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....