frequently base many of our projects on open-source. But if we were bound to pay the fees, it would defeat the entire purpose of the opensource software, since developing the software internally would make much more long-term sense then. I'm sure my organization is not alone in this. This is a terrible idea that threatens the spirits of open-source, but it could threaten the entire open-source movement in the future, as this would mean any open-source project would turn into a for-profit company, competing with multi-billion dollar corporations. Obviously very few if any open-source project would survive this. This is a reallybad idea, and I really hope this doesn't get implemented.
This has been an ongoing debate for a long time. It boils down to the user of the software should have the ability to change the software. (Are you really using the software if you cannot change it? Or, is the software using you?).
The problem is that when you use a database over the internet to provide a report to your browser, and the database is licensed under the GPL, you the user aren't able to see or modify the source code for that database which you are using.
I personally disagree with this, since you the user are not using the database, you are viewing reports generated by someone else's computer (which is using the database). It's like giving the plans for a printing factory when you buy a book. Doesn't make sense to me.
I like the idea of 'free' software. Not so much when its license is designed to take more and more of the 'freedom' from people because theyre making money. Free should be Free, not as in free... but...
I'd like some projects to remain GPL, others to be BSD. Projects that are a good idea, but its uptake and improvement by companies can damage its market, should remain GPL. Other really good pieces of software should remain BSD, since a great deal of software is later based on it, and people who'd like to see such improvements in free, will just improve the original code and try to beat the proprietary ones.
But such a GPL3 idea is silly, and most authors wouldnt like their software to be forbidding. An OSS programmer wants recognition and wide use of their software. Noone wants to make another man rich; for free. Thats the essence of the BSD GPL difference, and the GPL3 idea is an extremist's view
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
I am very surprised that Slashdot would actually approve such a misleading story. Misleading stories have appeared on Slashdot before, but at least when it comes to free software, the stories used to be truthful and informative. Well , this is an unfortunate exception.
First of all the story purports to tell what Eben Moglen is doing but mostly includes quotes from that Olson fellow. The obnly Moglen quote basicly says "let me finish the draft first and then we can discuss it". Then the article continues on pure speculation of what Moglen might be thinking.
Second, the slashdot blurb completely misrepresents the actual referenced article. The shashdot blurb makes it look like the main purpose of the FSF is to hit up google, yahoo, etc. for money. In reality the whole damn controversy is whether the code should be released or not.
Of course if there ever emerges a legal requirement to release the code and the code is not released the FSF might be entitled to damages -- thats just the way the US judicial system works. But that does not mean that the FSF are looking to hit up these companies for money. In every dispute so far the FSF has made it quite clear that they will forgo money damages when the code is actually released.
Now whether GPL derived code used for providing internet services should be released is an very interesting (and increasingly important) issue. However, this slashdot article completely misses the whole issue by making it look like the FSF is just trying to get rich on Google's behalf.
1) Invent solid free software licence
2) Wait for it to become widespead
3) Change it to demand money
4) Profit!!!
This whole article is a troll based on taking someone's words out of context and spinning them to mean whatever FUD is needed against the GPL.
Fact 1: GPL v.3 doesn't exist.
Fact 2: Eben Moglen wasn't commenting on this article. Some CEO putting his personal spin on it is all we have.
Fact 3: When this is announced either as a public comment period or otherwise, you can bitch. It will not happen.
The FSF is smart as shown by GPL 2 and they will not do anything to damage the good thing they got.
Pragmatism as an ideology is not particularly pragmatic in the long term. Keep it in mind when you dismiss Free Software
MySQL AB already thinks that the GPL works this way. Communicating with their database using SQL in the course of executing your application means, to them, that your application is a derivative work of MySQL. The Sleepycat CEO is a step ahead of MySQL in that he realizes this is not, in fact, currently the case. But he wishes it were.
The article isn't mandating and behavior change, it is say that the user has a choice.
[qoute]
With the new way, it lets the customer pay with either their source code or with their wallet."
