Slashdot Mirror
Drafting GPL3
johns writes "In an article released yesterday, Eben Moglen and Richard Stallman outline four purposes of
the GPL, to explain the guideposts they will use in
drafting GPL3: the GPL is a worldwide copyright license, the code of
conduct for free software distributors, the constitution of the free
software movement, and the literary work of RMS. They also make this
commitment: 'The Foundation will, before it emits a first discussion
draft, publicize the process by which it intends to gather opinions
and suggestions.'"
the code of conduct for free software distributors
*THE* code of conduct? Not *A* code of conduct? I bet the BSD folks would have something to say about that.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
That included as one of the basic tenets of a 'Free Software License' for international distribution is the requirement that one person be honored / deified / whatever as its creator?
Not to pick a fight, or demean said person, but it just seems a little.... Yeah. Anyone else get what I'm trying to say?
My little site.
What problem will v3 solve?
Unless there is some sort of benefit, why would anyone use it?
Yeah, but the BSD folks have something to say about everything.
Will programs under the older versions of the license automatically fall under v3, or will the author have to explicitly state that? The license isn't very clear (at least not to my non-lawyerish eyes).
Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
What happens with deceased people's code? Will I inherit granny's 200,000 lines of code? What do I do then? Will GPL 3 address that?
I would definitely fix the long load times and maybe make it not so dark all the time and maybe more outdoor levels.
free software != open source
Free software is a GNU thing.
...and that is all I have to say about that.
http://jessta.id.au
I recently had a sudden rush of blood to the wallet & in a fit of altruism (or selfish desire for more freedom and cool software) I joined both the FSF and the EFF - both excellent causes and presumably close to the heart of many slashdotters.
When the "welcome" packages arrived from each I was rather surprised to see the EFF has of the order of ten times more members than the FSF! I'm FSF member #30xx, and the docs say there are 2,1xx active members. The EFF on the other hand has 24K something members.
Not sure what the moral is, except that I wish more people donated to the FSF. Why not send em $20 and think of it as a small contribution towards the costs of glibc and gcc, two vital programs without which there'd be no Linux, no BSD and no Apple OS X.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
Really? I thought they were generaly quiet people who rarely spoke up about anything (excluding Theo, naturally).
1 of the 4 listed purposes of the GPL is "The GPL is the Literary Work of Richard M. Stallman" (which explains how the glory of Stallman is the lighting beacon of freedom). Does this guys ego ever take a break?
GPL v2 doesn't specifically address the patent problem. Anyway, here's the story on Revising the GPL.
Thus, can I anyone enlighten me what areas of the current GPL (v2) are under investigation?
No, the BSD folks will do what they usually do: get things done without stirring up a tempest over the politics, especially that of "who speaks for whom", the precise definitions of "Free Software", and whether a license should or should not fit on a 3x5 card.
I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
With the growth in free hardware designs it would be nice if the GPL3 took some note of how it may be applied there as well. There's been a fair amount of debate on how it's inapplicable, which is a shame because many people want to provide their work to the world in this area too.
:-) With the price of FPGA's being so low now, it's becoming more and more available. T'would be a shame for the GPL to miss out again.
It's not so different... writing in verilog, compared to writing in 'C' with lots of concurrent threads, and the thrill of getting a working piece of hardware is far more than coding up a cool algorithm, IMHO of course
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
All your base belong to us.
I bet this is when they announce the FSF's merge with Microsoft and the new "all your base are belong to us" clause of the GPL.
They specify the four pillars of GPL3:
1) GPL is a worldwide copyright license, 2) the code of conduct for free software distributors, 3)the constitution of the free software movement, 4) and the literary work of RMS
The problem is that (1) has always been limited by the FSF's unwillingness to translate the GPL into any other language. How they plan to make it an international license without actually translating it ought to be interesting.
(2) is already pretty much taken care of. You use GPL code in your code and then distribute it, you have to open up your code under GPL conditions. I can't imagine what will change.
I'm not sure what they plan to get out of (3). The GPL is the General Public License. It may be drafted by the FSF, but it is intended for broad usage by many different people. If they want to have a constitution, they ought to make one, for their organization. Trying to pretend like their organization represents the entire movement is silly and pure hubris.
As for (4), who cares except for RMS what literary works he's published? More hubris.
It seems that like the Perl camp, the FSF can't leave good enough alone and is slowly imploding under the pressure of their own navel gazing.
GPL 2.0 is fine and clear. GPL 3 looks to be an FSF circle jerk in honor of RMS. Count me out.
BSD code is more free than GPL code.
BSD code places no restrictions on anyone that wants to use it (well except for the retaining the copyright, but that's pretty minor).
what's the point in free software if you can turn it into a non-free product?
To have the freedom to do whatever you want with the code? Isn't that the ultimate freedom?
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
I bet those BSD folks would spin in their graves if they heard what RMS thought about them.
The heirs receive the copyrights. Unless there's something in the decedent's will, the copyrights to the code will be passed on to the appropriate heir.
The heir is then free to release the code under any copyright scheme he deems appropriate. However, he is bound by the original licensing of the code (GPL) which has already been granted. He may stop distributing it altogether, or he may stop licensing it under GPL, but the code that has already been distributed under the GPL remains that way.
Some believe that granny's code is gone forever, only to be remembered in the minds of her living friends and relatives. Others believe that granny's code will be judged for soundness and proper comments and that her code may ascend to heaven, purgatory, or various levels of hell. Still others believe that granny's code will be checked into by a universal source code control system that controls a cosmic repository where all code from everyone who has ever lived resides.
what's the point in free software if you can turn it into a non-free product?
That, good sir, is called freedom.
GPL protects the freedom of the software, while the BSD license gives you the freedom to what you want with the code.
Both serve a purpose, but it's daft to say say GPL is more free than the BSD license. (And it's useless to start a flame war about it the other way round.)
Well, yes, but it is twisted freedom in the same sense as the freedom to own slaves: you take someone's work but don't reward him/her for it. There must be limits to freedom, otherwise freedom becomes a meaningless concept.
If a GPL program implements a patented procedure two things can happen.
1. The patent holder does not grant a licence to use and distribute it. The GPL software can not be distributed.
2. The patent holder does grant a license to use and distribute. The software can be redistributed and used.
What is the problem?
1. Make Software Free(as in Speech).
2. Make Free(as in Speech) software Free(as in beer).
3. ????
4. Profit!!!
The BSD license, both original and modified, are also Free. (source)
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
IP Tables? Bahh, we call that Netfilter, and we've had it for years! You don't need IP addresses on that firewall! BSD will run that software faster! We've been ported to your toaster before linux was a twinkle in Torvalds' eye! ...
Ad Nauseam.
*THE* code of conduct? Not *A* code of conduct? I bet the BSD folks would have something to say about that.
The BSD folks usually quickly point out that their license is not a code of conduct for distributors, in contrast to the GPL. It certainly grants more freedom to distributors (and indirectly, less to the end users).
i think the risk in translating the GPL to several other languages is that many points could be layed out differently due to the broad meaning of some words. this could lead to abuse. english is accepted as international #1 language and people programming computers will never get around a basic knowledge of the english language. also people in high ranks such as judges or lawyers are able to understand english. maybe a LATIN version of the GPL would make sense... or even better: the official valid license should be written in english but easy understandable translations should be made available. with easy to understand i mean commented so that a 15 year old newbie can get the sense out of it.
