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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
Freedom requires life; software itself cannot suffer from a lack of freedom.
[
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
For starters, sharing, co-operation, and working for the common good is not always moral, e.g. sharing copyrighted music, co-operating with criminals, or working for your own version of the common good (which doesn't apply to everyone everywhere); those things have to be measured against some higher standard.
Finally, not everyone has choice in the matter. A vast majority of developers in this world, not RMS's, write code for corporations, and a vast majority of those corporations write closed-source software. A corporation is at no obligation to provide the source to software it's developed. Furthermore, if time and money was invested by the corporation into the development of the software, the corporation may have moral & ethical obligations to its employees and shareholds, therefore they must protect trade secrets and proprietary algorithms found in the said code.
It's not as black-and-white as RMS would have us all believe. Rather, there are equal, if not greater, moral questions on the reverse side: is it ethical forcing everyong to conform to a single license? Is it ethical condemning others who choose not to conform to the said license?
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit