GPL v3 Coming Out in 2007?

gentoo1337 writes "Eben Moglen of the FSF speaks out in this ZDNet article, noting that GPL v3 may be publicly drafted in early 2006, and in force one year later. The process is very sensitive (noting concerns of forking in the Linux world), but Eben Moglen is optimistic: 'When it's all over, people are going to say, "All that talking for just that much change?" [...] We will do no harm. If we think (some change) may have any unintended consequences, we will not recommend making it.' Controversies aside, there is some good news -- Richard Stallman aims to 'lower barriers that today prevent the mixing of software covered by the GPL and other licenses.' The earlier Slashdot discussion contains complementary info about the intentions of FSF."

Comments

Analysis Paralysis?

[bc90021]

Am I the only one who thinks it's going to take longer? Given the number of parties/factions involved (FSF, EFF, RedHat, Linus, ESR, etc.), I think it may take longer. I know that not all those people have to have the new GPL "cleared" with them, but I'm sure they'll all want to weigh in on the process, which will likely lengthen it.

Re:Analysis Paralysis?

[Anonymous Coward]

Linus has nothing to do with the decision making.

Linus is a _user_ of the GPL.

Re:Analysis Paralysis?

[Wesley Felter]

Yeah, heaven forbid that the users of the GPL would have any say in how it works.

Re:Analysis Paralysis?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know whether this has been stated openly, but I get the feeling that one aim of GPL v3 is to specifically allow the mixing of CPL and GPL v3 stuff. I've always seen the CPL as the GPL without the wordy political statement at the top (that seems to annoy lawyers who just want the facts, not a Stallman rant) and a useful clause about patents.

It's always seemed like the CPL was IBM's attempt at a cleaned-up GPL -- unlike Sun's various licenses, which all have ulterior motives and nasty trapdoors.

Re:Analysis Paralysis?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure the various BSD/MIT license advocates, who are "using" the additional rights granted to them under copyright by the GPL to use, say GCC, would love to have a "say" in it. Specifically, they would like it to give free reign for redistribution. Shut your pie hole.

Re:Analysis Paralysis?

[ZhuLien]

I actually don't like the GPL, it is full of restrictions, any "licence" to use software is silly in my view, I don't need a licence to use a knife and fork, why a computer program?

I'd rather a licence free product distributed with full sourcecode, this means any one can do what they WANT with it WITHOUT ANY restriction.

Re:Analysis Paralysis?

[Waffle Iron]

I don't need a licence to use a knife and fork, why a computer program?

You don't need any license to use a GPL'd program. You only need a license if you want to redistribute it.

The reason you need the license to redistribute the computer program is because copyright law says you have no right to do so otherwise.

Re:Analysis Paralysis?

[ZephyrXero]

"I'm sure the various BSD/MIT license advocates, who are "using" the additional rights granted to them under copyright by the GPL to use, say GCC, would love to have a "say" in it. Specifically, they would like it to give free reign for redistribution. Shut your pie hole."

The BSD license is great if you don't want any contributions back from the community, thus defeating the entire point of open source development... I've got alot more to say about this here.

Re:Analysis Paralysis?

[ZephyrXero]

The reason is that you can't make a copy of that knife and fork and distribute it to others nearly as easily as you can software. The GPL is there to protect the writers from abuse while at the same time encouraging an open community to form around it... If your project is just for fun, and you dont' want any help working on it, go ahead and release it like that... just don't expect anyone to contribute back.

Re:Analysis Paralysis?

[znu]

This is such total nonsense. The BSD operating systems get plenty of community contributions. In some cases, BSD-licensed code is more likely to to spur contributions, because it can be used in more scenarios -- companies can use it with no worries about code contamination, for instance, and while they don't have to contribute back to the community, in many cases they will, because it's still in their own best interests.

If they contribute their changes back to the main trunk, they'll (probably) be able benefit from future versions of the software without having to merge their changes back in with every update. If they keep their changes private, they're effectively forking the software, and most organizations don't have the resources to maintain their own forks of major projects.

Re:Analysis Paralysis?

[pembo13]

Such an unneeded rant. We all know that BDS licenced applicatino can, and most likely will get contributions. But the fact of the matter is, that unlike with the GPL, it is NOT manditory,

Re:Analysis Paralysis?

[Donald Ferrone]

Just how the heck is this "Interesting"? I'm sure you love every possible chance you can get to toot your own pseudo-intellectual blog-horn, but this really isn't the place. In addition, if you think that the BSD license defeats the purpose of open source development, you need to get your head checked. What could be more open source than (basically) no strings attached code release? Even the legality of using such code is open, unlike that of the GPL. Seems to me that there couldn't possibly be source more open than source unencumbered by aggressively restrictive clauses.

Re:Analysis Paralysis?

[ZephyrXero]

Once again, I say it's time for you to get off your computer for a minute and live in the real world. Human nature is not a friendly thing...people WILL take advantage of you if you let them. BSD offers no protection to the author nor community, and it greatly stiffles the chances of the software thriving. Sure, there are a few good samaritans out there willing to contribute back, but most people won't do it unless they are forced.

Re:Analysis Paralysis?

[ZhuLien]

Redistribution *IS* a form of use, what if a business or an individual wanted to use a program to SELL for a huge profit a program - GPL disallows this. Much of my software I have absolutely no objection to people selling it and making a profit from it. I'm not going to be a typical *ssh*le of a company who doesn't want others to make money just because they can't.

I bet I can find other restrictions on the USE of GPL software also.

Re:Analysis Paralysis?

[ZhuLien]

That depends on what you consider as abuse. If a writer of a program said that program can be used by anyone for whatever purpose, then how can it be abused? From my point of view, any purpose can include rebadging, repacking, reworking, reengineering, total removal of any original identities, etc... There may or may not be sourcecode *OR* binaries involved, they may in fact be one and the same (interpreted). I'm all for zero copyright restrictions - and releasing software in such a way is best for the World.

The current copyright laws are designed for a capatalistic society to help individuals and groups of individuals to prosper financially above others within the community, no way would I want to promote this discriminative point of view by extending my creations to embrace currently widespread copyright restrictions.

Re:Analysis Paralysis?

[Waffle Iron]

Redistribution *IS* a form of use

It's not a use that's anything like using a fork or a knife, which is what your originally lamented that you couldn't do. Instead, you want to manufacture knockoff tableware for free.

what if a business or an individual wanted to use a program to SELL for a huge profit a program

Then they would publish it under some kind of license. But guess what: you wouldn't be able to freely redistribute that software either. At best you could use it just like the GPL'd software. (Except you'd also be out some "huge" amount of cash, and you likely couldn't actually use it like a knife or a fork because of additional restrictions in the EULA beyond copyright law.)

You can't have your cake and eat it too. As the saying goes: If you don't like the GPL, write your own damned code.

I bet I can find other restrictions on the USE of GPL software also.

I suggest you start your quest by actually reading the GPL.

Re:Analysis Paralysis?

[5plicer]

Well, we can at least expect it to come out before Hurd does ;)

Re:Analysis Paralysis?

[Kremmy]

The GPL does not contain any restriction that keeps you from selling a piece of software for a huge profit. It merely makes you give source code access to those who you sell it to.

Re:Analysis Paralysis?

[Anonymous Coward]

Redistribution *IS* a form of use

No it isn't. "Use", "Duplicate", "Distribute" and similiar terms all have very specific legal meanings in regard to Copyright law. The GPL specifically only applies to duplication and redistribution, but does not apply to use.

Stop trying to make stuff up simply because you've got your panties in a bunch over the GPL and want to rant against it. You're just wrong; be quiet unless you have something useful to add to the discussion.

Re:Analysis Paralysis?

[Lussarn]

First off, the GPL and any other OSS licences aren't for use, they are for distribution. If you don't distribute you don't have to worry.

Second, you need a licence for other peoples work because without it you have NO legal rights to distribute it. The GPL only gives more than what is stated in law. It should not be mistaken for an EULA which always takes away rights from the user, and mostly are not about distribution but use of the software.

Re:Analysis Paralysis?

[dkf]

You've never worked with companies I see.

Most companies will simply walk away from code that has licensing issues. Who's contributing to the GPL codebase then?

Re:Analysis Paralysis?

[MvD_Moscow]

Do you have any examples of companies seriously (not some scrap code that they don't need anymore) contributing to the BSD community? Specifically in a scenario like you described.

Re:Analysis Paralysis?

[meadowsp]

I see, the free as in being forced to do something type of freedom.

Re:Analysis Paralysis?

[runderwo]

Yes, the "free as in being forced to preserve the freedoms of the software user" type of freedom.

Re:Analysis Paralysis?

[Anonymous Coward]

Human nature is not a friendly thing...people WILL take advantage of you if you let them. BSD offers no protection to the author nor community, and it greatly stiffles the chances of the software thriving.

Nor does the GPL. I download your GPL code, I modify it for my own ends and as long as I don't give my binaries to anyone else I don't have to give anyone my modifications.

Re:Analysis Paralysis?

[johno.ie]

who the fuck cares what esr has to say? that guy is a boil on the arse of our community!

Re:Analysis Paralysis?

[dustman]

You don't need any license to use a GPL'd program.

Yes you do. The L in GPL does stand for 'license', after all.

A GPL'd program is a copyrighted piece of computer software.

Saying "you don't need a license to use it" is the same thing as saying you don't need a license to use any other copyrighted software, such as Windows, Oracle, etc...

You need a license to 'use' any piece of software.
This is based on the (somewhat dumb, imo) concept that 'using' (ie running) the software involves making a copy (from permanent store to RAM), which you are not allowed to do since it's copyrighted.

It just happens that the GPL is not very restrictive about use.

Re:Analysis Paralysis?

[Anonymous Coward]

Better than the free as in make money off my hard work and don't give me a dime kind of freedom.

GPL advocates stand up for the guys writing the code people want to use. BSD advocates stand up for the guys wanting to take it and profit off it without having to give anything back.

Someone who works for someone else's benefit without being paid in return is typically known as a "slave". That's not a word that exactly smacks of freedom, you know?

Re:Analysis Paralysis?

[Waffle Iron]

This is based on the (somewhat dumb, imo) concept that 'using' (ie running) the software involves making a copy (from permanent store to RAM)

Some courts have bought that argument, but it's just plain wrong. Since software is essentially useless unless it's loaded into RAM, it clearly falls under the realm of fair use.

This argument is like saying that since a copy of the image of a book needs to be projected onto your retina when you read it, then you can't read the book without an explicit license. I'll choose to believe that if the issue ever made it to the Supreme Court, it would be thrown out.

Re:Analysis Paralysis?

[ZephyrXero]

If you don't want there to have to be a license, you should see about getting something done in the government, not with the licenses themselves. Either that or move to a country without copyright laws ;)

Re:Analysis Paralysis?

[meadowsp]

Or sometimes known as a volunteer because nobody has forced them to work for no money in the first place.

Re:Analysis Paralysis?

[sillybilly]

Careful there.

The GPL doesn't only give them sourcecode access, but also the freedom to change that sourcecode, and to distribute their changes.
One of the gripes with the GPL coming from commercial vendors is that they'd like to make money. But the right to redistribute basically eliminates their market.

How to rectify this? Requiring that only if you actually delved into the sourcecode and made a change are you allowed to distribute wouldn't work, because, at the one end of the spectrum you change a punctuation mark somewhere, on the other end you start with a single line of their code and add 1 million lines of self written code. You obviously did nothing by changing a punctuation mark, and by using a single line of code from them obviously is minuscule compared to your self written stuff. Who's to judge the in-between code-modification stuff? They can't measure programmer performance based on line of code written, how can they allocate, slice and dice the price, measure the worth of creativity?

Basically, for now, if you have a piece of software, GPL'd, you can ask a million bux for it. If it's not your own modified version of say the linux kernel, people can either pay you a million, or go grab a copy off an ftp server for free. On the other hand if there is something in your modified copy that nobody in the world has, they may be willing to pay up that 1 million for it, but once it's out of your hands, they can give it away for free. This essentially eliminates your market, by creating a million competitors with 0 cost, your only chance of recovering invested effort is at that very first sale.

