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 [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
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 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
I'm worried about GPLv1984 myself.
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." [Thomas Jefferson]
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.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
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.
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
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....
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
> There code , there license
There cave, there bear, Og go cave, Og kill bear, Og eat bear, Og rest, Og write GPL 3.0 !
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.)