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."
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.
Please someone tell me that they cant do this retroactively, that its impossible under the current GPLv2 terms.
Your wish is my command. If you look at source code to any GPL-licensed program, you will see something like:
Hence any code that was licensed under the GPL before version 3 is released may still be used under the terms of the GPL version 2, at the option of the recipient, not the author. Actually, a number of current projects, including Linux, are licensed GPL-2 only and may be impossible ever to convert to a higher version (permission would be required from too many people to reasonably track down). Hope that helps.
- Kevin B. McCarty
The key thing is who you got the code from. Let's play that Richard Stallman goes insane, and makes v5 of the GPL ''evil.'' If you got some GPL'ed code under the terms of the Evil version, then you are bound by the Evil GPL when you use ''that instance of the code.''
But if you go on the Internet, and find the code with no version number, then you can use ''that instance of the code'' under any GPL that you like. You could use it under v1, v2, v3, vWhatever.
It sounds silly, because it's the exact same code, just from a different person, right?
But, this is actually how it works.
Consider this: If Disney were to sell you a video under the terms that you could only use it in your own domicile, then that video they give you is indeed under those terms.
But then, perhaps for a higher price, they could sell you ''the exact same video,'' but perhaps with the license option that you are ''also'' allowed to watch it at your friends' domiciles.
You could, if you wanted to, buy both! They'd be two identical copies, in terms of what you are physically holding in your hand. But the legal permissions around them would be totally different.
(I believe. I'm not a lawyer. This is just my understanding of the situation.)
Same with the GPL. If you can find a v1 version of some code somewhere on the Internet, then you are welcome to use it under the terms you found it under.
The basic idea is that: Software developers are likely (in theory) to release their new software under the most recent version of the code. (Provided they don't think it's evil, and all.) They can take all their old GPL v2 code, and automatically upgrade it to v3, without conflict. Now they are release GPL v3 code.
Now, if on some FTP server somewhere, someone finds the v2 code, and wants to use it- that's their right. They can do that.
They can use that v2 code under the v2 terms. If v3 says that you have to either publish your changes or pay someone (or whatever,) they don't have to do that: Because the code they received was licensed v2.
If they want to play by v3 rules, they can. But, they don't have to.
(Again, I'm not a lawyer. But, I also think that this is true. This is my understanding.)
Now steady on. I don't think RMS has ever said that the GPL should force the release of code that is used in a 'public' way like yahoo.com but not otherwise distributed. All we've seen is interviews with other FSF folk like Eben Moglen who have said that this issue among others is being considered, and that there will be an extra long consultation period before version 3 is released.
In fact, RMS has explicitly said that a licence that doesn't allow private versions of software is non-free. The original APSL required you to publish any changes you made to the code - much stricter than the GPL which says only that what you do release, you must release under the GPL. RMS quite rightly said that this makes the original APSL non-free. You might like to read what RMS actually says before deciding that he disagrees with you.
Finally, isn't it most sensible to allow GPL version 2 or any later version *at your option*, and let the users decide whether they wish to move to the new version of the GPL when it's announced? If the new version is unreasonable, people will be free to stick with v2.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com