I think there should be customizable skins, those make everything better.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Just because the GNU folks call it "free" doesn't mean it is free in all ways. A GNU license ensures the *user* has the most freedom, and a BSD license ensures the *developers* have the most freedom. In either case, the other group loses some freedom. A GNU license creates a situation where developers cannot merge published code with their proprietary code, while a BSD license creates a situation where some users might not have access to a particular modified variant of the published code.
[
Make sure that GPL3 is human-readable, as version 2 was. I absolutely hate reading legalese. It really bothers me that so many important things in my life (such as student loans, credit cards, computer software) assume that I am capable of understanding, and hold me accountable to understand the contents of legal documents. I appreciate the simplicity of the GNU GPL, and consider it an essential feature of the license. The BSD license is even simpler.
<tangent>One thing that bothers me is when GPL software requires that you agree to the license during the install procedure. The GPL is not an end-user license; it is a distribution license. You must accept and comply with the terms of the license if you wish to redistribute GPL'ed works. End users are not required to agree to anything in order to simply use it, or even to modify it for their own use.</tangent>
No. There is a reason for laws, even in a free society. That reason is that freedom cannot exist without rules. Freedom does not mean you can buy a car and run over some pedestrians. Laws are there to stop people from infringing on other people's freedoms.
Theft is infringing on someone's right to own stuff, murder is infringing on someone's right to live. And so on. However, laws like the Patriot act are not there to protect people's freedom from being infringed.
If there is freedom, there must be some kind of protection of that freedom.
And another reason for the GPL to require you to distribute GPL'd software is that all humans are equal, everyone should have access to free software.
To put it plain and simple, the GPL does not infringe on anyone's freedom, it protects freedom from being infringed.
And BSD-licensed software can't be distributed as you wish either, the advertising clause.
the point is - your BSD is still free for you. Don't buy the commerically kicked up one. You did not want that one in the first place.
If it were done when 'tis done, then t'were well it were done quickly... MacBeth
Nothing really, but ESR usually have nothing to say that interest me, but I saw this one.
Anyway, this one has nothing to do with it, but this was quite funny; wich i why I like Kirk's lectures.
Don't get me wrong. BSD is a fine license all right, but nothing special compared to the protected freedom of GPL.
While I prefer the GPL over BSD (and similar licences) -- the GPL does not work well in all situations. For example, anything that requires a reference design that you want to be widely adopted. The Ogg codecs (Vorbis, Theora, ...) for example.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
No, that was "Free Software [tm]" (TradeMarked property of the Free Software Foundation). You missed the Capital Letters.
Just as in "The GPL is the Constitution of the Free Software [TM] Movement" ...
Note of bias - I have in the past refused to release software under the GPL as it was overly restrictive. (On the other hand, I have GPLed some. What can I say, I'm a hypocrit.)
.. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
im used to being a loser all my life. i wait for the day LINUX gets renamed to LOOSDOWS
Complete freedom means no licenses involved since licenses, by definition, exist to place restrictions in one way or another.
This of course doesn't mean that the GPL or BSD licenses are bad... it only means that the whole = free is just rethorics.
diegoT
IMO, instead of making interoperability distinction based on code space, the GPL3 really needs to allow the developer to define 'public' and 'private' interfaces; the public interfaces (such as shell and protocol) would be considered interfaces non-gpl software can talk to, and the private interfaces can only talk to other GPL software.
Surely you would use the LGPL (although not particularly liked by Stallman) for that purpose?
Protected freedom... Right. Protecting freedom by removing the rights of others. Here I thought that freedom was defined as "The condition of being free of restraints." (source: Answers.com) But there goes the GPL, define "freedom" as "restricting the rights of others to protect mine."
[whine mode on]
I'm not free to punch you in the face anytime I want to! Waaaaa!
[whine mode off]
Both licenses give people the chance to take your work and make more stuff out of it. However, the GPL definition of freedom includes a police force to stop those with deeper pockets and fewer ethics than you from stealing your work and using it against you.
Both licenses have their uses. BSD-licensed code is great for things that must be adopted quickly by everybody (e.g. TCP/IP). GPL-licensed code is great for people who want to provide good application software to the community without being ripped off by the PearPC's of the world.
Remember air isn't truly free, because someone could turn it into a non-free product.
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
I wrote this to address exactly the mistake you are making.
GPL is not freedom for anyone. It is freedom for the software.
It's not just a liicense, it's a "constitution" and a "literary work".
It's not about free sotware, it's all about Stallman.
"Well, quite frankly, BSD licensed software is not truly free -- what's the point in free software if you can turn it into a non-free product?"
The BSD license is not truely free because it doesn't contain enough restrictions? I could always counter that the restrictions of the GPL make it not truely free. It's a dead horse but bares repeating, the BSD and GPL exist because of difrerent views about what constitutes freedom. That's life.
Here is my own take on it. The GPL seeks to preserve the freedom of the initial developer at the expense of a third party through the derivitives licensing restriction. The BSD license seeks to preserve the freedom of the third party at the expense of protection for the developer.
What does this all mean? Use what you like best and respect other developers' chosen licenses. If it's different from your favorite, get over it. Debating the ideology behind the two is retarded since they start off and focus and different ground.
I'm seriously looking forward to what will propably be the flamewar of the decade. Millions of lines of code and thousands of coders will be directly affected by this, and they will all have they own opinions on where the license should go.
- These characters were randomly selected.
Aside from everything else that's wrong with your post, could you please explain how the GPL rewards the original author when you take their work?
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Are you suggesting the author of a work should not be permitted to put their name on it?
For F**ks sake, he wrote it, it's his, he can put his name on it.
You can use it, copy it, distribute it, make fun of it, complain about it, print it out and feed it to gerbils.
Having the author put his name on it isn't some sort of ego trip, most already do this.
Well, quite frankly, BSD licensed software is not truly free
I guess some people are delusional enough to think that if they lie enough it'll become fact.
Sorry, nobody is buying that drivel except GNU fundies.
>A GNU license creates a situation where developers cannot merge published code with their proprietary code. This is not true. You can use the result inhouse without any restriction. You can do anything with the code if you have the consent of all of the original authors. >while a BSD license creates a situation where some users might not have access to a particular modified variant of the published code. By some users you meant also all of the developers who would build on this code, but are stripped by a greedy company who 'forgets' to contribute the sources of their released (sold) binaries back to the community.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
yes the GPL is the code of the code monkey, code for the coder, opperating instructions for the operation...Ok, I'll go away now
We are the Borg...
You seem to be under the impression that there can be only one license. I'm a developer so I care about *my* rights. I'm a user, so I care about *my* rights. I don't expect all developers to agree with the GPL or even align with it. I don't expect all users to agree with the BSD or even know what it is. The only thing I think everyone should do is to *honor* the license under which a product is provided.
