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.'"
free software != open source
Free software is a GNU thing.
...and that is all I have to say about that.
http://jessta.id.au
GPL v2 doesn't specifically address the patent problem. Anyway, here's the story on Revising the GPL.
Most GPLd software has the phrase "or, at your option, any later version". However, some state explicitly that only a specific version applies. For example, WARNING: hping2 is covered *ONLY* by GPL version 2, and *NOT* any others.
So it's really up to the author.
I am a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
Maybe the parent was being funny, but certainly not interesting.
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.
*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).
Licenses, by their very nature, being a grant from the "owner" to a nonowner, cannot address issues of ownership.
That is handled by the various rights and property laws (which include the laws of inheritence), without which there would be no need for a license in the first place.
The title to Granny's house and car don't address the issue of her death either. Granny was supposed to do that in her will.
KFG
Almost every time he writes something, I cringe.
Me too. Because I know that a) he's going to get flamed for it, and b) that he'll probably be proven right in a couple of years.
Remember when he pointed out the problem with using BitKeeper for the Linux kernel? Lots of people flamed him for that, until McVoy got his feelings hurt.
Remember the GNU policy of requiring everybody to certify that their work was their own and to explicitly transfer copyright? Lots of people called him a nitpicker for that, until it became obvious that had a scheme like that been applied to the Linux kernel, SCO would have been stopped dead in their tracks.
Yeah, RMS is a nitpicker. Yeah, he's loud and obnoxious about it. Guess what? That's a GOOD thing.
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.
If you think I'm kidding, take a look at Nokia's supposedly generous offer to allow its patented technologies to be used in Linux, which somes with terms and conditions that imply Nokia could sue in the future over the same patents concerning future versions of the kernel. Work out under what circumstances they could do so (someone independently adding non-derived code that happens to infringe), and you suddenly have something that doesn't look as generous as it originally was.
The second issue is more of a political one. Patents suck. If someone chooses to go to war against a free software application by suing it for patent infringement, does that organization have any moral right to use free software at all?
There are few incentives that exist to discourage software patents. To be forced to never use free software again may be one of the few ways the free software community can fight back. With free software entrenched enough, this could be a good thing for those who believe in the freedom to program, and who oppose the notion of a "right" existing to implement a particular type of technology that can be expressed algorithmically.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Err, BSD doesn't use GNU libc (BSD has it's own C library), and the only reason why BSD uses gcc instead a BSD-license compiler is because when the original BSD developers decided to rewrite all of the AT&T code, GCC was already available, and I guess the BSD developers didn't feel like rewriting pcc (the compiler that shipped with AT&T Unix). I believe, looking at some old BSD source lists, that the BSD developers dropped pcc when the Net/2 release came out.
And with TenDRA becoming better each year, we might see the BSDs make the switch to this compiler. The BSDs are known for replacing GNU tools with BSD-licensed replacements. OpenBSD is working on a BSD-licensed CVS, and FreeBSD replaced GNU tar with a BSD-licensed tar in FreeBSD 5.3.
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.
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
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.