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."

Comments

Re:Who what when where?

[winkydink]

Why you'd pay it to the FSF, of course. They'd administer the money, funding projects as they see fit. Kind of a Politburo for the Software Community.

BTW, when does Stallman's Macarthur Foundation Grant expire?

For the humor impaired: It's a joke son.

Re:Future versions of the GPL

[KiloByte]

RMS is a madman. Fortunately, he's our madman.
He needs to be watched closely (to prevent blunders like the GFDL), but, he is well-known to have good intentions.

The problem is, if something bad happens to him, it's possible that whatever members of FSF will have the deciding say will push the GPL in a completely different direction. Whoever controls the FSF, controls the vast majority of GPLed software.

I'm not paranoid enough to label FSFians as possible traitors who would follow whoever shakes the purse, hell no -- I have quite a bit of faith in them. However, they may do any modifications to the licenses of software they don't own the copyright to -- it's a huge power. It's dangerous to leave such power in the hands of people not protected by insanity.

Re:This doesn't sound like a good idea

[pmike_bauer]

"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."

These implications of the proposed GPL3 are certainly troubling. How is this different from "evil commercial vendor lock-in"?

I'm not trolling...just hoping that this interpretation of GPL 3 is wrong.

Re:They deliver HTML.

[Richard_at_work]

Has it every been proven that the google appliance is a Linux box, because Ive seen one in the flesh and played with it on a network, and it most certainly looks like a unix box of some description (nmap identified it as a FreeBSD 4 server among other things) as of 6 months ago.

Just because they use Linux in the Googleplex doesnt mean they use it everywhere.

Re:Future versions of the GPL

[ecklesweb]

Well, I do have software distributed under the GPL, so I want to talk specifics...

Here's the full section 9, a portion of which you quoted:

9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General
Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the
present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.

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

So my question becomes this: What determines whether or not you specified a specific version of the GPL? Most of my comments and the readme file say "Licensed under the GNU General Public License" (no version mentioned), but then included with the distribution is a copy of version 2 of the license. Does that imply strongly enough that version 2 is the specific license under which the software is distributed?

Or do I need to go make some changes and do a commit....

Re:Pot meet kettle

[kbmccarty]

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.

"They" can't change the license retroactively. Any software licensed under GPL is either "version 2 only" or "version 2 or later, at your option". So, any GPL software that exists at the moment the GPL-3 is unveiled, you may continue to use as long as you want under GPL-2 terms. Of course, this will not be true of new or updated software released afterward under "version 3 only" or "version 3 or later" terms.

I hope this idea goes no where or you can see any the profesional devs go elsewhere really quickly.

If the GPL-3 turns out to be as implied in the article, I completely agree with you. And I think that most free software authors will as well. If the terms of GPL-3 are that bad, no one will use it and it will quickly become irrelevant - nothing to worry about.

But let's wait until we actually see a draft of a proposed GPL-3, not get upset over third-hand rumors.

GPL is a distribution license not a usage license.

[nuggz]

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,

From whence doth your vision stream, Olson?

[dondelelcaro]

Olson should know. He is one of a select few looking to review the current GPL and recommend updates for the public review process, which he says should happen before the end of the year.

Right, so Mike Olson is one of an infinite number of people who can read the current GPL and recommend updates by mailing licensing@gnu.org for public review. Obviously this makes him an insider. (Congratulations! If you're reading this, and can click or right arrow on two links, you're an insider too!)

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?

This story is complete BS

[Edmund Blackadder]

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.

Re:Future versions of the GPL

[dgatwood]

In my opinion, absolutely not. In the FSF's opinion, absolutely so. Which is why I'm suddenly feeling very smug about my decision to not do the 'or future versions' thing in software I've written over the years. I think this is the version where I stop bumping the version number and if anybody doesn't like it, too bad.

The mere notion of comparing the use of a piece of software that happens to present a more public than usual UI to the distribution of software is beyond absurd. In my opinion the fact that the vague definition of prior GPL versions' distribution clause, which could be interpreted by some to require public release of changes distributed only within a company, is also absurd. In fact, in my opinion, a lot of what RMS spews is absurd.

For example, don't get me started on GNU/Linux. What about MIT's X11? What about KDE and Gnome? Each of those probably represents a larger body of code than the FSF contributed. What about BSD? Why not just go all out and call it RedHat/Debian/MIT/Gnome/KDE/GNU/IBM/insert-the- name-of-a-hundred-other-groups-here Linux?

I'm sure some piece of code I have written to support some obscure, ancient piece of Mac hardware has, in some form or another made it into some fairly public versions of the Linux kernel somewhere (through my generous agreement that anything I wrote under a BSD license for MkLinux could be reappropriated freely for use in LinuxPPC). Can I get my name in there too? Where do you draw the line? I draw it at 'Linux'.

The point is, he isn't 'our' madman, as GP (or maybe GGP) poster put it. He's the madman for the most extremist fraction of free software developers. For those of us right on the border between choosing whether to distribute software under the GPL or another license, RMS's ranting is the biggest reason to consider anything other than the GPL, and this latest GPL proposal makes it very hard for those of us not on the lunatic fringe to take anything the FSF has to say seriously.

Just my $0.02.