[
Ironic, I argued almost the opposite in another thread on here. :)
7 80968
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=152315&cid=12
There is stupidity everywhere; the BSD world is no exception. Generally, the BSD world isn't screaming these things, however. This is unlike the Linux world where anti-Microsoft, Linux-should-take-over-the-world, Linux-is-better-than-BSD, Linux-is-better-than-Solaris, SCO-sucks, and other ignorant, closed-minded statements are the norm.
;-))
The BSD people are, generally, quiet folks who stay out of all this stupidity.
(Oh, and netfilter/iptables sucks -- PF is to take over the world! Suck on that Microsoft! It's faster than iptables too!
"23(a): Permission for all uses of this copyrighted work are granted to Microsoft Corporation (new sponsors of the Free Software Foundation), and they are exempt from all requirements in this licence agreement."
This may cause disquiet among developers who used the "either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version." clause.
${YEAR+1} is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop!
How are they being treated like slaves when they're producing the stuff out of their own free will, for the purpose of being used by anyone, for any application?
1. "PearPC".
2. Not-so-hypothetical situation. I write software. It's pretty good. I decide to relax a certain level of control for it so that others can play with it, and we all get better software as a result. Two years later I get a call from a dickwad in Kentucky who has taken my code and used it in a patent application that was granted. Because my code is BSD, not GPL, I have the choice of wiping out my savings to challenge his patent, or try and get out of penalties by not writing on the software ever again. Dickwad then starts sending royalty letters to the other people listed in the source.
-----
"Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 7 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment"
Taco's an idiot.
MS is a very honest corporation and generous employer that many many ppl rely on. This license IS undermining our western software advantage. May be your local view is clouded enough and cant see China, Thays and Japs taking over with Linux equiped hardware. They realized that Linux is their chance. So buy their PS3 or Nintendo just to be sure u fuck US even more.
Aside from everything else that's wrong with your post, could you please explain how the GPL rewards the original author when you take their work?
1. He didn't say that th GPL rewards the original author. He was talking about an analogous situation of whether slavery means more or less freedom to dispel the insane idea that to be free you have to be able to trample on everyone else.
2. Obviously the GPL "rewards" the original author by requiring those who use his code to comply with the terms of the GPL, which presumably is something he wants since he used the GPL. It "rewards" subsequent authors beuilding on that code by allowing them to use the original authors code.
This is incorrect. Licenses exist in order to grant a privilege that would normally not be allowed to you. In this case, a software package that does not come bundled with a license is protected by a very stringent set of copyright restrictions. The exact nature of these restrictions will vary from one country to the next, but most countries will have them.
The license is what frees you (to varying extents) from these copyright restrictions.
sigs are hazardous to your health
Not to mention ACM and IEEE after all the work they went through to create codes of ethics.
But when you use BSD code you don't prevent anyone else from using the same BSD code?
Your analogy would be like I used FreeBSD code in my Closed Source OS then in turn I had legal rights to Sue FreeBSD for using my code that was theirs.
There is no freedome loss no one is loosing any freedom by using OSS code in my Closed Source Program.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
but are stripped by a greedy company who 'forgets' to contribute the sources of their released (sold) binaries back to the community.
I think Wasabi Systems, a company who develops on NetBSD full-time for clients, would disagree. Clients have let them donate code they've worked on back to the community. (Source: http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3187)
And since when does ruling with an iron fist get you anywhere? Forcing people to conform to your view doesn't lead to progress. Convincing them it's better does.
Free of Flash! Free of Flash!
The beauty of the BSD license in this context is that the reference implementation can be mutated into any different implementation. So long as the intended invariants are maintained (proper ogg behavior, in this case) then derivations into proprietary instances should be allowed and encouraged, as a thriving ecosystem of competing implementations only helps the adoption of the format. The LGPL would only allow, for example, a non-free Ogg player to invoke the free LGPL library. Modifications to the library would have to be released as LGPL, which is a restriction that discourages forking of the reference implementation. (Forking in the case ofreference implementations is very desireable, including forking into non-free variants.)
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
Adrian Cronauer: Excuse me, sir. Seeing as how the V.P. is such a V.I.P., shouldn't we keep the P.C. on the Q.T.? 'Cause of the leaks to the V.C. he could end up M.I.A., and then we'd all be put out in K.P.
Well, yes, but it is twisted freedom in the same sense as the freedom to own slaves: you take someone's work but don't reward him/her for it. There must be limits to freedom, otherwise freedom becomes a meaningless concept.
No, the BSD license is more akin to "I agree under my own volition to produce work with no guarenteed compensation in return by those who benefit from my work". Unlike slavery, you're not forced to work without guarenteed compensation. You choose to. Possibly it's because you believe in altruism?
totally different beasties
>>>There must be limits to freedom, otherwise freedom becomes a meaningless concept.
If it were done when 'tis done, then t'were well it were done quickly... MacBeth
Right, my mistake then.
But OTOH it's hard to argue that for a license to actually be considered a way to ensure absolute freedom it should basically place no restrictions whatsoever... One that overrides even copyright laws.
Basically a license that says "do whatever you want with this".
diegoT
A fair non-biased opinion on BSD vs GPL??
Is that even allowed here?
I guess after Apple switching to Intel I shouldn't be surprised at anything...
o/~ Join us now and share the software
This sort of megalomania is why a large part of the software industry will always have a problem with a) Richard Stallman, b) GPLs, c) Open Software
I wish there was a way to add something like this:
"If you claim a patent on a piece of GPL software, and it can be shown that the software existed before your patent filing, then you lose all rights to distribute any other GPL-licensed software (any GPL version)."
Imagine slamming megacorp on that one. They find a little Sourceforge project that's got some files in CVS, patent the idea, and suddenly lose access to linux, gcc, etc because any employee anywhere publicly distributed a GPL3 program.
Retroactive viral GPL. Woohoo!
True, however the majority of software installations have the users clicking through boilerplate TERMS AND CONDITIONS and explicit denials of FITNESS FOR PURPOSE, whereas the GPL opens up with a friendly preamble.
... if even one person does, isn't it worth the inconvenience of an extra click?
I think that might, just might, cause a few people to actually read it, and become aware of the motivations of the Free software movement
(I also note that the copyright on the GPL itself only allows verbatim copying, while I believe some software products have trimmed out the preamble. I can certainly understand the desire to trim out the "Ty Coon, President of Vice" silly example bit at the end, but it looks like that may not be allowed... My original thought still stands.)
o/~ Join us now and share the software
I don't think it's a matter of being forced to do anything in regards to Steve Jobs. It's just that the man has this aura. Kind of like an energy field that he projects that turns rain into sunshine and lemons into lemonade. In a sense, he is a god. And gods ought to be worshipped.
Steve Jobs is awesome.
Uh...this is all fine and dandy, but, um...did anyone mention to them that the countries causing the majority of the copyright violations, do not honor these sorts of things? At what point is this peice of paper supposed to make countries known for rampant piracy and copyright violation...stop?
The key feature of the GPL is that it is ONLY a distribution license, not an usage license (EULA).