If you think of it, this way with the GPL you only get rewarded when you create, and not some 60 years after it, milking the same cow over and over, when you no longer bring value to the table in exchange for the money you extort. Intellectual property laws were invented to spur creatity and provide incentives for it, but they've been bastardized into freedom-squatting devices, where you get to pay over and over an 'existence fee,' for simply being born, to a feudal lord, without really being provided anything valuable in return. As a last resort, feudal lords will try to sell you the idea of security and global order they provide, which they can really do provide, but at just what cost? A gov't by the people can provide for the same military, police and security, and get taxed (don't laugh here) less than what a feudal lord would tax you. Creativity isn't spurred that much, in contrast to the sacrifices born in exchange with such a feudal system.

On the other hand developing something for mass consumption, such as a movie - who is going to pay that 1-time 100 million dollar to see the movie, instead of the 10 bux each at the movie theater? They made the movie with the intent to make profit, even if a lot of movies end up like crappy drugs to your mind, you could even say negative value in the overall big picture, instead of something educational that doesn't really take that much money to make. There is entertainment, and there is brainwashing - which should be reimbursed? Anyway, 100 million for a movie? Yes, sometimes, but how about Shakespeare's Theatre? Which provides greater value, how do you measure the worth of creativity? Hollywood and the current media wants to have nothing to do with awesome creativity that didn't cost 100 million to make, because that would undermined their brainwashed power position where only expensive is good. Yes, good is expensive, but there is a balance in everything. Windows for how many billion dollars? Give me a break. Linux for free? Ehh, I can't complain as an end user, but no reward to the creators is not something perfect either. Luckily, a lot of the creators find some kind of reward, at least enough to feed and have a comfy life, after which their reward is often being best at doing what they love to do.

It's hard to bring justice to a situation where the worth of something is so elusive. With artistic creation where the shock factor, se

Re:Analysis Paralysis?

[Tim C]

The GPL doesn't make it mandatory. I can take Linux, modify it so that it runs Windows and OS X binaries unmodified at native speed, add in a whole host of other features that people would kill for, and never release a single line of code back to the community, just so long as I never release a binary either.

More to the point, a company could take a GPLed project, improve it immensely, only ever use it internally, and never give the improvements back.

The GPL does not mandate that contributions are released, only that the source is made available if you distribute binaries.

What's missing from GPL2?

[lakerdonald]

What could possibly be so important that we need another GPL? Maybe RMS is going to take back everything he said and be like "Just Kidding...Non-Free Software is Okay by us."

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[Baricom]

Some people have expressed concern that organizations can take GPL'd code, modify it, and then run a web site with it. The act of running a web site using GPL code isn't considered distribution by the FSF, and the source code modifications therefore can be kept to themselves.

That's the argument. Personally, I don't know how I feel about it one way or the other.

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[Anonymous Coward]

The current "problem" with the GPL is that it's very polarized, either all the code in a given application/device is open or it is closed. For better or worse, this is causing a lot of reinventing of the wheel (or just going for different licenses, eg BSD) by companies that don't want to show their core algorithms to their competitors just because they want to use some existing code to do non-core functionality (eg imagine if zlib was GPL instead of BSD. PNG and HTTP/1.1 on the fly compression would be supported by maybe two manufacturers).

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[lakerdonald]

I'd sure love to hear ESR's input as to what goes into GPL3

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[lakerdonald]

I think that the GPL should just be done away with -- I'm all for the idea of open source, but I also think that if one had true "freedom" like RMS is constantly bitching about, one would have the freedom to release something GPL'd under a different, proprietary license.

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[squiggleslash]

Patents.

Right now GPLv2 pays lipservice to patents but doesn't really have strong sanctions against companies who use them to quash free software. The provisions it has are weak and arguably unenforceable if the company distributing GPL'd software suddenly decides to cease.

Nokia, for example, may be able to get away with deciding to end its distribution of GNU/Linux, then suing anyone who's made a derivative version that violates a patent of their's in a way that versions they shipped didn't. Indeed, it's quite possible that a third party entering new code that infringes upon a Nokia patent, even today, could be stopped by Nokia.

(If anyone thinks I'm being unfair to Nokia, yes, unless they actually do this, then I am being, but at the same time they put out a very, very, guarded comment a few months ago that quite obviously left these scenarios open.)

What many people want to see is companies that use patents against free software unable to use a large body of free software from there on. That means a solution to the above issue, but also to, say, discourage suing in general by ensuring that if a company chooses to deny the use of a patented technology to one free software project, it chooses to deny itself the use of any. So if IBM sues to get a technology out of, let's say, Apache, it can't turn around and continue to distribute a (theoretically GPLv3'd) Linux kernel.

Software patents were not a serious problem when the first two GPLs were drafted, though I believe they existed by the time the second version was created. They are now, and they pose a serious threat to free software.

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[lakerdonald]

I subscribe to the too-many-licenses yields too-many-forks crowd, and I just potentially see a bunch of XFree/Xorg situations on the horizon.

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[Dogtanian]

I'd sure love to hear ESR's input as to what goes into GPL3

"By redistributing this software, you accept that any violation of the terms of this license may result in you being pursued and shot by a rabid gun fiend with large number of firearms."

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[natrius]

Some people have expressed concern that organizations can take GPL'd code, modify it, and then run a web site with it. The act of running a web site using GPL code isn't considered distribution by the FSF, and the source code modifications therefore can be kept to themselves.

Running a web site isn't considered distribution by copyright either, and that's what really matters here. The GPL doesn't go into effect until you try to make a copy of the software, and even when it's in effect, you only have to distribute the source code to the people you distribute binaries to. If you only distribute it internally, then it really doesn't make a difference. Technically, a new version of the GPL could say that you have to give a copy of the code to the FSF if you want to distribute binaries at all, even within your own organization, but I don't think many people would actually want to use that license.

Personally, I think that making internal changes and not sharing them with the world is against the spirit of the GPL. People gave their work to you for free, and you don't want to give your changes back as payback? That's pretty lame. However, I don't think there's any practical way for a new version of the GPL to prevent it. Smart people try to get their changes accepted upsteam anyway so they don't have to maintain patches and make sure they apply and don't introduce new bugs. It's just less work.

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[turbidostato]

"one would have the freedom to release something GPL'd under a different, proprietary license."

For this to be able to be done, you should have the "freedom" about breaking the laws, since GPL doesn't allow you to do that. After all, hey! what kind of freedom you can have if you still have to stand by the laws?

Now, you can do what you want under the BSD license. Use BSD code all you want and develop as much BSD code as you fell OK with.

Others don't think BSD-like licenses is not the way to achieve freedom, so they pursue it by other means, i.e. the GPL license.

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[drsmithy]

What could possibly be so important that we need another GPL?

It's still possible to make money from GPLed software. Ergo, RMS's job is not done.

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[Brandybuck]

Personally, I think that making internal changes and not sharing them with the world is against the spirit of the GPL.

Why do you think that? Do you think the same of companies that use GPL software *internally*? You've said yourself that this is okay, and in addition, RMS has gone out of his way to reject licenses that demand this. But what's the difference?

Applying the restrictions only within the legal domain of copyright **IS** the spirit of the GPL! To subsequently extend it beyond the domain of copyright to encompass the execution of software on servers is what is against the spirit of the GPL.

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[Brandybuck]

The "one true 'freedom'" that RMS constantly bitches about is the freedom to release software under the GPL. In his perfect world there would ONLY be GPL software. It's not freedom that he wants, it's conformity to his ideal.

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[lakerdonald]

That's what I meant to say...just a bit less eloquently.

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[LordoftheWoods]

Eh? Ever read anything he (Stallman) has ever written? Teh freedom he's talking about it not just that of the _user_ but also of the _author(s)_. So basically it gives the author the same rights it gives you: you get to use the author's code and the author gets to use yours. This reciprocity is touted as more free than just *freedom means I can do anything I darn well please* (the "It's a free country" idgits also have this narrow view of freedom).

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[thephotoman]

RMS doesn't want to forbid the distrobution of GPLed software for money. In fact, he's even said that it's okay to distribute for profit.

He just said that you need to include the source when you ship the binary copy. If he'd wanted everything to be free as in beer as well as free as in freedom, he would have written that into the license.

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[Dogtanian]

You're right that the GPL isn't entirely "free" in the "can do what the heck you want with it" sense. That would be more like the BSD license; or taken to its logical conclusion, releasing your software as "public domain".

Personally, I think that if people want to release their work under a BSD (or weaker) license, that's their choice. I just don't want to hear anyone bitch about it when such freely-available software gets incorporated into a proprietary product, and the company gives nothing back.

It depends what you expect in return for the work you put into writing software; some consider getting their good-quality software used as widely as possible (for whatever motive) the most important thing (a la BSD). Me? I'm not opposed to proprietary software, but I wouldn't consider it acceptable that someone tied up work that I'd released (possibly) for no-cost redistribution and re-use, and incorporated it into a proprietary product- and then gave nothing back in any shape or form.

Personally, I'm *guessing* (no more) that ESR's views on the GPL's 'obselescence' somewhat reflect his "liberatarian" politics, anticipating that left to do their own thing, companies will somehow contribute back. I don't buy this; they don't have to, so they won't.

You're right; the GPL isn't "free"; it does, however, support the *preservation* of the *same level of freedom* that came with it in the first place. Contrast with BSD/public domain, which is more "free", but does nothing to *preserve* its freedom.

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[Mozk]

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html #GPLOutput

The website you view would be the output from the program, not the actual program. Nevertheless this seems like a grey area...

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[kz45]

He just said that you need to include the source when you ship the binary copy. If he'd wanted everything to be free as in beer as well as free as in freedom, he would have written that into the license.

This means that the end-user can compile it and legally pass it around to anyone they want promptly destroying any hope of the orignal company turning a profit.

If you charge money for your software and release it under the GNU license, you are forced you to compete with a free version of your software (why would someone pay for something that they can get for free..from you (and im talking about an exact copy). Small software companies have trouble making a profit as it is.

The only way I can see free software benefiting companies is the fact that it's free (as in beer), which is exactly what the original poster was talking about.

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[ZephyrXero]

I sure as hell wouldn't. The man doesn't live in the real world if he thinks open source will continue to thrive without GPL type licensing... just look at how booming the BSD community is compared to the Linux one...there's a reason for that.

I've got a longer version of my argument here if anyone cares to read it.

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[Marc Rochkind]

Actually, with the BSD license you do get something back: Credit for the original work. This coupled with the greater likelihood that the software will be used in heavily-marketed proprietary products is sometimes exactly what authors want. For them, the BSD license is a good match.

For example, I released the source code for my book, Advanced UNIX Programming, under the BSD license, and what I wanted in return (other than more happy people in the world) was publicity for the book. I still get improvements and bug fixes emailed to me by helpful readers.

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[lakerdonald]

Well put. And you did it without being flagged a troll ;)

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[Tony Hoyle]

Thank god Apache isn't GPL then.

WTF is wrong with using software that's distributed freely, spending your own time updating, then using it without redistributing it? If GPLv3 forbids that then it'll be going *way* beyond copyright law and even proprietary licenses.

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[Tony Hoyle]

I dunno.. Redhat seem to have no problems with this.

In the real world most end users don't give a crap if the source is available.. they're not programmers. They want support (which the likes of IBM/Redhat give them) and they're prepared to pay to get it.

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[natrius]

I'm sleepy. I think I made a mistake in my original post. To make a derivative work, you need permission from the author, usually in the form of a blanket license like the GPL. Theoretically, someone could come up with a license that says you must make public any derivative work you create. If this were the case with the GPL, then people running modified versions of GPL'd software on their servers would have to share their changes. It'd be hard to prove, but it could still be "required."

Now on to your question. Why is not sharing changes against the spirt of the GPL? I explained exactly why in my post. If you're making the piece of software better with your internal changes, shouldn't the original authors benefit from those changes as well? It's slightly assholish to not help the people who helped you.

I like that the GPL doesn't require this. I'm sure there are many cases in which internal modifications are trivial and only suited to specific uses, and requiring that all those little changes be public would probably lead to a lot of noise with few beneficial changes. If something you add is actually useful, you should share it. Do unto others and whatnot.

