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?
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?
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
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.
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
All your base belong to us.
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
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.
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.)
*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 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>
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.
On the contrary, if they translated it to a language that had a clear distinction between free (as in beer) and free (as in speech), then that alone could save untold amounts of confusion.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
"* 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.
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!
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
"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.
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.