A key idea behind free software is "use for any purpose". Usage restrictions of any type are a bad idea.
Bingo! You're exactly right. People should (a) stop whining and honor software licenses or (b) write better licenses. And if you write a better license, you'll have to write some better software too, so that the license will get noticed.
If you *don't* like the license your software is available under, write your own software and write your own license. That's exactly what Richard Stallman and the FSF started doing back in the 1980s. And their GPL'd software has been a phenomenal success.
BSD licensed software has also been a phenomenal success.
The fact that people whine about BSD or GPL so much is merely a reflection of their great success. Not only are the licenses widely employed, but the software thereby licensed is enormously popular too.
My bicyles
> Hm, explain the value to the user in ensuring that the GPL source is available to those users who have no understanding of what the source code is?
It's the same value as having an automobile or appliance that can be serviced by any mechanic instead of one approved by the manufacturer, and that can replacement parts made by third parties. It's the value of having a printer whose consumables don't have to come from the manufacturer of the printer. It's freedom. It means that when you have the software, no one has power over you to take it away, or to prevent you from using it as you like.
Throughout BSD history, commercial companies have been there, using the BSD code, and sometimes giving back.
Yes, Microsoft hasn't given back their modifications to the BSD ftp program (aka ftp.exe). So what? Does it really matter? Would the BSD ftp program gained anything? Not really. If Microsoft didn't use the BSD ftp program, they'd of had to do more work, possibly creating a buggy or non-standard FTP program. And if they used a GPL version instead of a BSD version, they'd have gone through licensing hoops even though the community wouldn't have gained anything. Same can be said for the TCP/IP stack.
Wasabi System, however, goes about using NetBSD and donates code back to the community. This is code that has been helpful and that they were paid to write. This is the norm, not the exception.
I had a friend who was a developer for a company and needed to use a compression routine. Being lazy (who isn't?), he looked for an open source version and only found a GPL'd version. He couldn't use it because than the GPL license would kick in, possibbly putting the entire closed-source project in jeopardy. So he didn't use it, couldn't find a BSD licensed routine, and ended up writing it himself. Had found a BSD version (or public domain, or similar), he would have happily given back any modifications made.
What did we gain from Linksys using Linux and other GPL projects? Linux didn't improve, nor did the other projects. Although we can now run our custom versions on Linksys routers, we would figured out how to do that anyways. But Linksys did have to jump through licensing hoops, costing them time and money.
Just because you believe companies and corprations are super-evil things that must be stopped doesn't make it so.
License might not be the best word. A simple statement such as "This code is hereby released into the public domain" conveys all the appropriate information needed regarding rights without placing any restrictions.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Surely you could use the BSD license for that purpose.
Wouldn't putting it in the public domain be better for reference implementations like that?
I am trolling
My spelling and grammer combined with the fact that I have college degree, proves a problem with the educaion system.
... because they can get their projects done and time, avoid being fired for an other day and getting fed.
No, it isn't the education system that is at fault here. Your spelling, grammer, and poorly argued rant simply demonstrate that you are a close minded jerk of lower than average intelligence that no amount of college could help.
Maybe if you learned to speak English instead of Hillbilly you wouldn't make so many mistakes and could actually get your work done on time.
No, that situation is created by existing copyright law. The GPL chooses to not address that situation.
Probably. Other than the copyright notice, what's the difference between the BSD license and the public domain?
Considering RMS' well known thoughts on "Free Software" vs. "Open Source" software, I'd say "*The* code of conduct" fits in perfectly with his line of thought. It may well only be *a* code of conduct to folks who prefer the term "Open Source" and the philosophy that goes along with it, but as far as RMS is concerned there is only one licence which is "Free".
I think, therefore I am. I think?
An who do you think are more important? Users (vast majority) or developers?
If fact GPL (and similar) leverages users to the developer's level.
BSD type licenses _empowers_ developers, free o propietary ones.
sgis ddo ekil t'nod i
Well as I've said previously I find slashdot double-talk funny. In one breath they talk about how digital content can't be locked up (arrr!), but see no conflict in a BSD vs GPL discussion, saying digital things can be locked up.
The GNU License gives everyone equal freedoms. The BSD license gives the developers the right to REMOVE freedoms from the users, which obviously doesn't sound right.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
Yes, I know RMS does not like this idea. But there does seem to be a lot of interest in making an "LGPL" that works the way users expect. In particular this means that you can statically-link with the library and release a closed-source version of the resulting program. Yet unlike the BSD license, you are not allowed to modify the library itself without releasing your modifications.
This license serves two purposes: first it makes your library much more popular. And it should be very good for algorithims like OGG that want to be used by closed programs, by eliminating the risk of an incompatable and secret fork.
Searching around I have seen many dozens of "exceptions to the GPL" to accomplish this, indicating that there are a lot of developers that want this. A standardized version would be very useful, with a name as recognizable as "LGPL" and "BSD".
Attached is my version, which is based on wxWindows. Paragraph 2 is changed to make it clear that you must release changes to the library itself.
Comments, anybody? What are the chances of an official version of this? As far as I can tell, the desire for this is the main force behind license proliferation.
1. As a special exception, the copyright holders of this library give
permission for additional uses of the text contained in this release of the
library as licenced under the FLTK Library Licence, applying either version 2
of the Licence, or (at your option) any later version of the Licence as
published by the copyright holders of version 2 of the Licence document.
2. The exception is that you may use, copy, link, modify and distribute, under terms of your own choice, any works based on the library (including static linking), provided that the creation of this work does not require the modification of any of the source code of the library.
3. Modifications to the source code of the library do not fall under this
exception. However you may distribute the modified library under the normal
terms of this license and then distribute a work using this modified library
using this exception.
4. If you copy code from files distributed under the terms of the GNU General
Public Licence or the GNU Library General Public Licence into a copy of this
library, as this licence permits, the exception does not apply to the code
that you add in this way. To avoid misleading anyone as to the status of such
modified files, you must delete this exception notice from such code and/or
adjust the licensing conditions notice accordingly.
5. If you write modifications of your own for this library, it is your choice
whether to permit this exception to apply to your modifications. If you do
not wish that, you must delete the exception notice from such code and/or
adjust the licensing conditions notice accordingly.
If the above was written by any other than Stallman, then it isn't so bad. The fact that a person would write in such a manner about himself is really telling...
You hit the nail on the head. OSS is not place for for power struggles. Besides, I've never understood how there can be a single codified GPL. It defies legal precedent.
If you add improvements to his work and distribute them, then the original author is entitled to use and/or distribute the improvements too. The original author gets free additional development resources.
I don't know that it is actually possible to put one's own works into the public domain. I have read Norwegian copyright law and while it acknowledges the existence of the public domain, it does not make provisions for actively putting a work into it. Therefore, phrases along the lines of "this work is donated to the public domain" might not hold any legal water at all...
sigs are hazardous to your health
Free software is a GNU thing.
The BSD license is a Free Software license.
To make things crystal clear:
You do not have to use the GPL to have Free Software.
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
Technically, such a license might not even be legal. In Norway, there is a small set of privileges granted by copyright law that the copyright holder simply cannot sign away. Even if he tries, such a clause would be invalid. ...