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some would argue that allowing the world at large to use the changed code, via the web or some other form of remote code execution, without distributing the changes violates the spirit (but not the letter) of GPLv2.

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I'd really like to make lots of money illegally too, but unfortunately it's not as easy as that. Don't like the GPL? Write your own damn code.

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[Anonymous Coward]

The freedom to deny others freedom clearly isn't in the spirit of the GPL. No one is making you use GPLed software, and you are of course free to write your own with any license you choose.

IMHO, People who want to make incremental improvements on the work of others and make it proprietary can go fuck themselves.

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[drsmithy]

I was (half-)joking with my original post, however:

RMS doesn't want to forbid the distrobution of GPLed software for money. In fact, he's even said that it's okay to distribute for profit.

OTOH, the GPL is designed in such a way as to make distributing (GPLed) software for profit practically impossible (without it being legally tied to/bundled with some other product or service).

He just said that you need to include the source when you ship the binary copy.

*AND* that anyone you distribute it to must also be able to redistribute it. This is a rather important additional condition (because it's the one that creates the "practically impossible" aspect of "selling GPLed software").

If he'd wanted everything to be free as in beer as well as free as in freedom, he would have written that into the license.

Uh, you don't exactly make an intention like "I want to make selling software impossible" /obvious/ if you want anyone outside of a small group of hardcore idealists to be interested in it.

RMS's philosophy is that software should be "free as in my definition of freedom". That definition of "freedom" just happens to include making selling software practically impossible.

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[kz45]

I dunno.. Redhat seem to have no problems with this.

In the real world most end users don't give a crap if the source is available.. they're not programmers. They want support (which the likes of IBM/Redhat give them) and they're prepared to pay to get it.

redhat makes money off of the backs of hard working free software developers. They are basically a support company that just happens to support OSS.

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[RedWizzard]

Running a web site isn't considered distribution by copyright either, and that's what really matters here.

Doesn't it? So I can type in the text to a book and put it up on a website and that's not a breach of copyright?

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[Gherald]

> I sure as hell wouldn't. The man doesn't live in the real world if he thinks open source will continue to thrive without GPL type licensing... just look at how booming the BSD community is compared to the Linux one...there's a reason for that.

Actually, it is was all AT&T's fault.

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[Anonymous Coward]

*and was

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[thephotoman]

Agreed, the sale of free software is a bit difficult due to the redistrobution bit. However, it's not completely impossible. Look at RHEL: the source RPMs are the basis of several distrobutions.

Of course, I do see the humor in your initial post, as well as your point. I'm just being incredibly pedantic. Free software is really a case of perfect competition as economics puts it: there is no long term economic profit in making free software. There is some in the short term, but it's been a semester or two since I took that class.

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[cnettel]

You're not copying Windows just by running an IIS web server. Any license limitations in the number of connections or anything is not directly related to copyright, but the enforcability of the EULA.

(On the other hand, if we assume that IIS will always give root access to the machine it's running on, maybe it could be considered redistribution of Windows itself...)

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[Brandybuck]

Why is not sharing changes against the spirt of the GPL?

Because that's not the spirit. Read all RMS' voluminous rants if you don't believe me! Where you may be confused is because a lot of people, especially on slashdot, simplify it into "you must share everything". Instead, the spirit of the GPL is to share a certain *class* of changes. The current debate is whether changes to webapps fall into this class or not.

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[drsmithy]

You're right; the GPL isn't "free"; it does, however, support the *preservation* of the *same level of freedom* that came with it in the first place. Contrast with BSD/public domain, which is more "free", but does nothing to *preserve* its freedom.

This is not correct. Code licensed under the BSD license has its "freedom preserved" - it will always be BSD licensed. *Modifications* to that code, *derivatives* of that code and products that utilise the functionality of that code, however, might not be.

What you are talking about is the *propogation* of "freedom", not the "preservation". The GPL *propogates* by requiring derivatives (with a ridiculously broad definition of "derivative", I might add) also be GPLed. The BSDL *preserves* by only applying to the code as it is originally released.

Or, to put it in simple terms, the BSDL is about influencing the code you write, the GPL is about influencing the code someone else writes.

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[drsmithy]

I dunno.. Redhat seem to have no problems with this.

Because they tie their GPLed software to other products and services (their support contracts) - precisely as I pointed out they need to in my original post.

If Red Hat's only source of income was selling Linux, CentOS, WBL and various other free knockoffs would have run them out of business years ago (after all, why would you pay $$$$ to Red Hat when you could download an identical product for free ?).

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[drsmithy]

Agreed, the sale of free software is a bit difficult due to the redistrobution bit. However, it's not completely impossible. Look at RHEL: the source RPMs are the basis of several distrobutions.

And the only reason Red Hat can actually sell RHEL is because of the support services they tie it to. If they didn't, CentOS and co. would have bankrupted them years ago.

Free software is really a case of perfect competition as economics puts it: there is no long term economic profit in making free software.

Free software [development] does not appear to have any viable method of recouping development costs (particularly initial development costs). I'm not an economics expert, but I find it difficult to believe an example of "perfect competition" would be so obviously flawed.

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[Mr2001]

Free software [development] does not appear to have any viable method of recouping development costs (particularly initial development costs).

Sure it does: if you want a particular feature developed, hire some programmers to write the necessary code. You just have to realize programmers are providing a service, rather than manufacturing a good.

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[aCapitalist]

Exactly. The GPL is a political tool that has nothing to do with freedom. Stallman made up his own definition of freedom to suit his political agenda.

But I shouldn't be surprised that so many people around here buy his drivel.

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[RedWizzard]

My point is that a blanket statement like "running a web site isn't considered distribution by copyright either" is not accurate. Even when you're talking about the implementation of some application via the web, e.g. Javascript code on a webpage is certainly covered by copyright.

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[aCapitalist]

The freedom to deny others freedom clearly isn't in the spirit of the GPL

Once you grow up you'll realize how stupid that statement really is. To say that BSD code denies other freedom is beyond ridiculous, but hey with the paint chip eaters around here it's no wonder that crap is parroted.

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[quantaman]

Some people have expressed concern that organizations can take GPL'd code, modify it, and then run a web site with it. The act of running a web site using GPL code isn't considered distribution by the FSF, and the source code modifications therefore can be kept to themselves.

To state the concern more clearly say EvilCompany takes gcc, does some crazy optimizations, and starts running it on their server never releasing the code, call it pgcc (propietary gcc). Then they sell a small app ttpgcc (talking to propietary gcc) which communicates over the internet to pgcc. ttpgcc sends the code and whatever args to pgcc, which then compiles it and sends back the binary (assuming mad bandwidth and stuff). The user never recieves a copy of pgcc, thus they have no rights to the code under the gpl, however through ttpgcc EvilCompany is now selling an app which is effect a forked version of gcc.

I don't know how to disallow this scenario yet allow a webserver in a license but this certainly presents a problem.

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[Mr2001]

RMS's philosophy is that software should be "free as in my definition of freedom". That definition of "freedom" just happens to include making selling software practically impossible.

Certainly, one effect of making software free to distribute is that it's hard to make money distributing it. But you seem to be going further than pointing out that obvious fact; you're insinuating that preventing people from making money is one of RMS's goals, rather than a side effect, and I don't believe you have any evidence for that.

It's hard to sell free software just like it's hard to sell tap water - why pay for a glass of tap water when you can turn on your faucet for next to nothing? People buy bottled water mainly because it's cleaner or tastier than tap water. Now, an effort to clean up your city's tap water might have the effect of making it harder for companies to sell bottled water, but it's still a good idea in itself, because the benefit to the majority who want to drink water outweighs the detriment to the minority who want to sell it.

And so it is with software. Making software available for free means it's hard to make money selling it, but it provides a huge benefit to the majority who simply want to use software rather than sell it.

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[Max Romantschuk]

It's still possible to make money from GPLed software. Ergo, RMS's job is not done.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

The pupose of the GPL is to ensure that you are provided with the GPL licensed source of a program upon distribution. The program can cost a million dollars, as long as you get the source, under the GPL license.

Of course, you are perfectly within your rights to redistribute the program under the terms of the GPL. As this is the case it makes little sense to charge for GPL licensed software.

The GPL is about freedom, not cost. Making money out of GPL licensed software is a good thing, as people can thus both feed the families and add to the pool of free software at the same time.

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[synthespian]

What you are talking about is the *propogation* of "freedom", not the "preservation". The GPL *propogates* by requiring derivatives (with a ridiculously broad definition of "derivative", I might add) also be GPLed. The BSDL *preserves* by only applying to the code as it is originally released.

Depends on where your reference system is. For instance, if you're a developer joining an ongoing project previously released as GPL then you're liable to falling in the "GPL trap": the original authors can, provided they get you to file papers giving up on any copyright on your code, relicense your code under a proprietary license. you might consider that Freeedom. I consider it freedom to make other people richer, and you poorer, i.e., slavery.

For instance, Stallman never accepted the XEmacs fork, because they refused to send in the paperwork to the FSF. See XEmacs vs Emacs, where you can read a bewildering lesson on what constitues a GPLed software by Stallman:

XEmacs is GNU software because it's a modified version of a GNU program. And it is GNU software because the FSF is the copyright holder for most of it (...) This is why the term "GNU XEmacs" is legitimate. (GNU XEmacs ?! Oh, like, GNU/Linux...)
But in another sense it is not GNU software [my quote], because we can't use XEmacs in the GNU system (etc)

Ain't that a piece?
OpenOffice.org demmands that you snail-mail a ceding-copyright agreement form: Submit a filled-out copy of the Joint Copyright Assignment form (JCA)

In the essay where the FSF argues on why they think you should not use the LGPL, they say: "At least one application program is free software today specifically because that was necessary for using Readline." The name of this software is CLISP, a Common Lisp implementation. I love the venerable CLISP, but admit it: not many use it. So much for that argument. Bruno Haible did not want to release his work under the GPL, but he has forced to ("The only thing CLISP will have to do with the readline library is that *THE USER* *MAY OPTIONALLY* link CLISP with the readline library.
No judge will admit that this gives you the right to determine the copyright
of CLISP." - but Stallman disagreed - historical exchange here.)

If, however, you're a developer working in a company, the BSD may *preserve* and *propagate* your freedom, because you can use code you developed while on another company on your new job, promoting true code re-use while not getting stopped by GPL hurdles for your new company, because you can mix the BSD code with proprietary code. As we know, except for hardware companies, a lot of them avoid the GPL.

However, any big corporation can just crush you if you develop open-source code, because they have big IT departments, so unless you really have an edge, they'll just hand your code over to them. How you develop that edge with OSS is the question.

So it all depends on what your situation is.

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[drsmithy]

Depends on where your reference system is. For instance, if you're a developer joining an ongoing project previously released as GPL then you're liable to falling in the "GPL trap": the original authors can, provided they get you to file papers giving up on any copyright on your code, relicense your code under a proprietary license. you might consider that Freeedom. I consider it freedom to make other people richer, and you poorer, i.e., slavery.

Yes, well, there's a reason I have "freedom" in ""s - and that's because I don't think the GPL is "free as in freedom" at all.

"Free as in GNU/Freedom", maybe :D

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[Lussarn]

No, the freedom RMS bitches about it the ability to change a program you have aquired. The GPL is only a tool to make that happen.

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[91degrees]

I believe they will consider the website to be a public performance. Sounds like a stretch to me, but what do I know?

I think people worry too much about this though. A lot of mods to GPL web software are publically available. A lot of modified software under other free licences is also publically available. Fora lot of people, if they get something for free, they feel obligated to give something back

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[91degrees]

I don't think that's it. They're packaging and distribution company. I bought Suse 6.3 many years ago because I felt the price was reasonable for a set of discs with the data on it.

I couldn't have downlaoded it at the time (over a modem with no CD writer). I probably could have got hold of a copy from somewhere else, but the brand just made it seem like a safer purchase.

Even now it's more convenient to buy than to download and burn, as long as the price is right.

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[Dogtanian]

(My emphasis:-) For instance, if you're a developer joining an ongoing project previously released as GPL then you're liable to falling in the "GPL trap": the original authors can, provided they get you to file papers giving up on any copyright on your code

That's not a fault of the GPL- it's a fault over assigning the copyright/ownership of your code to someone else.

