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.
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).
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
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
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.)
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>
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.
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.
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.
This has been tackled by the AGPL which will be upwards compatible with GPL v3 - in other words, GPL v3 will have a clause that requires release of the source code as soon as a program is used outside an organisation, not just when the program itself is distributed.
It will, I think, still be possible for an organisation to make changes to software that remains internal without releasing the changes. In other words, the distribution takes effect as soon as the program is made available for use to an outside party.
Come now. Maybe it wasn't interesting to you because you knew the answer.
But it was a valid question for the grand parent, and it was modded interesting because others had the same question.
The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
Freedom requires life; software itself cannot suffer from a lack of freedom.
[
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.
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
It is interesting to note that he maintains the copyright to the GPL license, though. Wouldn't it be more appropriate if the GPL were GPL'd, so to speak?
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.
There are laws in place to prevent unauthorized copying of a work, but there are no laws in place to prevent unauthorized use of a work when the work is given away freely.
The GPL's foundation is on Copyright, and that's where it needs to stay. The GPL should _ONLY_ cover copying, and not use. Consider that the recipient and user of a GPL'd work is not required to agree to the terms of the GPL, since they did not sign any document indicating agreement to it, but under plain old ordinary copyright law, unless they agree to the terms the copyright holder specifies (in this case, the terms of the GPL), the recipient has no authorization to copy the work at all.
Because there is no legal groundwork to prevent unauthorized use of a GPL'd work, it leaves a nasty hole in the GPL, and may even weaken it as a whole.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
"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?
"* 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.
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.
"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.