Anyway, as a matter of philosophy, we are here talking about the difference between a license that gives freedom in the present (BSD) vs one that guarantees the persistence of freedom into the future (GPL). I think it all boils down to the difference between those with a philosophical viewpoint (GNU/FSF) and those with a purely technical/practical viewpoint (OSS). Both camps will be able to produce decent points in their own favour and it really comes down to what you think the word "free" should mean in this context.
Personally, I am happy to adopt the OSS take on "free" when talking to OSS people and the GNU variant when talking to GNU people
sigs are hazardous to your health
Which group is more important? Considering all the free (as in beer) software out there right now, Joe Average isn't going to care about the GPL, because he'll NEVER do anything which would impact him with the GPLed software. He's not going to redistribute it and he isn't going to modify it.
Joe Average might be a nice guy, but Joe Geek is the one building the applications and giving his time away.
"Guys, turns out we can just give everything away! Those protein mass spectrometers we just paid $90,000 apiece for -- yeah, we'll just get those for free from now on. Someone will donate them, or something."
Turns out that by trying to make money off our discoveries, we were acting unethically! Who woulda thunk it?
fuck the gnu fuck them all. and fuck this
Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 7 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
ha ha ha they can not do fucking math on a gnu code, profe that the gnu bites the big one.
Ruling with an iron fist is necessary when the 'people' you talk about are actually companies where the CEOs think they are not allowed to give anything back because it might cost 2 cent extra.
Linux is not Windows
There's no such thing as slavery. So called "slaves" work voluntarily to avoid the consequences, just like most people.
-------------
Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 37 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.
That's called MPL or CDDL. Unfortunately there seem to be as many MPL variants as there are GPL exceptions.
And since when does ruling with an iron fist get you anywhere? Forcing people to conform to your view doesn't lead to progress. Convincing them it's better does.
Out of interest, do you apply this reasoning to proprietary software licenses too? Do you feel they should give up on police and the courts and the whole legal framework and just try to persuade everyone to limit what they do with the software without force, or do you only apply this to GPL?
[1]
Richard M. Stallman, founder of the free software movement and author of the GNU GPL, released version 2 in 1991 after taking legal advice and collecting developer opinion concerning version 1 of the license, which had been in use since 1985.
[2]
Under his guidance, the Free Software Foundation, which holds the copyright of the GPL, will coordinate and direct the process of its modification
s/Because my code is BSD, not GPL/Whether my code is BSD or GPL/
s/Taco's/l'm/
"* The GPL is the Literary Work of Richard M. Stallman
...and as such, you can't take it, modify it, shape it to your needs, and pass it along to others to do the same.
"Some copyright licenses are no doubt known, in the restricted circle of one firm or law office, as the achievement of a single author's acumen or insight. But it is safe to say that there is no other copyright license in the world that is so strongly identified with the achievements, and the philosophy, of a single public figure. Mr. Stallman remains the GPL's author, with as much right to preserve its integrity as a work representative of his intentions as any other author or creator. Under his guidance, the Free Software Foundation, which holds the copyright of the GPL, will coordinate and direct the process of its modification."
Interesting, Mr. Stallman. Subject others' creative works to your ideals, but your own creative work, you protect from the exercise of those same own ideals.
You really shouldn't be able to have your cake and eat it, too, like that.
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
True. I'll add one extra; usually the code but not the project name is granted under BSD style licences. Copyright isn't the same as trademark.
Because of that, if someone takes the code and mangles it to make an incompatable fork, the original authors can state that the fork does not follow the reference implementation and thus isn't *insert name here* compatable. They could force the fork to change any claims of being compatable with the original project. Usually doesn't happen.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Don't you have to include a copy of the GPL with the GPL'd text as per terms of the GPL?
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Is public domain software with source code 'free'? I certainly think so. Otherwise 'they' are redefining the term free! Actually, the term freedom can't be applied to software without making a new definition for it.
I respect the right of the copyright holder. If I were to work on GPL licensed software, I no longer have the right to choose how I license my software.
Free of Flash! Free of Flash!
None as far as I can tell. I'd lump X11, BSD, and other similar licences into basically the same category basic category as public domain. I don't know why the other person thought there would be a big advantage to explicitly giving up all rights vs. giving up all but attribution and copyright announcement.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
And how about an even lighter version of that which allows people to modify and distribute (for profit if desired), as long as the original source is provided (modified source not necessary)
We don't like it being our "constitution" either.
If I were to work on GPL licensed software, I no longer have the right to choose how I license my software.
Yes, of course, just like if you decided to incorporate proprietary code into your own software. Copyright law requires that you can only distribute someone else's code subject to whatever conditions they place on it.
I don't think that answers my question. you were saying (if I understood correctly) that using force, i.e. legal licensing terms, doesn't get you anywhere and you should convince people to use the code the way you want instead. I was asking whether you apply this to proprietary software licenses or only to the GPL. Do you think all software licensors should give up on force?
I'm not sure what, exactly, constitutes "stirring up a tempest" but politics are at the heart of the matter when discussing licensing, certainly when comparing licenses that maintain a commons versus those that never say no. Accusations of this kind often come off as little more than attempts to shut people up without actually framing and defending any substantive issue; hardly discussion worthy of being called "insightful".
The GNU GPL is the most popular free software license, hence any changes to it will naturally attract attention. This doesn't mean that the FSF is causing problems or doing something harmful to licensees by engaging the public in the formation of the next version of the GPL. Quite to the contrary, if the FSF wrote the GPLv3 without input from anyone, they'd be rightly accused of being insular and they would run the risk of publishing a license that few would adopt. The commons they seek to create by using this license could shrink as a result. There were some substantive debates over the philosophy behind the GNU FDL (in part because it appeared that revision discussion was not taken into account or replied to) and, at first blush, it looks like the FSF would like to avoid repeating that.
The new BSD license, by contrast, is chosen chiefly by those who want to make a gift of code to all comers. This is an inherently political concern. The concept of creating a commons of code one can use copyright law to defend is not particularly attractive to these licensors. This doesn't mean they are taking a path worthy of less criticism.
Digital Citizen
You seem to be confusing freedom with privilege. Maybe you just don't have a dictionary, so I'll clue you in. Freedom is an absence of restriction. A free end of a rope is the end that is unrestricted. Free verse is poetry unrestricted by rhyme or meter. A free man is one unrestricted by external obligation to another.
There is no freedom to own slaves, because owning a slave is a restriction on the slave. Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose, because once it connects with my nose you are restricting me.
There is no need to limit (restrict) freedom in order to promote freedom. Those who claim otherwise are either confused, or mistaking their privileges for freedoms. Being able to restrict how your software can be distributed is a *privilege* provided by the state via copyright, not a freedom.
While the GPL does remove a heck of a lot of restrictions from the software, its restrictions are designed to protect the exclusive *privileges* of the author. The GPL author wants the license terms to apply to third parties, so he ensures this through privilege. He does this by removing freedom.
