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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
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.
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
The wrapper code could then count the number of calls, the function name called, and the company calling them, and this in turn could append a text file that is stored somewhere and automatically sent once a month to the FSF which will then use the file to send the company a bill. The FSF would then distrubute the money to each of the authors of the given API calls.
I will volunteer to make the necessary modifications to gcc. This of course will require all GPL'd code to call my APIs, which will of course be the first to implement this new system.
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
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 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,
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
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.
There have been quite a few organizations whose purposes have changed drastically over the decades. I'm not aware of many that haven't.
It's all very well to trust the current board, but when you say "any future license", you are trusting all future boards, and 20 years from now, every single member will be someone you don't now know.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.