You don't have to do that. Of course, your modifications might not be accepted into the mainstream version. Your choice. It's nothing to do with the GPL license itself.

They could do the exact same thing with BSD-licensed code.

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[Dogtanian]

This is not correct. Code licensed under the BSD license has its "freedom preserved" - it will always be BSD licensed. *Modifications* to that code, *derivatives* of that code and products that utilise the functionality of that code, however, might not be.

You're right if you consider 'freedom' to only apply to the original code *as written*, and not the freedom of the "project". It does, however, make it very simple to create a piece of proprietary software from a piece of free software, and encourages nothing.

As I said elsewhere, it's the writer's choice; BSDL guarantees a credit in return, and pretty much nothing else. I wouldn't consider that acceptable terms for use of any code I wrote, but if others want to do that, it's their choice.

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[maxpublic]

RMS's philosophy is that software should be "free as in my definition of freedom". That definition of "freedom" just happens to include making selling software practically impossible.

RMS has nothing to do with it. It's up to the developer(s) of the software whether or not they want to use the GPL, and since it's their code and they can do whatever the fuck they want with it. If they don't want *you* to be able to take the code, wrap it into your proprietary product, and sell it without source then that's their business. You have no right whatsoever to complain about it, or to insist that they do things differently to suit your desires. If you don't like it, write your own damned code, or hire someone to write it for you.

The world doesn't owe you anything, and that includes code that someone else wrote.

Max

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[nickco3]

I'd sure love to hear ESR's input as to what goes into GPL3

ESR's belief is that We don't need the GPL anymore

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[gte910h]

I don't think this is really a problem. You're not paying for software at this point, you're paying for a compiler service.

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[mw13068]

All of you complaining about the GPL are completely free to create your own software from scratch and keep it as secret and proprietary as you like.

I think you are bitching because you have found some really useful GPL'ed software that you want to steal for your own selfish uses. Sorry, you can't.

The spirit (and the main restriction) of the GPL is that you have to share and share alike if you want to use the Free Software community's resources. The GPL was designed to make sure that selfish people can't steal the software out from under the community which worked hard to build it.

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[Brandybuck]

Please go to www.fsf.org (the home ofthe GPL) and look up the word "steal". It has quite a lot to say about it. It also recommends that you do not use that word with respect to software.

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi,

I'd like an OS that is as easy to learn as MS Windows and as functional as Linux. I'm willing to pay about $150 for it. Afterwards, I'm going to give it away to all my friends and sell it to anyone who will give me $20.

Will you develop it for me? Payment on delivery of course.

Thanks.

---

You're right of course, that is the Open Source development model. It works great in areas where someone has already done most of the work (e.g. a kernel). It works lousy in cases where there are a large number of people, each of whom is willing to pay a small amount for a really big improvement.

It is no accident that Linux is very functional for developers and not so much for average users. It is a natural result of the development model. If developers are hitting problems, we fix them. If anyone else hits problems...they find software where they can exchange the fruits of their labor (i.e. their money) for something that Just Works.

Closed source supports that model. A bunch of people can offer to pay a small amount each for the software and get it. There is no similar option in open source. The closest are

1. Red Hat sells support and develops open source software to have something to support.

2. NVidia (and Apple, etc.) sells hardware and develops software to use their hardware.

3. Linspire sells services (e.g. download and supported installation) and develops software to use their services.

If open source could figure out a good way to link people who want software with developers en masse, then it will have no trouble replacing closed source. Until then...the eternal struggle. As a developer, I know who I would like to win, but...

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[Mr2001]

You're right of course, that is the Open Source development model. It works great in areas where someone has already done most of the work (e.g. a kernel). It works lousy in cases where there are a large number of people, each of whom is willing to pay a small amount for a really big improvement.

Nope. All you have to do is take your offer one step further:

"My 1,000,000 friends and I would like an OS that is as easy to learn as MS Windows and as functional as Linux. We're each willing to pay about $150 for it."

And, of course, supply some of the money up front so the developers can keep a roof over their heads while they're working on this project. The only difficult part about this is coordinating your actions with everyone else who wants the same product developed.

Re:What's missing from GPL2?

[Doc Ruby]

This scenario has existed without causing problems for years. If my CGI script glues my proprietary fortune-telling app to my GPL webserver (like Apache), then people hit it with their GPL web browsers (like Mozilla - OK, not quite GPL, but close enough), do I have to release my fortune-telling source code? Of course not. Including network interop as a GPL trigger is just a coup attempt by some, trying to leverage the widespread acceptance of some GPL software (like Linux, Apache, etc) into GPL'ing all software. Regardless of the value of the source code to the users, who have proven to be much less interested (if at all) in the source than are developers.

There is a compelling problem of proprietary APIs. GPL3 should address that: if your app interops with GPL apps over an API, then your app must publish its APIs, and document them at least to the degree that the GPL app's APIs are documented. That's hard to quantify, but the GPL people are smart. Such a new term would open network apps enough for people (users and developers) to use them, which is the point of the GPL. And it would provide incentive for GPL programmers to document their own APIs, possibly the worst problem that GPL code has today.

Version conflicts?

[Ossifer]

Being that 99 44/100% of all GPL'd software originally came out under the current GPL, will there be any version conflicts with currently licensed software? I.e. if the newer license is *less* restrictive on some point, can existing software licensing be "upgraded" to the new license without have to obtain the acceptance of every single contributor?

P.S. This is a real question, not a flamebait or troll...

Re:Version conflicts?

[sconeu]

Generally, if you look at license files, they say V2 of GPL *or later*.

The Linux kernel is a notable exception to this.

Re:Version conflicts?

[Ossifer]

So they have an implicit acceptance of whatever might go into to version n years from now?

Like "permission to use the author's power tools on odd weekends"? ;-)

Re:Version conflicts?

[darthgnu]

I think that current copyright law would not permit just switching over the liscence without contacting every contributor, since that would probably be a violation. But then again, im not a lawyer :)

Re:Version conflicts?

[Brandybuck]

"v2 or later" is *NOT* trivially convertable to "v3 or later." You either need all authors to agree to it, or you need to fork off the project and then convince all authors to work on the new fork.

The only practical benefit the clause provides is that a future v3 developer can incorporate v2 (but not v1) code. It's so that future versions can be backward compatiblity, not that past versions can be forward compatible.

Re:Version conflicts?

[mrchaotica]

You either need all authors to agree to it, or you need to fork off the project and then convince all authors to work on the new fork.

These two statements are identical.

Re:Version conflicts?

[Dogtanian]

So they have an implicit acceptance of whatever might go into to version n years from now? Like "permission to use the author's power tools on odd weekends"? ;-)

This is why I don't quite get the "or later" clause. Sure it adds flexibility, but it basically trusts that the FSF won't do anything you're significantly unhappy with in future versions of the license.

Tying it down to one version, and saying that a later version of the GPL can be applied *provided the original author agrees* might work, but it runs into problems when the the program (or the most common version) has more than one author, as might happen if it is modified by several people. What happens then? Do they require permission to "upgrade the license" on their code? Do they leave the original author with the choice over what license to apply to their modifications/expansions (which, if you're not the original author, takes us back to the first problem)?

Re:Version conflicts?

[Tony Hoyle]

...as is anyone who's got any sense. Until I've seen the v3 GPL I will *not* agree to any of my code being licensed to it.

Too many stories of the FSF taking license fees, etc.. they may not come to pass but there's no damned way I'm agreeing to it blind.

Re:Version conflicts?

[Tony Hoyle]

The two statements conflict:

You either need all authors to agree to it...

a future v3 developer can incorporate v2 (but not v1) code

Either the 'or later' clause allows code to be 'promoted' to v3, or it doesn't. If it doesn't then a v3 author cannot include v2 code without the permission of the original author.

Re:Version conflicts?

[zsau]

Linux version 2.2, at least, didn't specify the GPL version, so that you can use any (including GPL v1). This presumably carries through; it's only 2.4-and-later additions that are difficult. Of course, 2.4-and-later additions are incredibly important to desktop users, so...

Re:Version conflicts?

[zippthorne]

People should start putting time-limits in their code.. like, this code becomes public domain on such-and-such a date or in addition to the rights granted by the GPL, on {date} the rights of {other less restrictive license} are also granted.

This is necessary because the period of copyright keeps increasing and more than 90 years is far too long to wait to change a license in the world of software.

Re:Version conflicts?

[Red Alastor]

This is why I don't quite get the "or later" clause. Sure it adds flexibility, but it basically trusts that the FSF won't do anything you're significantly unhappy with in future versions of the license. In that case, license new version under GPL2, period and let the old versions become obsolete. The risk that the main point of the license "this software will always stay free" will change is close to zero and the "or later" clause is a safe bet to prevent license upgrade hassles.

Re:Version conflicts?

[Brandybuck]

In practical terms, yes the end results are the same. But the road to that end result is very different. Imagine you have five authors, but only four agree to the new license. The four fork off a new project while the fifth sulks with the old code. Eventually he relents and joins the forked project. A far far different road than if all five had originally agreed to dump the old license.

Re:Version conflicts?

[Brandybuck]

It seems you missed the "or" word I had used. You either need all authors to agree to it **OR** something else. That something else I'll leave as an exercise just to ensure you read my post.

Actually changing the license of an existing project is a much different thing from forking it. In case you haven't realized it yet, "v3 or later" is incompatible with "v2 or later", because it happens to exclude "v2". So while you can indeed fork off a "v2 or later" project into a "v3 or later" project, you need to get everyone's permissions before you can throw away the "v2" from the original project.

Re:Version conflicts?

[laffer1]

There's no need.. just use the BSD license. Its already usable by everyone! (non ad clause version of course)

If you GPL something, you want to limit the use of your code by other parties. I don't see why you would want to loosen it up later.

I know this sounds like trolling. i'm just trying to point out that another license makes more sense for the parents point.

Re:Version conflicts?

[majiCk]

Well, the recommended wording reads (emphasis mine):

This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

As an author you needn't worry about having to pay licensing fees, since the GPL governs redistribution and doesn't take away the author's copyright. Furthermore, you needn't worry about people being forced to pay licensing fees to redistribute your software, since they can always elect not to apply the terms of the new license.

This issue is covered in the GPL FAQ.

(ex post facto disclaimer: IANAL)

Re:Version conflicts?

[isorox]

I think that current copyright law would not permit just switching over the liscence without contacting every contributor, since that would probably be a violation. But then again, im not a lawyer :)

Nor have you read the GPL

        This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
        it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
        the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
        (at your option) any later version.

Although as mentioned elsewhere some software licenses are more restrictive, like the linux kernel

  Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
  is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
  v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.

So there's nothing in the GPL forbiding you to use the later version, its only if there are additional restrictions given by the copyright holder(s)

Re:Version conflicts?

[91degrees]

Non-GPL code can be added to GPL code, as long as the non-GPL code allows all the requirements of the GPL to be met.

Hopefully it should be possible to distribute and use software under the terms of both licences.

Re:Version conflicts?

[Dogtanian]

The risk that the main point of the license "this software will always stay free" will change is close to zero and the "or later" clause is a safe bet to prevent license upgrade hassles

Well; for one thing, what is "free"?

Opinions may change. Whilst I agree that the chance of future versions being "non-free" is low, there is a non-zero risk that someone at the FSF may decide on a different version of "freedom" for future GPLs.

The BSDL is more "free" in a "do what you want with it" sense than the GPL. I wouldn't consider it acceptable for code I'd intended to be licensed under the "true" GPL to be automatically distributable under a pseudo-BSD license.

The "or later" clause is a convenience, and one that is traded off against certainty.

Re:Version conflicts?

[mrdaveb]

For software that uses the phrase "or later" in its licence, I really fail to see the problem. "v2 or later" is basically a superset of "v3 or later"

"This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 3, or (at your option) version 2 or any later version.

What possible problem is there with that? It is logically identical to the existing rules, it just suggests GPL3 as the preferred version.

Re:Version conflicts?

[GauteL]

This is also a problem because it requires you to trust the Free Software Foundation to always make the right decisions. If your software is licensed with the "or later" clause, you might end up with it being licensed under terms you really don't agree with.