It's sort of like after the slaves were freed in the US. Several laws were passed to retain a tiny bit of the former privilege, to ensure that former slaves didn't get to uppity and behave in ways the "liberators" didn't want them to behave. It's why we had a civil rights movement a century later. The slaves should have been freed 100% back then, just as software should be 100% free today.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
One honest question,
How can you tell if the library had been modified when it is statically linked?
It is to bad that you are so closed minded that you cannot see past my bad spelling and grammer, to make an informed decision about my comment.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Yes, of course, just like if you decided to incorporate proprietary code into your own software.
That's not completely true. If I was granted the right by the person/company who owns the code, I could incorporate.
I don't think that answers my question. you were saying (if I understood correctly) that using force, i.e. legal licensing terms, doesn't get you anywhere and you should convince people to use the code the way you want instead. I was asking whether you apply this to proprietary software licenses or only to the GPL. Do you think all software licensors should give up on force?
The GPL is trying to use licensing to force the world into the GNU foundations narrow viewpoint. Proprietary software does not do this.
Free of Flash! Free of Flash!
Sometimes people get confused by the concept how how terms from 2 different licences can apply the the same work product. For an example how something can be distributed "under terms of your choice" and yet have additional terms/restrictions, just look inside the LGPL itself. Search for the phrase "under terms of your choice" and you'll see a specific example illustrating this exact point.
Given this, if someone produces a game based on your library and distributes it with a commercial EULA, it may still be subject to certain clauses of the LGPL dealing with allowing modifications, allowing reverse engineering, etc. Imagine trial versions of commercial software based on your library getting modified by end-users to re-enable disabled features and the vendor being SOL legally because they're required to allow modifications.
If you want to make this a non-issue, you may want to add an extra sentence to exception #2 stating that works that are exempt are not required to be subject to any terms of the LGPL unless desired. An IP attorney should craft the sentence for you.
Also, rather than asking on slashdot, ask the Free Software Foundation (FSF) or an attorney specializing in intellectual property.
I'm pretty confident that the wxWidgets (wxWindows) license was not drafted by an intellectual property attorney so using theirs as a starting point shouldn't preclude asking FSF or an attorney.
Someone at FSF specializing in GPL like David M. Turner might be willing to answer your questions and it could save you some money.
David's contact info:
novalis@novalis.org
http://web.novalis.org/resume.html
Hail the GNU GPL above all!
Bow to the holy gnu!
I would kill for the GNU GPL and the holy gnu!
That's not completely true. If I was granted the right by the person/company who owns the code, I could incorporate.
The same holds true for GPL software. The point is, the GPL doesn't rely on force or "ruling with an iron fist" any more than other licenses do. If the copyright holder gives you separate permission not to abide by any restrictions then you have that separate permission but I still don't see how that addresses the issue.
You asked "And since when does ruling with an iron fist get you anywhere?", as far as I can tell your own answer is that it gets you somewhere when you're a proprietary software developer, but not otherwise.
You went on to say "Forcing people to conform to your view doesn't lead to progress. Convincing them it's better does." but again, you seem to feel that isn't true of licensing in general, just of the GPL. Why?
The GPL is trying to use licensing to force the world into the GNU foundations narrow viewpoint. Proprietary software does not do this.
How not? The BSA and its member companies have views on software licensing. They'll happily tell you all about it. Their licenses enforce those views. Copyright law as a whole enforces one particular viewpoint, author control, the GPL and other licenses then impose the conditions of the authors. How is the viewpoint of the GPL narrower than that of the licence for Quicken?
As for (4), who cares except for RMS what literary works he's published? More hubris.
First of all, this isn't about literary works that he's published. If you read the article, you would know that he is simply making the statement, "As the original concept creator and GPL author, and the largest reason it is around today, I am concerned about its future and want to make sure its meaning is intact".
Second of all, millions of people care about this one literary work that he's published, which is the GPL. The GPL is the foundation of all that is sacred for thousands of programmers and developers who want to give their hard work and accomplishments to the rest of the world without having their precious creation raped and pillaged by corporate greed. Furthermore, it is a revolutionary idea that through RMSs significant work and sacrifice has become the cornerstone of a vast amount of the Free software available today. For RMS to be concerned with its future direction is understandable if not commendable.
The GNU GPL version 3 will be the first revision of the GPL anyone involved in the open source movement will have had anything to do with. It's ahistorical to call the GPL anything to do with "open source" except that the OSI set their terms for license approval widely enough to allow the GPL to get the OSI's stamp of approval. Nobody at the OSI wrote the GPL and that organization (and the movement it started) didn't exist when the GPL was written. The FSF wrote the GPL (most notably, Richard Stallman) and RMS points out very clearly that the free software movement is distinct from the open source movement. There are very good reasons why you will find no references to "open" anything and numerous references to software freedom in the GPL.
Even if this discussion concerned "open source software", proprietors would disagree that "OSS is not the place for power struggles" because proprietors wield power over their users all the time and don't like it when there is a suitable replacement for their program licensed to its users under more amenable terms. Proprietors spend millions of dollars on lobbyists who convince legislators to make anti-free software law. The power struggle for letting users control their computers has been going on for over 20 years now.
What you're saying here makes no sense. The GPL is a license (that's what the "L" stands for), and there are two revisions of this license. Licensors have the power to choose the terms under which they wish to license their copyrighted work to others. Licenses are written because otherwise it is hard for licensees to know what their rights are concerning the copyrighted work.
Digital Citizen
And Ill say it again.
Application Service Providers are not new. Selling cycles, selling services provided by hardware and software; these are not new business models. Compuserve started as an ASP in the 1960s. Multics, started in the 1960s was writen specificly to be used for a "computer utility": an ASP.
How is it that they missed this the first two trys?
When I read that "The GPL is the Literary Work of Richard M. Stallman" and that "Mr. Stallman remains the GPL's author, with as much right to preserve its integrity as a work representative of his intentions as any other author or creator," I knew that the GPL has some MAJOR philosophic problems.
I think the GPL's basic idea of free software is correct, to wit, that software should be freely studied, copied, modified, reused, redistributed and shared.
But, the GPL uses a copyright as the weapon to enforce the GPL. I think this is a mistake.
Personally, I like simplicity in a general form license. If you can't keep it simple, then you should use a more tailored legal document. That is why I like the MIT/BSD form licenses.
The problem with the Free Software philosophy is that you premise your gift of software with restrictions. When you make a gift, you should make the gift free of restrictions.
No one likes to recieve an open-ended conditional gift. "Here, enjoy your new watch, Son. But if you ever move to Montana, your sister gets it." It is just silly. And hard to enforce. You should be able to do what you want to do with something that you have received as a gift.
Can someone tell me why it is so horrible if a company uses "free" or "open source" code without making their product "free" or "open source"? Doesn't this stifle innovation? What evil are we trying to prevent here?
Plus, there is a huge problem that the "Grandma" thread writers have only scratched the surface of. Sure, there is a problem with ownership transfers after death. But what about the problem of a perpetual gift?
For the most part, forced perpetual transfers of property are not allowed in most legal systems. So, for example, you couldn't transfer property like this: "from Me to my son, and then to my son's son, and then to my son's son's son, etc" (A fee tail male, to you lawyers out there). This would just become a fee simple...outright ownership of the property in the son.
