Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
libertarianswag.com
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...
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.
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.
Freedom is strength, Ignorance is peace, War is slavery.
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.
I'd sure love to hear ESR's input as to what goes into GPL3
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...
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.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
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.
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.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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...)
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...
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.
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.
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.
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."
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
sellout poser.
How we know is more important than what we know.
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.
"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.
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.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
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...
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
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.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
That's what I meant to say...just a bit less eloquently.
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).
I actually agree with a fair amount of this regarding licence-free software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License-free_software
The subject says it all.
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.
Haec merda tauri est. Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
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.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
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...
No existe.
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).
"The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." --Carl Sagan
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.
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.
"A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
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.
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.
Who's gonna win?
1)Vista
2)GPL v3
3)SCO
What?
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.
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.
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
The unofficial
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.
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.
Haec merda tauri est. Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
(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...)
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.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
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.
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 ?).
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.
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.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I stole this Sig
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.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
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.
.: Max Romantschuk
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:
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.
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
they are trying to build a license that will not fail when subjected to the next ten years' worth of (currently) unknown attacks.
n d.html
From what I gathered reading
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/gpl3-backgrou
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.
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
Windows Vista will be out sooner!
:-) 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)
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.
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
How about Slashdot posts?
0 2/03/1359232&tid=117&tid=156&tid=17
Newsforge previews GPLv3, part 1
Preview, part 2
FSF's Bradley Kuhn interview
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/
Debian and ZDNet discusses GPLv3
Business impact of GPLv3
Purpose of GPLv3 according to RMS and Moglen
Je ne parle pas francais.
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
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!
Nuffsaid
________
Don't know about his cat, but Schroedinger is definitely dead.
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.
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
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.
(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.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
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.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
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.
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
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
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
-- Nick "Hallo this is Beel Gates, und I pronounce weendows as
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.
I recompiled my Gentoo install using a beta of the GPLv3, and my desktop alrady feels more responsive and snappy!
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.
Want to see every step I took to start my company? http://www.rowdylabs.com/blogs/pitchtothegods
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.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
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.
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.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
The "what is/isn't a derivative work" by Linus can be considered estoppel.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
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.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
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.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
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.
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.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
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.
Digital Citizen
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.
Digital Citizen
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.
Digital Citizen
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.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
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.
--
make install -not war