Re:Version conflicts?

[k98sven]

You're confused. The actual statement is "either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version".

There is no reason at all to believe that a version 3 would not be covered by that statement. And to say otherwise you'd have to show that the FSF did not intend this to cover future versions such as version 3, which they indeed did. Which is also why Linus chose not to include this statement.

Re:Version conflicts?

[k98sven]

Grepping in the source of 2.6.19, the status seems to be that out of 7200 .c files, 6800 of the have some form of GPL notice in them, and the rest don't.

Out of the 6800 who do, 2400 of them actually do have the "..any later version.." form of the GPL license statement.

Re:Version conflicts?

[Minna Kirai]

"v2 or later" is basically a superset of "v3 or later"

That IS the problem. (Consider that the BSD license is basically a superset of the GPL).

If the authors actually want to change to GPLv3, it'll probably be because it closes some loophole existing in GPLv2- meaning the new version is MORE restrictive. But the "v2 or later" clause doesn't allow them to close loopholes that way.

Re:Version conflicts?

[Minna Kirai]

So there's nothing in the GPL forbiding you to use the later version,

That's not what was asked. Optionally using a later version is not the same as switching to a newer version!

Inevitably, GPLv3 will be more restrictive in some ways than GPLv2 was (although it also might be looser in other ways). Switching the license will remove some old permissions included in v2, possibly including some effective loophole. If the end-users are still given the option of GPLv2, then the software effectively hasn't really switched to GPLv3 at all.

Re:Version conflicts?

[Brandybuck]

...it just suggests GPL3 as the preferred version.

Rather, it demands that GPL3 be the minimum version. It is extremely doubtful that GPL3 will be compatible with GPL2 (in the sense that any mixture cannot be licensed GPL2). New features and bug fixes contributed under GPL3 cannot be incorporated into a GPL2 code base.

"...or later" does not mean "...or earlier". "GPL3 or later" excludes GPL2!

Re:Version conflicts?

[isorox]

That's not what was asked. Optionally using a later version is not the same as switching to a newer version!

later version of the GPL is a newer version of the GPL. You can take a bog standard GPL project, and, if you want, make a change and release the whole code under GPL v3

Some GPL projects like the linux kernel are a little more restrictive, and you can't do it, but most GPL projects allow switching to a newer version. You can't relicense the code that is already out as v2 (thank god), but any new modifications may be released under version 3 (or later) only.

I.E.

Say I download a project "xbmp", which is version 2 GPL. I then make a modification to it and call it "xbmp2". I can choose to release that modification as version 3 only. Someone else can still download "xbmp" with the version 2 license, but my modifications (and any future modifications to xbmp2) will be covered by the gpl version 3 (or later)

Somebody can't take my GPL V3 project and relicense it as GPL version 2 - that's not allowed and it clearly states that in the GPL v2 (and presumably will state it in the gpl3). You can't relicense a GPL2 project as GPL1 either (if there was a GPL1)

Re:Version conflicts?

[3247]

"v2 or later" is *NOT* trivially convertable to "v3 or later." You either need all authors to agree to it, or you need to fork off the project and then convince all authors to work on the new fork.

Actually, it is convertible quite easily. "v2 or later" actually is a multi-license under GPL v2, v3, v4,... With multi-licensed works, you can always make modifications and distribute the result under less licenses, such as GPL v3 ("or later"), the GPL v2 (without "or later"), the GPL v4, the GPL v2 or v4 or later, but not v3, and so on...

Of course, you can't reduce the license grants of other people, so users can always use the version not modified by you. If people don't like your reduction to less licenses, they can just not use your code.

Re:Version conflicts?

[3247]

If your software is licensed with the "or later" clause, you might end up with it being licensed under terms you really don't agree with.

If you don't use the "or later" clause, you might end up with a licence that is outdated (and does not address ASP adequatly, for example) and no easy way to upgrade to a better licence.

This is old news

[darthgnu]

Sorry for sounding pedantic, but he announced this at the FSF associate members meeting March 26th. I'm surprised nobody came out with this info earlier.

Clarification

[Anonymous Coward]

I was in Eben's talk. The following sentence from the summary is a but unclear:

lower barriers that today prevent the mixing of software covered by the GPL and other licenses.

What RMS means by this is compatibility with other Free software licenses (such as hopefully the Apache license), rather than compromise with proprietary software.

The fork issue

[rewt66]

Isn't most of the Linux kernel licensed under GPL 2 only? Doesn't that mean that, no, it can't fork, new license or not?

I mean, to fork it (to use GPL 3), you'd have to (for each file) find everybody who has ever made changes to that file (unless the changes have since been replaced) and get their permission to license that under GPL 3. If they refuse, you have to re-write the section that their changes are in (or the whole file). This doesn't seem realistic...

Re:The fork issue

[mfago]

Does the Kernel require copyright assignments like GCC? I'd think this could allow the assignee to change the license etc. Not sure this is the case though: GCC development appears (IMHO) to be much more structured than the Kernel -- for better or worse.

Re:The fork issue

[andymadigan]

Most programs are licensed under the GPL v2 or later. So long as those future versions of the license are released by the FSF.

Re:The fork issue

[EvanED]

...which has no bearing on the grandparent's post, which is about the Linux kernel.

The Linux kernel only makes most of itit available under v2 of the license:

Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.

COPYING from linux-2-6-12-13.tar

Re:The fork issue

[Nichotin]

Sir, that is a feature, not a bug :) I am pretty sure they did this to make sure the kernel will forever stay GPLv2'ed, and that violators step on many toes at a time.

Does it really make a difference?

[nurb432]

If the code is open, many people will use it as they feel fit.

Sure, there will be suits and accusations, but business will continue as usual.. I really dont see some 'magical version 3' changing anything around here.

And no, its not a troll to start a arguement on the validity of GPL/BSD/ETC, ( which i wont particpate in any longer anyway ) just a statement about the current state of 'code reuse' in the world.

What the hell is taking so long

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly. it is a short document.

yes it needs to be checked by lawyers etc. but what in gods name is making it take a couple of years to finish

Re:What the hell is taking so long

[rewt66]

Ever hear of "the law of unintended consequences"?

They're trying to not mess up all the ways that GPLed code is used. That's not easy, because it's used a lot of different ways. And, they are trying to build a license that will not fail when subjected to the next ten years' worth of (currently) unknown attacks. (Look at how GPL 2 stood up under SCO's attack, and you'll see what I mean.)

This isn't just "slap together a license, and we'll fix it next week if we don't get it right the first time". Since some some projects don't use the "or any later version" clause, some code will probably be licensed under GPL 3 forever. And seeing from here to forever is hard, even on a clear day...

Re:What the hell is taking so long

[EvanED]

The problem isn't making the document say what you want it to say.

The problem is figuring out what you want it to say.

Re:What the hell is taking so long

[synthespian]

they are trying to build a license that will not fail when subjected to the next ten years' worth of (currently) unknown attacks.

From what I gathered reading
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/gpl3-backgroun d.html
they seem greatly concerned with the adequacy of the license to international copyright law.

This is very important, as the GPL may not be enforceable on various countries as it is today. I know that, eg, in Brazil, special legal measures had to be taken to allow for the GPL to override (if the license is chosen, of course) the current software law. Previously, there were legal precendents in Brazilian jurisprudence that ended up getting some people fcsked over when their code was stollen and incorporated.

Show me the code

[Wesley Felter]

Am I the only one who's tired of hearing that GPL v3 is coming real soon now? What's the use in talking about it if there are no drafts to discuss?

(Obligatory: I wonder if Duke Nukem Forever for the Phantom console will be licensed under GPL v3...)

I bet

[Anonymous Coward]

It won't be half as good as GPL 2. ESR has sold out. I predict a jar jar binks clause or something.

Did you say 2007?

[Profane MuthaFucka]

That would mean that the new GPL will be out just in time for Richard Stallman's next bath!

Re:Did you say 2007?

[MrCopilot]

Are you implying RMS is one of the aforementioned long haired smelly's? I think, if that is what you mean, He may feel a bit of pride just now.

http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=158566&t hreshold=1&commentsort=0&tid=88&mode=thread&cid=13 283304

I cut my hair, but parts of me are occasionally smelly, despite the frequency of bathing.

Re:Did you say 2007?

[Anonymous Coward]

...but not for Eric S. Raymond's... Too bad.

Re:Did you say 2007?

[TheoMurpse]

That would mean that the new GPL will be out just in time for Richard Stallman's next bath!

Wait. That does not compute. I thought the unwashed masses were people who didn't use Linux.

Re:Did you say 2007?

[alucinor]

A long-haired smelly just shed a tear.

Reasonable people...

[sploxx]

This all sounds very reasonable and careful. Why are the FSF people -esp. RMS- portrayed as being zealots here on /.?
Of course they have an agenda. They may be (described as) somewhat fundamentalistic. But it seems that they are still arguing in very reasonable ways.

Re:Reasonable people...

[darthgnu]

Well, I have seen a lot of bad reactions from an audience at one of his speeches when he started arguing with Lawrence Lessig, people do not seem to be very keen of Richard, he has a somewhat strong personality, which anybody in his position would have. When he disagrees about something, you _will_ know about it before even finishing your sentence.

Re:Reasonable people...

[LordoftheWoods]

It seems you have not been initiated.

To integrate you into slashdot we will:
* numb your mind with repeated jokes such as the classic "In Soviet Russia.."
* verbally attack your opinions until your sanity breaks
* mod down your posts so that nobody else can see them and you no longer see the point in posting
* accuse you of being a zealot and proceed to ignore your opinions

If you want to fit it, then think less! And make more jokes.. especially the really redundant ones. Users who are neither funny nor narrow-minded or idiotic are misfits here; This is slashdot!!

Since you still are not broken in:
In Soviet Russia, code licenses YOU!

Re:Reasonable people...

[techno-vampire]

When he disagrees about something, you _will_ know about it before even finishing your sentence.

He's that rude, is he? Either that, or he thinks that nobody has any right to express (or hear) any opinion except his.

Re:Reasonable people...

[maxpublic]

Either that, or he thinks that nobody has any right to express (or hear) any opinion except his.

RMS is absolutely convinced that he's always right, and anyone who disagrees with him is always wrong. And he's more than willing to assert that in the most direct way possible.

So yes, he's an asshole.

Max

Re:Reasonable people...

[Bob Uhl]

Because ad hominem attacks (e.g. calling someone a zealot) are easier than rational argument. I don't agree with Stallman on everything, and indeed he's one instance of someone who may actually be a zealot in the best sense of the term, but he does have a valid (I won't argue that it's correct, but merely that it's valid) philosophical basis for what he says and does. He's a very smart fellow, and he came up with a license which grants more rights to users than most licenses do, and in addition preserves those rights come hell or high water. I trust that he'll figure out a good upgrade thereto.

Re:Reasonable people...

[MathGod]

Seems fitting considering the shitty stuff he produces (did I hear Emacs?)

I've said it before...

[Nuclear Elephant]

All I want is the ability to declare public and private interfaces for GPL products, where public interfaces can be used with any type of license and private interfaces are off-limits unless you're a GPL project.

Re:I've said it before...

[mrchaotica]

Yeah, but have you said it before to the people writing the new version? I think you should, since it strikes me as a good idea.

Also, you know you can write such a clause into your own projects (i.e. ones you own the copyright of), right? You may not want to because then it'll be "almost GPL" instead of GPL, but the option is there.

Re:I've said it before...

[eraserewind]

If you release the source code, then all your interfaces are public.

Re:I've said it before...

[LordoftheWoods]

non-programmer?

'public' from a software engineering perspective means that it designed to be used by client code and that it (hopefully) has a stable client interface, not that people know its semantics.

Re:I've said it before...

[jmv]

That's a very good idea... in theory. I suspect the implementation would be terrible. Why? The problem is with who decides whether an interface is public or private. If anyone is allowed to change that part of the code, it means that someone who wants to use the private interface can just change it to public, defeating the purpose of the thing. On the other hand, if you allow an author to create a private interface and prevent anyone from making it public, you create a mess worse than of the GFDL (see invariant sections). Not only do you add restrictions to how one can modify the code (possibly making it non-free), but you probably make it incompatible with the current GPl. Also, the possibility of adding public interfaces might even allow people to create a public interface to something you originally intended private (but never bothered to tag as private). I'm sure I'm missing other reasons why this wouldn't work.