[/qoute]
For Free Computer Help, and Technical Answers
"GPL is not done until Linux does not run". Eh?
The Open Source Definition (which was sortof modeled after the GPL) clearly states:
No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
( Open Source Definition )
This sounds to me as you are allowed in the license to ask a (reasonable ofcourse, or you'd rule out most parts of the world...) fee from everyone, or none. But not just organisations, of any kind.
Thus the GPLv3 would not be an Open Source license. Somehow, I don't quite think the FSF would come up with something not OSI approvable.
Correct english usage should be, "Zonk IS a fuckface."
In theory /. threads are about the article cited in the thread. That means that we make references to parts of the article. The article states:
You are right in my reference to the article I did not say "CD and floppy disk" as is stated in the article. However, in the contxt of this /. debate, I beieve that alluding to the section of the article is sufficient. The assumption is that we all read the article.
The article seems to be about code that is being distributed by means other than floppy or cd. For example, there are conversations in this overall discussion about Google distributing fully functional turnkey computers that contain some GPL code. Stallman would want all of the code on that computer open sourced.
Now then, the next logical jump after distributed code brings us into the hornets nest of client server computing. The wording of the article really makes it seem that server side code is the next big issue on the GPL discussion block.
I realize that you are probably new to the internet technology. The Internet uses an idea called "client/server" architecture. Some people use the term "thin client". In this architectural design the main logic resides on the server. The server sends to the client small packets of HTML that the thin client (the web browser) formats and displays for the user.
When you "view source" you only see the HTML produced by the server. The main logic is hidden. HTML is pretty brain dead.
People developing server side applications have a completely different view of copyright than those who deliver their works as a deliverable product. Copyright, after all, was designed to protect distributed works. Web programmers really don't care that much about the HTML. The meat of their program is the logic hidden on the servers.
In most complex web sites, the meat of the program is the computer code that generates the HTML. For example, I could write a program that generates the first hundred thousands decimals of pi and displays it on my web site. Stallman would protest and say that he wants to see the code, and not the result. The code exists solely on my computer, I never distributed it and can claim exemption.
Now, I suspect that the article in question is about closing the loophole that allowed for certain means of distributing compiled computer code without the source. The real battle will come down the road when GPL wants to demand the publishing of all server side code. This would, of course, include all of the business logic so carefully guarded by businesses.
The question of closing a few loopholes that might allow the distribution of compiled code is one issue. The demand to see all code that exists on computers that contain GPL code will be another can of worms altogether.
Having developed programs with object oriented techniques. I know that there really is not a clear delineation between code and data. Code is just a bunch of data. Data really only has meaning within the context of the logic that interprets it, and so on. It is not difficult to escalate the demand to see the code on a computer to a demand to see all of the data as well.
Stallman disciples will say that the demand for full access to computers only applies to servers. To make life even more interesting, every computer on the internet has the potentional to function as a server. Well, you can take this argument where ever you like.
Fortunately, we have the BSDs waiting in the wings if the FSF ever did something as stupid as this, just as Linux stepped in while the ATT/BSD lawsuit was putting free Unix in jeopardy. I can't see them doing this. I can't see them even keeping this guy on the committee after this. In fact, I'm sort of surprised that a huge denial that this is a consideration hasn't already been made. This is a FUD nightmare that has to be dismissed now.
Currently there is no trade, since you're obviously not giving ANYTHING back. The community has nothing to lose by losing smartasses like you.
What is so hard about understanding that free software is about sharing code among all the developers? You are using it in a production environment, yet do not contribute code back.
I agree that the proposed "fix" sounds a bit troublesome. But you are currently breaking the spirit of the GPL, so maybe you should consider using another license right now?
Why is everyone always saying "Software should be free, unless you're a business, in which case, get your checkbook"? The GPL shouldn't mandate anything except that code be made available. I think corporations should be entitled to the same rights and privileges as private citizens.
We don't say software should be free-as-in-beer, but software should be free-as-in-speech. It may cost something, but you might also get it cheaper somewhere else..