How is this different than forcing someone to give something away for free, forever? Isn't there a eneral principle of the free alienability of property in our culture?
Will GPL copyrighted code ever be allowed to become someones outright property?
Some questions to consider...
Don't forget that there is nothing forcing anyone to "upgrade" to the v3 license. You are free to continue to license your code per the 1.0 or 2.0 terms.
The only thing that may/will get affected are new revisions of official GNU projects which will undoubtedly adopt the updated licenses.
It is to bad that you are so closed minded that you cannot see past my bad spelling and grammer, to make an informed decision about my comment.
I did make an informed decision. Your comment was a poorly argued rant.
....you copyrighted the GPL and now you want free help to revise it? Go fuck yourself, asswipe.
Sorry, but I think that Stallman's idealism is to his credit. Your arguments seem to be based entirely on the money-making potential of licensed software. From that perspective, Microsoft's licensing has proven to be better than the GPL.
But from the point of view of generating good and powerful software, the GPL has demonstrated its value. Stallman's arguments for the GPL are made on a more fundamental level -- that of economy of labor, or social efficiency. He often states his case in terms of morality, and this offends some people who mistake morality for religious dogma rather than social practicality. I think of moral principles as somewhat like go proverbs (general wisdom for playing the game of go). It's very hard to reason-out why a proverb is so generally true, but experience shows it to be. It's hard for us to see (microscopically) why "freedom" helps write better software, but sure enough it does.
Out present economic systems aren't perfect. They don't properly reward someone for contributions to the public domain, for example. I think of things like patents and copyrights as kludges to the system that worked well enough in the 1800's but not today. Even so, there are some ways of making money while writing free software.
I don't know if this helps, but maybe it's something to think about anyway.
You're right. The laws exist to prevent you from infringing on someone elses freedoms. So remind me again what freedoms distributing a program without distributing the source infringes on?
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
I have read Norwegian copyright law and while it acknowledges the existence of the public domain, it does not make provisions for actively putting a work into it. Therefore, phrases along the lines of "this work is donated to the public domain" might not hold any legal water at all...
However, the only person who would be able to contest the use of a work is the original copyright owner. And since they've willingly put it into the public domain themselves, why would they wish to cause any legal trouble for those who use it? But even if the person changed their mind and tried to withdraw it, such phrasing -- if you have evidence that the person said it and that it is their original work -- shows intent and that has weight in court. So while it's not perfect, I would say it's sufficient.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
I would, if I had mod points.
It's harder to put something into the public domain, than to release it under a 3BSD, X11 or MIT style license.
The issue of why the public domain is useless is currently being discussed on debian-legal.
"An who do you think are more important? Users (vast majority) or developers?"
Me.
"If fact GPL (and similar) leverages users to the developer's level"
The GPL will not make someone a developer who is not. Compared to BSD, it will prevent some developers from being more than users.
Contrary to apparent popular belief, code opened under the BSD license can not be closed by a third party. New, modified code can be closed, but the original is still open.
One of the planned changes for v3 is to make official versions available for other languages.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
Using a computer program requires copying the program into the computer memory.
That is how they use copyright law to cover usage of the work.
Did that ruling ever get appealled away?
no, you pretty much covered it.
well if you look at it that way, then BSD code is *so* free, that people are free to take it and essencially drive the freedom away from others using the code.
Liberty.
The same holds true for GPL software.
True but only if I license my code under the GPL. With private code, this is not so. When Microsoft partners, they don't say "You must use our EULA". They may not permit them to redistribute their code but that is not the same.
The point is, the GPL doesn't rely on force or "ruling with an iron fist" any more than other licenses do. If the copyright holder gives you separate permission not to abide by any restrictions then you have that separate permission but I still don't see how that addresses the issue.
The issue was never about separate permissions.
You went on to say "Forcing people to conform to your view doesn't lead to progress. Convincing them it's better does." but again, you seem to feel that isn't true of licensing in general, just of the GPL. Why?
What other licenses do the same thing? The GPL is the only license which requires the use of the GPL when redistributing. Other licenses, including those not under OSI, do not.
How not? The BSA and its member companies have views on software licensing. They'll happily tell you all about it. Their licenses enforce those views. Copyright law as a whole enforces one particular viewpoint, author control, the GPL and other licenses then impose the conditions of the authors. How is the viewpoint of the GPL narrower than that of the licence for Quicken?
As stated, if I were to partner with a company and share could, I wouldn't be forced into their licensing.
As for how is the GPL narrower, if you're unable to see this, I truly feel sorry for you.
Free of Flash! Free of Flash!
My company is currently developing a very large amount of software, including gaming titles on a on and off basis. Our biggest problem with the current GPLv2 and the very reason we have not released more open source code from our in house development is that server applications under the current GPLv2 can be proprietary. Under the current GPLv2 as we understand it, you can download the source of a GPLv2 software product and modify it, even charge people to use that server, and you don't have to make the source available because they are using it but do not have a copy of the binary. For massive online games this means that anybody who puts any money at all into developing a MMORPG server will lose it and gain noting in return because the competition has no legal obligation to share the source for the game server even if there product is a derivative work of GPLv2 code. This is a problem for not only MMORPG servers, but smaller versions like old style muds. The current code bases for mud's that are the most popular got that way because people shared sources and changes. If we had the same power and server code for gaming and non-gaming server source had to be given to anybody who asked gaming on linux would be MUCH better. As Micro$oft and the rest tout thee software advantage in gaming, it s hurts the linux market because to be blunt gaming in Linux sucks compared to the thousands of titles available for Winho32. If we had a few key changes to the gplv3 that allowed innovation instead of strangling it, the linux gaming community would be much better.
- d
Okay, I don't understand what point you're trying to make and I don't feel like I'm making any progress, so I won't bother posting further on this. Thanks for the discussion anyway.
What good is freedom if it's taken away?
How can we protect our freedom without taking away the freedom to enslave others?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Generally, no. If what you want to do is distribute proprietary derivatives (as is the wont of so many proprietors who base their work on new BSD or MIT X11-licensed code), then that's a power not a freedom. If what you want to do is share and modify the code in such a way that you distribute the same freedoms you had, then you are choosing not to leverage that power, but the power remains. But in the latter case, if you want to do this so that you only share with those that share with you (using copyright power to enforce a "share and share alike" situation), you should seek a copylefted free software license. Given the over moderation of your post (your question isn't actually insightful), I see that the BSD-licensing fans have moderation power today.
It is expected that the GPL3 will say something about patent licensing, perhaps telling distributors of GPL3-licensed works that they can't use patents to take away any of the rights the GPL3 grants to licensees. When the GPL3 comes out it will be interesting to see if there's another revision of the BSD license that covers software patents, something the current BSD licenses say nothing about.
Digital Citizen
Just read again the part you have quoted:
This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license with a serious flaw: the ``obnoxious BSD advertising clause''. The flaw is not fatal; that is, it does not render the software non-free. But it does cause practical problems, including incompatibility with the GNU GPL.