Re:I've said it before...

[eraserewind]

We are talking about licencing, not SW engineering conventions. If you publish your source code, then your interfaces are by definition "public". I can go and read them, even the ones that you consider unstable and subject to change. I can code an implementation using one of those unstable interfaces, and have it interoperate with the particular release of the software. Since it's an interface and is "public" by virtue of the fact that I can see your code, there is nothing you can do about it. No court is going to stop anybody writing to an interface for interoperability purposes, so the fact that is GPL, expensive commercial license, public domain or whatever is irellevant.

The only reasonable thing

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reasonable thing they could possibly add to this is something to fix the silly squabble between the GPL and the Apache licenses. Everything else is just plain a bad idea. In particular this patent stuff is going to cause a problem. Telling the legal department "okay, we can sell this, but under the license any modifications we make to it we have to give away" is one thing. Tell the legal department that you need to grant an eternal and transferrable license to the entire world for any or all of your patents and the response will be "WHAT?"

ESR? Heh.

[QuantumG]

sellout poser.

Uh, why can't you have that now?

[mcc]

All you have to do is distribute your program under the GPL, and provide a file saying "you are granted the rights to redistribute under the GPL, however you also are granted the right to link against this program and redistribute freely so long as you do so only via the interfaces declared in public_interface.h."

It is as simple as that. The Linux Kernel, as it happens, does almost exactly this.

Another option is that you could put some parts of your program (the "private" parts) under the GPL and other parts (the "public" parts) under the LGPL. I have seen programs that did exactly this.

The GPL does not restrict rights. It only grants them. As the copyright holder, you are of course free to grant as many other rights as you want in addition to the GPL rights. Of course, you can't speak for any other copyright holders that may have provided material in the program...

Re:Uh, why can't you have that now?

[Tony Hoyle]

You can't put some of a program under GPL and some under LGPL. GPL trumps LGPL, making the LGPL parts irrelevant.

Re:Uh, why can't you have that now?

[mcc]

Sure you can.

If there's GPL and LGPL code mixed in a program, then the program as a whole is licensed under the GPL.

However, the LGPLed parts are still just as LGPLed as they were before. The LGPL parts may then be detached and used in anything else you like. An example of this in action would be the KDE web browser Konqueror. Konqueror is under the GPL. However, portions of it (specifically the KHTML web rendering component) are licensed under the LGPL. You can't take Konqueror (or anything built using any of the GPL-licensed files in Konqueror) and distribute it without obeying the GPL. However, you can take KHTML-- which is an extremely useful piece of software-- build a new web browser around it, and resell it completely free of GPL obligations. Several commercial groups, such as Apple Computer, have done exactly this.

This obviously only works under some circumstances (for example, when the LGPLed component is something which can be detached and still be useful), but under some circumstances this is exactly what you want. I considered it worthy of mention because the toplevel post seemed to me to be very vague about exactly what it was he wanted.

Re:Uh, why can't you have that now?

[EvanED]

You can if you own the copyright to the part you want to put under LGPL.

Look at it like this. We'll used the BSD license because the differences are more drastic.

I can release my program under the GPL license or the BSD license. I can also put links to two different downloads of the same code, one of which has a COPYING that's the GPL and one that's BSD. Do you agree so far?

I can also distribute just the GPL version, and say "this is dual licensed under the GPL and BSD."

This is how there's BSD code in the Linux kernel. (Okay, I don't know for sure there is, but I'd bet good money there's some there whether it's marked as such or not.)

What the OP is saying is that you can license part of the program under GPL only, than dual license the public part under GPL and BSD. (Or LGPL)

Re:Uh, why can't you have that now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, do you realize that you're talking about a computer program's private parts.

That's just not right, even for Slashdot.

:<

Re:Uh, why can't you have that now?

[identity0]

Scenes from a future court:

IP Lawyer: "And where did the Nvidia driver touch you, Linux? Was it... your private interfaces?"

Linux: "I... I don't want to..."

IP Lawyer: "It's okay, Linux, it's okay... here, show us on this Tux plushie where the bad Nvidia driver touched you."

Re:Uh, why can't you have that now?

[srmq]

It is not as simple as that, as your program with this additional permission cannot incorporate code of other programs released under the "pure" GPL. So your code can be used under "pure" GPL code (if you make this additional permission an option), but not the other way around (you cannot use "pure" GPL code and add this permission to the combined program).

Re:Uh, why can't you have that now?

[Kjella]

All you have to do is distribute your program under the GPL, and provide a file saying "you are granted the rights to redistribute under the GPL, however you also are granted the right to link against this program and redistribute freely so long as you do so only via the interfaces declared in public_interface.h."

It is as simple as that. The Linux Kernel, as it happens, does almost exactly this.

Factually wrong. The kernel is GPLv2, straight up. It has an opinion from Linus on what constitutes a derivative work and not (f.ex. that userland programs are not), but it is nothing more than an opinion.

The problem with defining an interface is that the copyright holders (read: all of them) must approve every change to the interface. Otherwise you could simply create a modified public interface which exposes all the private functions you'd like to use. You could never use code from an author that you weren't in contact with, and if any one copyright holder no longer can be reached, you need to rip out his contribution to change the interface. It is realisticly only an option for software under one company's control, or a tiny developer group.

Kjella

Re:Uh, why can't you have that now?

[anothy]

The GPL does not restrict rights. It only grants them.

wrong. it restricts some rights to preserve others. you can argue whether this is right or wrong, but that's what it does. and it doesn't grant any rights. the copyright holder already has all the rights in question. the GPL preserves some of those rights for people downstream of the copyright holder by restricting other rights for the same people.

Re:Uh, why can't you have that now?

[mcc]

It is not as simple as that, as your program with this additional permission cannot incorporate code of other programs released under the "pure" GPL. So your code can be used under "pure" GPL code (if you make this additional permission an option), but not the other way around (you cannot use "pure" GPL code and add this permission to the combined program).

This is not going to change. "Pure" GPL is what the people who released the "other programs released under the pure GPL" want. If the person who had released the "pure" GPL code you want to incorporate had been okay with you taking it and linking it against propreitary code, they would have used the LGPL to begin with. That is what it is there for.

The reason you can't take other GPL code contributors and link it into propreitary code isn't because of the GPL. It's because the other code contributors didn't want you to.

Re:Uh, why can't you have that now?

[mcc]

I am not talking about programs. I am talking about kernel modules. Kernel modules link against the kernel directly, yet so long as they use a specific interface are allowed to consider themselves free from GPL obligations.

The Linux Kernel mailing list FAQ:

# What is this about GPLONLY symbols?

        * (REG) By default, symbols are exported using EXPORT_SYMBOL, so they can be used by loadable modules. During the 2.4 series, a new export directive EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL was added. This is almost the same thing, except that the symbol can only be accessed by modules which have a GPL compatible licence (note that this includes dual-licenced BSD/GPL code). This new directive was added for these reasons:
                    o To clarify the ambiguous legal ground on which non-GPL (particularly proprietary) modules lie. A strict reading of the GPL prohibits loading proprietary modules into the kernel. While Linus has consistently stated that proprietary modules are allowed (i.e. he has granted an explicit exemption), it is not clear that he is able to speak for all developers who have contributed to the Linux kernel. While many think Linus' edict means that all contributed code falls under this exemption granted by Linus, not everyone agrees that this is a legally sound argument. The new EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL directive makes the licence conditions explicit, and thus removes the legal ambiguity.
                    o To allow choice for developers who wish, for their own reasons, to contribute code which cannot be used by proprietary modules. Just as a developer has the right to distribute code under a proprietary licence, so too may a developer distribute code under an anti-proprietary licence (i.e. strict GPL).
            Note that Linus has stated that existing symbols will not be switched to GPL-only. Developers of proprietary modules for Linux need not fear. Furthermore, it is quite unlikely that Linus will look favourably upon the introduction of new core driver APIs which are restricted to GPL-only modules. This would not be in the best interests of Linux. Linus has forwarded me a message he sent to someone else to clarify his views.

Here is a message from Linus explaining things further on the subject.

It has an opinion from Linus on what constitutes a derivative work and not (f.ex. that userland programs are not), but it is nothing more than an opinion.

This is not an opinion, nor is it Linus's. It is an explicit exemption in the GPL itself:

However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

The problem with defining an interface is that the copyright holders (read: all of them) must approve every change to the interface.

Then make sure you do not accept code from other copyright holders unless they agree to let you determine the interface contents yourself. Looking above it appears Linus did not exactly do this, however others do not have to make this mistake.

Re:Uh, why can't you have that now?

[Bob Uhl]

Wrong again. Without the GPL (or some other license), you have no rights to a copyrighted work--and under US law, and that of most other states, every work is copyrighted. So you have no rights at all to begin with. The GPL grants you certain rights that you would not otherwise have, provided that you comply with certain requirements. This is no different, really, than proprietary software (which requires payment and that you not pass the work along) or the BSD (which requires credit), but is different from making a work public domain (which gives rights without imposing any requirements).

The genius of the GPL is that it requires you to grant to others the same rights which you have been granted: it compels anyone who accepts its terms to play on a level field. It is a boon to users first of all (for they can be assured of the ability to tweak and improve the software on which they rely), but is secondarily a boon to developers, who know that they may benefit from the improvements others make to their original work. It's very clever.

licence free software

[ZhuLien]

I actually agree with a fair amount of this regarding licence-free software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License-free_software

I'm waiting for GPL Episode IV: A Gnu Hope.

[Anonymous Coward]

The subject says it all.

GPL3 is coming...

[Anonymous Coward]

...bend over.

Hah!

[kwatz]

Noobs! I already have the beta!

GPL v3 Coming Out

[Anonymous Coward]

Told you the GPL was gay.

Kind regards
Bill Gates

Fonts

[proxima]

With luck, the GPL v3 will clear up the issue of fonts. The issue has been discussed on Slashdot before.Namely, that if I use a GPL font in a document, and subsequently embed that font through a document format (OO's sxw or OpenDocument, pdf, ps, etc), it's unclear as to whether I have the legal ability to do so without declaring the document itself GPL (which isn't really a document license). People sometimes (apparently mistakenly, but IANAL) say that it would force your document to be GPLed, but that's really not the case. You can't be automatically forced to license your work as anything, but you can be guilty of copyright infringement. The issue does also apparently not extend to printed documents and such, since the font itself cannot be copyrighted, only the code (postscript, etc) that generates the font can be.

It's unfortunate that such vagueness persists with the GPL, but it seems to be a trend with copyright issues in general (fair use being the most visible).

Re:Fonts

[multipartmixed]

That font argument is entertaining.

What I use GNU bc to calculate some numbers, which I then embed in a proprietary application.

Is my application now "tainted"?

Re:Fonts

[synthespian]

With luck, the GPL v3 will clear up the issue of fonts.

Apple owns the patents for grid-fitting the True Type fonts patent 1, patent 2, patent 3.

You don't like it, devise a new method.

Re:Fonts

[Bogtha]

I don't see why the GPL should clear anything up with fonts. GPLed fonts are extremely rare and the people who use the GPL usually don't intend to cause these sorts of problems. If you find a GPLed font that you want to embed, email the copyright holder and they'll probably switch license.

It's not a case of the GPL being broken, but a case of the GPL being used for something it's not suitable for. You want to distribute source code, fine, use the GPL. You want to distribute media? Use something like the Creative Commons licenses.

Re:Fonts

[isorox]

Surely at the worst you'd just have to provide the font to anyone that has your document and asks

Re:Fonts

[zsau]

No. The circumstances are different.

Often when you embed a font in a document, you actually embed the truetype, postscript whatever source of the file, not just the output. That source is essentially a computer program; you could extract it and edit it, run it to generate images etc.

In fact, a comparison to an embedded game is more accurate. An early 32-bit version of Excel—95 or 97, I can't remember which—came complete with a complex easter egg (a 3D flight-sim type environment). This was an embedded program which generated images that were subsequently displayed onscreen for short periods of time before changing. As with fonts, the end user could change what would be displayed on screen (e.g. you could turn left, or with a font you could change the size it is displayed at or the resolution it's rendered to). We would have no problem accepting that, had the easter egg been based on a GPLed app, then Excel should be GPLed, too.