When considering to use the word "free", ALWAYS consider what type of "free" you mean. Or else, you spread confusion and misinformation.
In this case, these corporations and individuals are abusing a loophole of the GPL. They are breaking the spirit of the license, by not contributing back in any form. We prefer source, but giving an option of money is an OPTION. By perfoming the software in public, they might be trapped by new copyright law. Which is a good thing: The GPL never intended freeloaders, leeches and cheapskates.
What is wrong with that? Especially since it can't be done retroactively. GPLv2 still stands on old software. This applies to new updates and projects only released under GPLv3. This is determined by each author and project. Let the market decide.
If copyright vanishes, GPL has fulfilled its purpose. Until then, the fight continues.
There's alot of confusion in the replies. I just want to clear something up (Posting anonymous since karma means nothing to me):
Why is everyone always saying "Software should be free, unless you're a business, in which case, get your checkbook"? The GPL shouldn't mandate anything except that code be made available. I think corporations should be entitled to the same rights and privileges as private citizens.
We don't say software should be free-as-in-beer, but software should be free-as-in-speech. It may cost something, but you might also get it cheaper somewhere else..
When considering to use the word "free", ALWAYS consider what type of "free" you mean. Or else, you spread confusion and misinformation.
In this case, these corporations and individuals (this is not only targetting corporations) are abusing a loophole of the GPL. They are breaking the spirit of the license, by not contributing back in any form. We prefer source, but giving an option of money is an OPTION. By perfoming the software in public, they might be trapped by new copyright law. Which is a good thing: The GPL never intended freeloaders, leeches and cheapskates.
What is wrong with that? Especially since it can't be done retroactively. GPLv2 still stands on old software. This applies to new updates and projects only released under GPLv3. This is determined by each author and project. Let the market decide.
If copyright vanishes, GPL has fulfilled its purpose. Until then, the fight continues.
Here's a good example.
Someone buys a lot of computing power and installs a version of linux that works well on that machine, providing a walled-off computing resource they can now rent to people who cannot afford a computer.
Now, the code is never distribuetd, but people who are not that company use the changed Linux. Under GPL2, the changes that made it work on that machine do not have to be distributed.
GPL3 is attempting to make sure that the improvements to Linux (in this case) are made available back to linux to improve the entire product.
NOTE: This is similar if
a) The access is through a webbrowser (maybe you want more computing power than you can afford)
b) The computer is leased (which may be interpreted as not distributing)
Better?
Please note: The reason why GPL3 is going to take a while to get because they want to make sure that it doesn't cover the output of a GPL code, but does include if you use the code in a manner that is effectively distributing. A difficult line to draw.
"Not only are we changing the rules, we are changing them retroactively. "
Can someone explain this please?
It sounds as though he wants to change the GPL liscence agreement, and then apply the new rules to existing agreements.
Surely this is not allowed?
Have I misunderstood, and if so, can somebody please enlighten me
b3 4phr41d 0f my 4bov3-4v3r4g3 c0mpu73r kn0wI3dg3!
MadDwarf
I've dual licences, the mine to sell commercially products secret-cleaned & the ass license GPL for stupid morons.
Moreover, i impose my rules to win money, money, money, money, $$$, $$$, ... and the morons have not possibility to win money, hahahaha, the morons must to pay for me because of my stranger license, hahahaha.
Too, the morons are forced to give me theirs modifications or patches of my forever dirty & buggy GPL sourcecodes.
Why GPLed SmallEiffel's sourcecode is so cryptic or humanly non-readable?
--- Signed by a dying man ---.
The new GPL: all your changes are belong to us!
Bjarke Roune
Editors want sensational stories that attract readers. The out-of-context Olson quote guarantees sensation.
Nothing for 6-digit uids?
Um, whatever happened to the RMS view that the GPL makes software "free as in freedom"? This rule would effectively make that line "free as in free to not be free from paying the FSF!"