You can't, unless the program is obviously doing something that the library is incapable of doing and it appears impossible to add that ability without modifying the library.
But you also can't really tell if somebody is using GPL code without permission, either.
So I don't see this as any problem. You do have to rely on people being somewhat honest.
The goal of he GPL is not to encourage wide adoption - it is to ensure that at all times, all code derived from free software remains free.
As a side effect, this often ends up encouraging wide adoption anyway, unless something proprietary has already become a defacto 'standard', since everyone who is not able, or does not wish to, pay to license that which is nonfree, assuming the GPL licensed work is of sufficient quality, will adopt the GPL work, hopefuly arriving at a situation where proprietary vendors are either excluded, or where they must use the GPL work in order to be competitive/compatible. One case where something proprietary can become the defacto standard is like what happened with MP3 - the authors/owners didnt bother enforcing their license for a while, and everyone assumed it was free (as in beer).
Hating SCO is ignorant and closed-minded? After everything they've done?
Worldwide is a pretty big statement..how many governments have signed the GPL3 into the .\ law? How many governments will not be recognized until after the GPL is released? Just my two cents and not trying to troll.
Perhaps you're mixing up the original BSD license with the modified BSD licence?
Both are Free Software, but the original is incompatable with the GPL (which does not make it non-Free). That brings me back to my other point, which was that you don't need the GPL to have Free Software.
I didn't distinguish in my post because I didn't realize anybody still used the original style; I'm only really familiar with FreeBSD, which does not.
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
There is no need to limit (restrict) freedom in order to promote freedom.
Utter bollocks. It's fundamentally important to restrict people from taking away others' freedoms in order to maintain freedom.
The freedom to take away freedom is not a defensible freedom. You follow?
What pomposity! Just like those stupid "social contracts" various Linux distros like to proudly posting on their websites or those goofy French who were so proud of themselves for storming the empty Bastille. You want free software? Put your money where your mouth is and make it so that users can do whatever they damn well please with your software.
The freedom to study and modify the program, of course.
Some authors do not wish their work to be expoited by someone else, the latter becoming rich at their expense using their work... It is not innovation, only exploitation. If the author wishes that kind of use, the author can license his/her work in another form such as BSD license etc.
Hmm. What I'd normally do is "/* I irrevocably disclaim all copyright on this code */". Wouldn't that be valid in all jurisdictions?
I am trolling
The freedom to take away a freedom is not a freedom! It's instead a privilege. Freedoms are for everyone, privileges are for a few.
It's people like you trying to protect freedom by taking it away that are the primary reason we have so little freedom in this world. The only restrictions should be on the limits to freedom, not freedom itself. Do you know what a "free end" of a rope is? Do you think it could remain free once you've tied it down in a knot? Of course not! So why do you think men can be free when they are similarly tied up in knotty restrictions and regulations?
Don't get rid of the freedom, get rid of the exclusive privileges that destroy freedom!
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Nope, you still have rights to the code. Oh, and I can sue you if it fucks up my system (wavier of implied warranty is a contractual provision).
There is effectively no such thing as the public domain any more. If you want others to use your code, you must at least release it using something like the MIT/X11/3-clause BSD license.
You seem to be talking yourself in self contradictory circles. Either you think it's acceptable for people to take away your freedom (BSD) or you don't (GPL).
You have no such freedom as the source is not in your posession. It is in my posession, and until such time as it is in your posession, you do not have that freedom.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
With the exception that the GPL takes away my freedom to use code which is availible to me in a way which the original author does not approve. The GPL in this way is fundamentaly no different from any other EULA. It takes away your freedom to do anything and everything with what you have been given and in it's place leaves you with the freedom to do author approved things to the code.
The most fee of all code is the code which has no license at all.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
The problem is that this is only in effect until you die, at which point whoever inherits you gets to take the work out of the "public domain" again. If the work really were in the public domain, this wouldn't be possible as that is rather the definition of the term. :-)
You might also lose control over the copyright after a bankruptcy, but I'm not sure exactly how that would work.
This is, I might add, part of the genious of the GPL. If you have created a work that bases itself heavily on GPL (not LGPL) libraries then it is undesirable for anyone (your employer, your inheritors, anyone acquiring the legal rights) to change the license of your work. It won't work properly without being linked with GPL works and so it needs to be GPL itself. If something like this could be devised for other types of creative works, then it might become feasible to create a work that is _effectively_ public domain (ish) but until then, you only control your work so long as you remain in control of the work
sigs are hazardous to your health
And things things exactly are you restricted from doing with GPLed code? The only things you are restricted from doing are making it less free for anyone else. Other than that, you can do anything.
You're manufacturing imaginary restrictions.
True but only if I license my code under the GPL. With private code, this is not so. When Microsoft partners, they don't say "You must use our EULA". They may not permit them to redistribute their code but that is not the same.
Not true. With permission from the original copyright holder you can license any way you want.
Don't believe me - call up the mysql folks. You can use mysql in any non-GPL project you'd like - for a price.
Now, you do need permission from all the copyright holders, and they do not need to agree to non-GPL publication.
If you want to publish under the GPL you don't need anybody's permission - the GPL already gives you this right. However, with the additional approval of the copyright holders you can relicense at will. Publishing under the GPL does not remove the ability to dual-license the work.
How did I make it less free for someone else? Can they no longer access the same GPL code that I did?
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Saying "I place this into the public domain" is essentially a license, though a loose nonformal one. If someone's estate could simply take it back, then what's to prevent them taking back a Creative Commons or GPL-based license? Once someone has released something into the public domain and has stated so, you can freely use that as your license. The only difficult part might be that a corporation could come after you and throw a bunch of lawyers at it, in which case you'd need to be able to demonstrate to a judge that the original author or the work gave permission to use the work in the way you're using it.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
I don't know what you mean by people taking away my freedom, because I have exactly the same rights today with every piece of BSD software as on the first day they were released. You almost make it sound as if Bill Gates could come along and change the license of the FreeBSD I am using. It's an absurd notion.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
One example. The GPL prevents me from linking to a GPL library from a non-GPL application. Yet this act in no way changes, modifies, copies, mutates or distributes the GPL library. The only damage it does is that some GPL advocate gets all self-righteous and indignant. It doesn't affect the user at all.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
The point is that even if they _do_ take back a GPL license, the work will be useless now because it depends upon other GPL works that it can no longer (legally) use.
I am no expert on copyright law and licensing, but I find it plausible that a license _can_ be retracted at some point. When this happens, it might matter _when_ you obtained the work and which license was in effect at the time. I consider it unlikely that a "time-unlimited" type clause will be enough to bar the copyright holder from later retracting the license.
sigs are hazardous to your health
Okay, I see what you mean. I'm not an expert either, but from what I can see, a license is a license. Unless it's bound by some kind of time-constraint, it's a perpetual grant. I think what it depends on is the validity of an unsigned license. If you sign a contract with the author of a work stating that you have unlimited rights to do with that work as you please, you can present that in court and show that you have those rights. If the license is simply a LICENSE.TXT included in a zip/tar file, the burden of proof might be higher but I don't see it being much different than a contract to the same effect.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.