A way out would be the argument that you're just distributing the software to generate the images (i.e. the font files) alongside your creation, though the distributed file happens to be a single file (much like a the version of Opera for Linux is distributed as a single file (a bz2-compressed tarball, I think)). There are differences between the distribution of a software package with an embedded game (that it renders) and a document that a font that a 3rd party application renders and combines.

Note also that if the font's LGPLed, even if you change it, you shouldn't have a problem, because the source code to TTF and PS fonts is, basically, the TTF or PS font itself.

I'm not a lawyer and had never heard of this problem before today.

Re:Fonts

[Doodads]

You can't copyright a typeface. You can copyright a font file (the actual file that sits on your hard drive).

So if a GPL font in a document would make the whole document GPL (which still isn't clear), it would only apply to the computer file representing the document. And this is the case only if the font is embedded in the document.

The copyright associated with the words, pictures and layout of a document is unaffected by any copyright on a font file.

Re:Fonts

[Bob Uhl]

Nope. Remember that the font is source code which specifies how to draw each character--and your document is itself source code which describes how to draw each page, including those characters. So you'd need to GPL the source code to your document. Which really doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

For now, the solution is to LGPL fonts.

Re:Fonts

[Minna Kirai]

whether I have the legal ability to do so without declaring the document itself GPL (which isn't really a document license)

Thus, this problem shouldn't have come up at all. As you say, the GPL isn't a document license- because it's a software license. But, the GPL also is not a font license- again, because it's a software license.

A font is more like a document than like software. After all, a font is basically a vectored graphic image. When we think of someone building a font, we don't consider it similar to writing a program.

If font artists persist in using the inappropriate GPL to release their works, then those artists should apply a specific exception allowing the font to be embedded in text documents, if they wish.

Re:Fonts

[proxima]

Thus, this problem shouldn't have come up at all. As you say, the GPL isn't a document license- because it's a software license. But, the GPL also is not a font license- again, because it's a software license.

But the only copyrightable part about fonts is the "software" that creates them, namely, the postscript/etc code that defines the font. You can take any font you like, visually reproduce it in any number of methods, give it a new name, and not be guilty of any copyright or trademark infringement (of course, IANAL, but this is pretty common knowledge). This is how we get the confusing situation of identical looking fonts under different names.

So in the sense that the code itself is the only thing copyrightable, the GPL should be able to be used. Making modifications to a font isn't too common (since you can regenerate them from scratch with work), but it's entirely reasonable that some font creator would want to allow derivative works using the same code (so you don't start from scratch). People could use the exact fonts in any embedded way they want, and those few interested in modifying the font files could redistribute them under the GPL. The issue, as I said in the top-level post, is that using GPL fonts in an everyday manner (embedding into pdf, etc) is not legally clear.

Re:Fonts

[proxima]

See my other response, but to sum up: the only copyrightable portion of fonts is the code that generates them. The GPL is a license for code, and thus it's not unreasonable that it should take into consideration the special circumstances that apply to fonts.

Regardings the rarity of GPL fonts, I've come across at least a few. One common set is urw-fonts, which contains an exception for embedding with postscript and PDF (but, it appears, no exception for embedding into a word processing document). If the GPL fixes the everyday usage issues of fonts, it'd be reasonably ideal for the GPL. As it is now, lots of fonts use special licenses (look at Bitstream and LaTeX licensing).

Re:Fonts

[Minna Kirai]

But the only copyrightable part about fonts is the "software" that creates them, namely, the postscript/etc code that defines the font.

Irrelevant semantics. Typefaces aren't copyrightable, but they are subject to "design patents", which are essentially copyrights with a different name, wider applicability, and quicker expiration.

Don't confuse design patents with the software patents that exist on a few aspects of font file formats. Design patents are how Apple is able to project the graphic appearance of it's OS X "Trash Can", for example.

So in the sense that the code itself is the only thing copyrightable, the GPL should be able to be used.

Because typefaces are patentable instead of copyrightable, it is even more important not to use the copyright-focused GPL with them.

Re:Fonts

[isorox]

Nope. Remember that the font is source code which specifies how to draw each character--and your document is itself source code which describes how to draw each page, including those characters. So you'd need to GPL the source code to your document. Which really doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

So if I take a GPL font, and convert it to a .png (with full redistribution rights), that's fine (I also offer the original font as a seperate download)

If I then use that png in a webpage, does that mean that the HTML licensed under the GPL? What if I have a normal webpage that links to the font to download it? What if I have a page that links to a page that links to the font to download it?

Tell me something...

[Anonymous Coward]

If money collecting public service organizations are tax exempt, shouldn't free software producing public service organizations be patent exempt?

Looks like we have a real horse race here

[iminplaya]

Who's gonna win?
1)Vista
2)GPL v3
3)SCO

Re:Looks like we have a real horse race here

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot:
1) Vista
2) GPL v3
3) SCO
4) Hurd
5) Duke Nukem Forever

Re:Looks like we have a real horse race here

[Anonymous Coward]

Duke Nukem Forever!!!

Damn, I thought this was about...

[Anonymous Coward]

...the great period simulation Grand Prix Legends. Considering GPL2 was never made, I should have known better.

Damn.

Re:ESR? Heh.

[Anonymous Coward]

ITYM sellout poser.

2007? Who's writing it, Microsoft?

[ReadParse]

That's the joke folks, nothing more to see. Moderate away :)

RP

v3 is coming out?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Crap, and I just finished downloading v2 :(

Ha!

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows Vista will be out sooner!

But seriously, people. Who gives a rat's behind? GNU people need to decide whether they want their software to be free to use and improve upon or whether they want to be control freaks over who's using it for what.

Both a Strategic & Wise Decision

[SavvyPlayer]

Richard Stallman aims to 'lower barriers that today prevent the mixing of software covered by the GPL and other licenses.

The original GPL has succeeded in promoting the F/OSS ideal in ways both anticipated and unanticipated. Two decades later however, the most hotly contested tenet of the GPL has been its strictly viral 'if thou modify thou must publish' suggestion -- admittedly vague in the ubiquitous enterprise consulting arena. Clarifying this point in a more liberal fashion can do nothing but further entrench GPL code in the enterprise and thus further solidify the F/OSS ideal among the IT elite: those against whom deployment decisions are modeled the world over.

Re:Both a Strategic & Wise Decision

[Anonymous Coward]

'if thou modify thou must publish'

This is completely false. If you modify you have absolutely no obligation to do anything.
ONLY IF you ``publish'' (i.e. distribute) binaries, you have to include the corresponding binaries.

Re:Both a Strategic & Wise Decision

[muuh-gnu]

> Clarifying this point in a more liberal fashion can do nothing but further
> entrench GPL code in the enterprise and thus further solidify the F/OSS ideal
> among the IT elite

You can be sure RMS wont let make the GPL more BSDish, or let any thing in what will make you able to make GPL code not GPL'ed.

They will change the wording a bit so many free software licences which are not GPL compatible at this moment, notably the Apache license, will get compatible to version 3. This will make stuff under other licences easier to relicence under the GPL, not the other way round.

question..

[Anonymous Coward]

not to be a troll or anything...

but shouldn't we check if current version holds up in court first?

Place your bets ...

[IchBinEinPenguin]

... on which comes out first
Vista or GLP3
(as a sidebet, DNF vs Hurd)

Re:The GPL I love..

[Anonymous Coward]

no... GPL does NOT stand for General Penile License.

Windows Vista, office integration

[synthespian]

Windows Vista will be out sooner!
But seriously, people. Who gives a rat's behind?

Anyone who gives a "rat's behind" to office integration software ought to think about how you simply can't use GPL software to drive Windows out of its position. This is because there are literally thousands of applications developed to integrate with Microsoft Office, and they do so seamlessly.
To do it under the GPL, you would have to develop a gigantic stack of software free software hackers simply know nothing about, unless they work day jobs in big corporations and business running Microsoft software.
If you develop under another license that can integrate with existing software without being viral, there's a chance of offering a cheaper alternative you can mix freely with a proprietary surrounding. However, there's also the risk your software will just get incorporated and they'll spit your bones out.
The only chance is to develop free as in beer BSD code then take over. :-) Or wait 20+ years until free software hackers get their act right in OpenOffice, and GNOME, and KDE (and still you don't get the integration WinForms allows because those project to give a rat's ass about interoperability). Also, the free software doesn't usually hold in high praise someone who gets these issues or is vocal about them (eg, De Icaza)

Re:Where else have you heard talk about the GPLv3?

[Dionysus]

How about Slashdot posts?

Newsforge previews GPLv3, part 1
Preview, part 2
FSF's Bradley Kuhn interview
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/0 2/03/1359232&tid=117&tid=156&tid=17
Debian and ZDNet discusses GPLv3
Business impact of GPLv3
Purpose of GPLv3 according to RMS and Moglen

Poll: Who's going to switch?

[mwvdlee]

Who's going to switch to the new GPL license when it's finished and why (not)?

Personally, if I were to adopt the 3rd GPL license, I'd ditch the "automatic" part of the license which would assume the latest GPL version always (see Linux's GPL license). I think RMS is a bit of a zealot and I wouldn't give the rights to my code to any radical fanatic, not even a "left-wing" radical fanatic.
I just hope they manage to chop off a few of the paragraphs of legalese; why does the GPL have to be so huge?

All we want to know is...

[Nuffsaid]

When it finally comes out, under which license will it be released? Will you be free to modify the license and redistribute it? What about license forking? What if releasing something under GPL 3 makes all your other releases GPL 3 too? We need a metalincense to answer to all these concerns!

Enough FUD and vapourlicence

[nuggz]

We have fearmongering GPL v3 posts every few weeks.

I'm starting to think there is no GPLv3.

Someone post a draft, and lets have a real discussion. Until then it will just be more arguing over nothing.

One concern

[gr8_phk]

There is one concern that I don't hear people talk much about. I agree that people should be able to make modifications for their own use without having to provide anyone source code. I agree that source should only have to be given to people you give executables to. The problem I see is when a company gets the same classification as a person.

I'm have mixed feelings about the notion of a company owning a derived work with several people creating a derived work and many more people using it - and it's still considered the companys code. I see a practical problem though if someone releases that derived work back to some original project on the net without approval of "the company". It could be months or years before anyone notices, and then what? The employee gets canned for giving away company "IP". Now can the company go after the public project that is using that "illegally obtained IP"? IANAL but I think the answer is yes based on other cases (people leaving and taking code with them and such). To me, the simplest thing to do is word the GPL 3 to indicate that "entities" are not considered people. This could create problems for all the code "owned" by say the Mozilla foundation or even the FSF (they require copyright assignments). It may also be an unhappy event for places like Google that probably have substantial "internal" derivative works - suddenly any one of their employees could redistribute those internal projects. Yes? No? I think that's a small price to pay to prevent the unintended (or intended for the conspiracy theory folks) tainting of any number of public projects.

Going out on a limb here - but not too far. Imagine not just one company but a consortium of companies and people who "jointly own" their derived works. You agree to be a member of this organization by some shrink wrap license, and now you're buying GPLed software without getting source code.

Even if code is placed on a company computer that is issued to an employee, that should be considered redistribution. Consider the cable box on the TV, or the XBox, or whatever platform that might be considered "leased".

The conflict that can arise from allowing closed distribution within an organization has not been explored in practice and should be headed off before someone tries it. IMHO this is as important to consider as the patent issues.

Really snappy!

[soboroff]

I recompiled my Gentoo install using a beta of the GPLv3, and my desktop alrady feels more responsive and snappy!

Mixing licenses

[IGnatius T Foobar]

Richard Stallman aims to 'lower barriers that today prevent the mixing of software covered by the GPL and other licenses.

This isn't as big a problem as Stallman makes it out to be. Combining open source licenses is not difficult. All you have to do is keep the pieces reasonably distinct. I have a project, for example, with a copyright notice that reads like this:

xxx is (c)2005 by blah blah and distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License.