Here we see the dangerous crossroads between freedom-to-use software and the ability-to-sell software perspectives.
RMS & Moglen can choose the former, allowing more freedom for end-users, including commercial users. Or they can demand payment, at the expense of the end-user's freedom to use that money in some other way.
This rule will *clearly* stifle adoption of GPL'd software in the business world (because it costs more), and will quickly add another line on the Windows vs. Linux TCO reports Microsoft pays for (which some managers blindly believe).
Me? I'm undecided. On one hand, this seems like a dumb move. A fee shouldn't be charged from providing a service to people using GPLv3'd software; any fees should be imposed somewhere else in the license (e.g. "if you are a commercial user, then the source and binaries are not open or available to you without paying a fee, but for non-commercial and educational use, they are free", etc.).
OTOH, I think such a license is necessary, as it more-closely fits the purposes of business-world reality, while maintaining a clearly open-source license agreement. But I don't think it should be called the "GPL", or at least, some obvious, high-level distinction ought to be made. Call it the "Commercial GPL" or something...
Regardless, I don't know how the hell the FSF expects to enforce such a provision (except against companies which have already openly-stated they use OSS, or against companies whose disgruntled employees tip off the FSF -- which is really no different from the situation with the BSA today), but it'll be interesting to see them try.
In any case, I do know that when certain peoples' freedoms are taken away, meanwhile the proponent of the taking is claiming "free as in freedom!" or "we will help the (Iraqis|software users) be a freer people!", etc., that one ought to look with a critical eye towards that person and their claims. Freedom does not mean "free to have freedoms taken away."
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
But if most of the world sticks to GPLv2, the less free GPLv3 stuff will die out.
Fotunately some very significant software (Linux kernel for one) only permits the use of the GPLv2.
My apologies, I see what you're getting at.
The "an ye redistribute none, do what ye will" clause has always been the loss leader of the GPL. Given that the web apps you describe are just an extension of standard web browsers, I can't see any way to enforce things more strongly without pissing off a lot of people.
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
Oh, I so wanna see a 'make 'em pay' scheme.
because the food/shelter/energy/computers/taxes are not free.
Did no one notice that the entire article is about a proposal to require code from compaines who "semi-distribute" their binaries (not money!)? The whole notion that some sort of fee structure will be imposed on companies who use GPL code is totally absurd. To whom would the money be paid? It makes no sense, so why are you all jumping off the proverbial cliff rather than looking more closely at the article and figuring out what's really being said?
If you had done, you would have found that Mike Olsen (CEO of Sleepycat software, advisor to FSF, and interviewee) is concerned about a loophole in the GPL where code is not required of companies who distribute GPL software as "services" over the net. Code. Not money. Code. Got it?
The "money" quote is reproduced in its entirety here, with the relevant sections highlighted:
Mike Oslen is saying that these companies are already paying money to support Free Software, but that the new rules will allow them a new opportunity to pay with source code instead. That's what he says.
Personally I think it's kind of dumb, because thes companies are already able to contribute their code instead of their money, but whatever. The point is, y'all have it competely backwards.
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
(emphasis mine)
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Copyright law gives IP owners the right to control (within the limits of fair use) the following actions:
4. Public performance
5. Public display
The GPL version 2 grants the right to do the first three things. It does not grant the right to do the last 2. The legal idea is that a site like Google is a public performance of the software. To date no court has ruled on this notion, but at least some lawyers think that courts are likely to rule this way. Therefore the GPL version 3 would also grant the right to publically perform and display the software.
So your claim is that GPL-2 does not allow Google (etc.) to provide web-apps from GPL'ed code without giving the source? If that were so, why is this always referred to as a "loophole in GPL-2" which would be fixed in GPL-3? Why wouldn't someone already have sued Google (etc.) for GPL-2 violation? You are basically saying that there is a conspiracy among GPL-2 copyright holders to not file suit about this violation until GPL-3 is released, providing an escape mechanism for the copyright violators.