May include yyy which is (c)2005 by blah blah and distributed under the terms of the Apache License 2.0.

May include zzz which is (c)2005 and distributed under the terms of the MIT License.



Proprietary software developers do this all the time, and despite what Stallman may imply, there's nothing stopping you from doing this too.

Re:Mixing licenses

[Minna Kirai]

May include yyy which is (c)2005 by blah blah and distributed under the terms of the Apache License 2.0.

Unless the word "May" really means "Doesn't", then you are criminally infringing copyright. Lawyers from both the FSF and Apache foundation have already published evaluations finding that the GPL and Apache licenses are incompatible. Mixing GPL and Apache code is an infringement of the terms of the GPL- therefore, you no longer have permission to redistribute your project at all.

(The exception would be if your project consists of multiple programs each using different licenses, in which case you shouldn't have composed a combined copyright statement for all of them, since it is inaccurate)

Proprietary software developers do this all the time,

Yes, because they pay each other large bags of cash in exchange for permission to distribute their code in your project. If you don't abide by the library author's terms, then you can't use the code.

and despite what Stallman may imply, there's nothing stopping you from doing this too

There is the text of the GPL, which doesn't give you permission to modify and distribute the work without obeying some conditions. If you don't abide by the library author's terms, then you can't use the code.

Re:Mixing licenses

[IGnatius T Foobar]

Unless the word "May" really means "Doesn't", then you are criminally infringing copyright.

The word "may" really means "does," and therefore it does not infringe.

It's a bundle, just like a Linux distribution. Open source libraries are built with licenses that are designed to prevent them from being included in non-free software. Proprietary libraries are built with licenses that are designed to prevent them from being used by people who have not paid license fees. Those are the only two scenarios. If an Apache-licensed library is bundled with a GPL software package, but is still considered a bundle (as opposed to an integral part of the package), then it maintains its own autonomy, and therefore continues to carry its own license.

Think of it this way: "This GPL-licensed program requires this Apache-licensed library; we are conveniently providing a copy of it for you here in the tarball."

Public Domain

[rumblin'rabbit]

Except that license-free software is covered by copyright, so there are still legal tendrils. If someone wants to donate software to humanity, I suggest they release it into the public domain, and bugger all the politics.

GPL vs Trusted Computing

[Alsee]

Does anyone have any idea how GPL3 intends to address Trusted Computing?

Trusted Computing currently defeats the GPL and makes the source code effectively useless. If you attempt to modify and recompile the source (as the GPL ensures you the right to do) then the Trust chip denies the new code the key and the ability to read files. The Trust chip also announces over the internet the fact that you are running modified and incompatible software, so that the new software can be locked out on the internet.

You have the GPL "right" to modify the software, but the Trust ship prohibits that software from actually working. The Trust chip defeats the GPL.

I cannot see any way for the GPL to fix this problem. These Trust restrictions can be enforced even if there is no Trust chip code in the GPL program at all. In fact this Trust lockdown can be imposed even on existing GPL software simply by running the application on top of a Trusted operating system or a virtualized system on top of Trust. If you try running the GPL software without the Trusted operating system (or the virtualized system on top of a Trust system) then you will be unable to read the (Trust-secured) data files and your attempt to use the software on the internet will be locked out.

I'm stumped. I can't conceive of any way to change the GPL to fix this issue.

-

Re:GPL vs Trusted Computing

[Minna Kirai]

Trusted Computing currently defeats the GPL and makes the source code effectively useless.

Actually it doesn't. The GPL is simply incompatible with trusted computing. (However, several famous programmers including Linus Torvalds don't know this).

The GPL requires that end-users are provided with the "source code" for programs, which is all of the inputs needed to reproduce the working program (not including compilers and such tools, if they are normally available elsewhere).

Part of the source code is the private key needed to sign the software and convince the Trusted framework to run it with priviledges. How do I know the private key is part of the source code? Because (as you pointed out) a functioning executable can't be reproduced without it! Without the signed hash key, the program won't work nearly as extensively as intented.

Therefore, GPL software can only ever run in the UnTrusted ghetto of a TC computer. Although a programmer could audit the GPLed program and find that it obeys DRM rules and would be safe to elevate to Trusted status, he can't publish a signed hash token marking the program as trusted. That token would be a derived work of the program, so it must be published under the GPL, meaning any recipient could demand the private key used to do the signing.

And once that private key is out there, of course, the program can be modified to no longer obey DRM rules, and the whole system falls apart.

Note that this interpretation depends upon the program's hash being a non-fair-use derived work, which it is, if you evaluate it using all four fair use criteria.

Summary: GPL requires all source code is published.
TC requires some source code is hidden.
Therefore, they can never be combined.

Re:GPL vs Trusted Computing

[Alsee]

You missunderstand the technical system of how Trusted Computing operates.

the private key needed to sign the software

False, this is an extremely common myth.
Trusted Computing does not involve signing the software.

convince the Trusted framework to run it with priviledges.

No, there are no "priviledges". The original software and any modifications of it have equal priviledge levels.

a functioning executable

A modified executable functions just fine.

Under Trusted Computing the hash of the software is used to generate a key for encrypting/decrypting files. If you alter the software then it still works just fine, it just encrypts and decrypts with a different key. A version of software can only read its own files, not any other version's files. You are prefectly free to make your own fully functioning data files with your new version, you're just screwed if you wanted to read data files from some other version. In other words you will be screwed.

On the internet the Trusted Computing the hardware attests to the hash of the running software. Again, there are no "privledges". People simply look at that hash and decide if they want to talk to you. You are perfectly free to make a different version with a different hash and put up your own servers that will talk to that version. In a P2P type situation, your version can choose to only talk to other copies of itself.

he can't publish a signed hash token marking the program as trusted

You do not need to publish a signed hash token marking it as Trusted. A program can look at it's own hash and refuse to talk to any program that does not have the same hash.

Microsoft could publish the hashes of their DRM enforecing webbrowsers... an entirely unsigned list... and website owners could put that list of hashes on their "accept list" for incoming webpage requests. Those website owners are perfectly free to add the hash for your modified and recompiled webbrowser if they like, and then your browser would work just fine on their website. Of course websites are unlikely to bother putting your hash on their accept list even if your browser *does* enforce DRM.

-

Re:GPL vs Trusted Computing

[Minna Kirai]

A version of software can only read its own files, not any other version's files.

That is your personal hypothesis about how TC might work, and actually implementing it that way would be ludicriously implausible except for uncommon special cases. Some P2P services might wish to operate that way, but document and media viewers will not want to lock their files into exactly one version with no forward compatibility.

Hey, feel like contradicting yourself?

A modified executable functions just fine.

It works fine!

screwed if you wanted to read data files from some other version. In other words you will be screwed.

It doesn't work fine! (have fun with that)

Microsoft could publish the hashes of their DRM enforecing webbrowsers... an entirely unsigned list...

If it's an unsigned list, then it can be spoofed, and is worthless for DRM enforcement. But the signing isn't what makes it a GPL violation: it's the hash itself.

Re:GPL vs Trusted Computing

[Alsee]

That is your personal hypothesis about how TC might work

I've read the Trusted Computing Group's technical specification, several hundred pages worth. I explained the documented funcionality of the system. Obviously no code HAS to do any of these things, but it is the documented capability of the system. It is the explicit functionality provided to software.

Well, maybe it did not document the concept of running software-without-TPM-code on top of a Trust enforcing host operating system... but it is an obvious capability and option. And besides, as I said that possibility was merely for the sake of argument. There is no reason GPL code could not directly include calls to the TPM.

will not want to lock their files into exactly one version with no forward compatibility

The default situation is that no software can read any other version's files. It is possible to include a mechanism for deliberately passing data from one program or version to another. There are a variety of ways such a mechanism could be designed. It is impossible to alter that mechanism because that would change the hash of the code, meaning you have a different key that is only usable for transfering new data for that new version. It is useless for transfering existing data for the current version. And again for the sake of argument, that transfer mechanism could lie outside the GPL application in a Trust enforcing host operating system. The Trust enforcing host would lock data and communications to that exact unmodified GPL code, the host OS may accept a compatible move to a new version under whatever mechanism, and any attempt to alter that mechanism would alter the hash of the host OS and lose the ability to do a compatible move to a new version.

It works fine!
It doesn't work fine! (have fun with that)

Exactly my point. It works fine for the GPL, but it doesn't do what you want it to do.

You do have the right to modify the software and run the modified software. The software does run just fine. It has teh exact same ability to create files that only it can read. It has the exact same ability to choose to give other exact software the ability to read its files if it chooses to do so. It has teh exact same capability to call on the TPM to attest to its hash and other people on the internet can choose whether they want to talk to you or not.

It is a fully functional program in full compliance with the GPL.

Under the Trust system all programs are equal. No software has any special "trusted" priviledges. It is an interoperability lock out. Someone on the internet can ask you the hashes of all of the software you are running. Any OS, GPL or not, can send this list and the Trust chip prohibits you from forging this list. People can refuse to talk to you if you do not send this list, and they can decide whether they want to talk to you or not based on the hashes in this list. It is completely outside the scope of the GPL. Your modified software works just fine, but it is entirely useless for reading the particular files you want to read and it is incapable of pretending to be the original program for interoperating on the internet.

>Microsoft could publish the hashes of their DRM enforecing webbrowsers... an entirely unsigned list...

If it's an unsigned list, then it can be spoofed, and is worthless for DRM enforcement.

No, you completely missed the point. You are perfectly free to make your own list. You are perfectly free to put anything onto the list you like. It does you no good!

The point is that a website can ask for your Trust chip for the hash of the browser. The Trust chip will not send a false hash and you cannot forge a false hash... so you send an accurate hash or you send no hash at all. If you do not send a hash then the website can refuse to send the webpage. If you do send a hash then the website can look at THEIR LIST of hashes they choose to accept. Obviously most websites are going to take Micros

Not really "just an opinion" ...

[hummassa]

The "what is/isn't a derivative work" by Linus can be considered estoppel.

It won't just take longer.

[hummassa]

It will take forever IMHO.

I will explain why I think this. There are three possible scenarios: (1) the GPLv3 is compatible with the GPLv2; (2) the GPLv3 is incompatible with the GPLv2 and has a "fallback to the GPLv2" clause, like he LGPL doas; and (3) the GPLv3 is totally incompatible with the GPLv2, probably by force of being more restrictive than GPLv2.

In the first and second cases, I, as a user, and as a redistributor will Always opt for using the code under the less restrictive conditions. In the third case, I would not touch the code.

All GPLv2 or later will be used by me under GPLv2 terms unless GPLv3 has any advantage (such as permit linking) and no other strings attached.

The GPL, per se, has a lot of non-free paths... such as sections 8 and 3b. It's IMO one of the most-non-free free-software licenses.

Wait

[mcc]

Wait, I appear to have made an error. The GPL exemption I cite covers open source software on propreitary systems whereas the person I was responding to was trying to talk about propreitary software on open source operating systems, which would seem to be a different situation. Please ignore that bit of my post.

Details please?

[jbn-o]

Please do point us to a recording of this event where RMS argued with Lessig publicly. I would prefer to hear this for myself rather than depend on a recollection so vague we can't even tell what the jist of the argument was about.

It would seem an odd choice to let Lessig sit on the board of directors of the FSF, distribute gratis copies of Lessig's book "Free Culture" to FSF members, and then extend the book offer if Stallman has serious philosophical disagreements with Lessig.

How not to convince people of your point.

[jbn-o]

I hope you realize that your namecalling and lack of substantive support for your underlying argument says more about you than it does about RMS.

It is old to you, but news to some.

[jbn-o]

Lots of people who are interested in this event weren't able to go to the dinner either because they aren't FSF associates or because they can't fly to the dinner location (Boston, or thereabouts if I recall correctly). So, for a lot of people this isn't old news. Also, discussions on the GPL gives people a chance to clear up long-held misconceptions about how the GPL works (which invariably come up during these threads). Given the social importance of the GPL and the popularity of the GPL, these are healthy discussions to have.

Re:It is old to you, but news to some.

[darthgnu]

I totally agree,you have a valid point, I guess I should not have called it "old news". I guess I should have suggested an article then :)