Could you provide a reliable source for these rumors? Otherwise (and please don't take offense at this, I'm just stating the truth) it's easy to dismiss you as a tinfoil-hat wearing AC.
- Kevin B. McCarty
This is nonsense. Copyright covers copying. And the courts decided decades ago that running software is a form of copying because the software has to be copied (from disk to memory, from memory to the CPU, and so on). These court decisions have since been codified in copyright law in the UK and USA (and probably elsewhere).
If not, they are f-ing nuts.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
why not something like the agpl?
It's "voila"
In this case, the messenger is Mike Olson CEO of Sleepycat Software.
/ www.sleepycat.com/download/licensinginfo.shtml)
For a long time Sleepycat software has an odd license.
It appered to be BSD, but...
They considered re-distribution to mean among other things...
"your application is distributed to more than a single physical location".
Source from wayback machine (http://web.archive.org/web/20030115155248/http:/
Recently they have reverted to a more typical interpretation of re-distrbution, but I wonder if Sleepycat (i.e. Mr Olson) would like to nudge the open source community back towards their old position?
I personally think Mr Olson's ideas are bad, and suspect many in the FSF do, and he's looking for outside support for this proposal.
...no, seriously, can you back up that claim? I've never heard anything of the sort.
Just because they upgrade the GPL doesn't mean you have to use it.
So Google doesn't upgrade any software that had upgraded its license.
No Story, move along.
Restated, if I write my own software, I can use any license I want. I can use GPL 1.0, 2.0, or some rendition of it that I rewrote myself.
If I am using your code version 1.0, and you released it under the GPL 2.0 when I borrowed it, I don't care what you do with your software version 1.1. You can't relicense what I already have.
I knew there was a reason I didn't use the GPL. The constant arguments always gave me headaches.
I tend to adapt the zlib license, so it says what I actually want people to do with the software without relying on some great monolith with too many subsections for the end-user to care about, and a totality which is questionably viral.
I'm one of those strange people who think that if I give something to the community, the only strings attached should be that they can't sue me:)
It is now official - Corporations have confirmed: the GPL is dying.
Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered GPL using
community when rumors out of the EFF regarding the GPLv3 suggest that
the GPL will criple business's use of GPL software in commercial
products and services. Currently, GPL accounts for less than a
fraction of 1 percent of all open source revenue. Coming on the heels
of the latest Fortune survey which plainly states that the GPL is
loosing market share, this news serves to reinforce what many have
known all along. The GPL is collapsing in complete disarray, as
fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent comprehensive
Forbes's "Product Opportunity and Development Cost" survey.
You don't need to be Linus to predict the GPL's future. The writing
is on the wall: the GPL faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be
any future at all for the GPL because business organizations are
ceasing to - and will continue - to use GPL software. Things are
looking very bad for the GPL. As many of us are already aware, the
GPL continues to lose market share in favor of the BSD license. Red
ink flows like a river of blood from GPL using companies. Linksys and
MySQL are among the most prominent endangered GPL users of all, having
lost millions of dollars worth in revenue and contributions from
corporate developers that have avoided working on GPL software.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
A Google search states that there are ~10.6M posts regarding GPL. How
many users of BSD/MIT/X license are there? Let's see. The number of
MIT + BSD + X License posts on Google is roughly 65M: a ratio of 6:1
in favor of BSD/MIT/X licenses. Published BSD licensed software
accounts for less half of the volume of actual BSD users. Therefore
there are about 130M users of BSD licensed software, compared to 10.6M
GPL license hits on Google. Fact, the GPL is dying.
All major leaks regarding the GPLv3 show that the GPL is going to be
more restrictive to businesses and will decline in market share. The
GPL is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim.
If the GPL is to survive at all it will be among communist ideological
zealots without a shred of business sense. The GPL will continue to
decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save the GPL at this point in
time. For all practical purposes, the GPL is dead.
Fact: the GPL is dying.
Conclusion: avoid using or writing GPL licensed software.
what happaned to BSD, and "it's a gift to mankind" concept?