Slashdot Mirror
RMS Previews GPL3 Terms
An anonymous reader writes "In a recent interview, ESR shocked a lot of people when he said,
'We don't need the GPL anymore.' Federico Biancuzzi contacted RMS, founder of the Free Software Movement and initial developer of the GNU system, to talk about the past, the present, and the future of the GNU GPL. Among other things, they discussed the new clauses of the upcoming GPL version 3."
RMS would've made a great Supreme Court justice, had he gotten his law degree
This is about allowing people who release server software to mandate that any modified server running publicly will have to release the modified source code. That is the command he is talking about, and only that. Id hardly call that a feature set.
Seems a decent enough idea in this day and age, if everyone starts running thin clients with proprietary code on the servers then the GPL becomes a bit useless.
At last someone on the GPL 3 team has said something that belays my fears about Services and the GPL version 3. The fear was that they would force you to give users access to GPLed code you use when you provide a service - for example forum software. From the article, they talk about developers including an ability to have the service software offer the sourcecode, and the GPL protecting this particular part of the program but not forcing developers to include it in the first place. While this does stop the fears that you would have to provide the sourcecode for every bit of GPL code you use in your service, it does open the door for limitations on modifications in GPLed programs, similiar to invariant sections in the Gnu Documentation License, and Im not decided if this is a good approach or not.
No, it's playing the game and it recognizes the need that you're not in an ideal world and have to protect yourself from those who don't believe in a free exchange of ideas but in software patents, etcetera.
Put it this way - Linus will not go out and start suing people for infringing his software patents (please don't bring up the trademark issue which was a different matter entirely) - but if someone ever decides to attack the Linux - Linus can hold up his patent portfolio and say "Buddy, are you are sure you wanna do this? Your company has nothing that infringes on mine?"
Reminds me of Mutual Assured Destruction^_^
I wonder if RMS has something similiar to Linus in this regards (of a patent portfolio), but the GPL is similiar and a smart strategy. GPL software has to protect itself.
fragile. Maybe the GPL needs to be simpler, not more complex.
Help end the use of Sigs. Tomorrow
I know the GLP having read it. I question why ver. 3 will actually help keep code freely available.
Help end the use of Sigs. Tomorrow
The problem with GNU and the proposed GNU 3 is that is is getting more and more political, and more of the politics are getting further away from just Open Source. Things like preventing GNU software to use DRM, and certon rules on pattents. While we can debate these are things are good or evil, as for as I see it shouldn't matter if it is GNU or not, if this keeps on growing, then there will be restrictions on if we use the GNU program for warfare, or in a government that we don't like. Keep the GNU Simple that is the only way to keep GNU goodness, when you keep on adding restrictive clauses it will become more and more evil.
Yes people will use GNU software the way you didn't want them too. This is part of making a license.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Ask the FSF's compliance lab: And OT, when has the FSF revamped their website? Nifty.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
With all due respect, that's completely unproven, and in my opinion, completely untrue.
I recall an interview with the Linux team at IBM where they said they did not think IBM would have contributed code under a BSD license. It was important to IBM that IBM's competitors not be able to use their code in proprietary products. I'm sure there are plenty of other cases where significant contributions to Linux would not have happened if it were under another license.
It's hard to say that the GPL was essential to Linux, but I think it's very clear that the GPL has been helpful to Linux development. It has also enabled a major thrust of IBM's counterattack on SCO, which is perhaps not essential, but very pleasant :-)
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
I have a question for anyone who is familiar with TC/DRM.
In the article, RMS calls these "Treacherous Computing/Digital Restrictions Management. Is it possible that he being one sided and a luddite by implying that the technology can only be used for evil? This goes against my normal assumptions about technology. While I agree about the dangers of its proposed use, it seems rare that a particular technology is inherently evil, and even when a technology is mostly being misused, I usually don't propose avoiding it, but restricting its bad uses.
For me, an example of a technology that's inherently evil is bio-warfare. One that's neutral but widely abused is genetic engineering. Restating my question, RMS seems to put TC/DRM in the first category, while I suspect it really belongs in the second. I can imagine the *possibility* of cases where TC/DRM could be beneficial, e.g. to protect privacy or security of data, but I don't know if such beneficial uses are actually possible. I would appreciate some informed opinions or pointers to sources that deal with this issue.
Thanks in advance for any replies.
However, my understanding is that RMS would like to not only get rid of copyright law, but create new laws that would essentially enforce releasing source code along with binaries. If that's the case, then his support of the GPL and opposition to copyright laws is not neccessarily inconsistant.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Then access your MySQL database over TCP/IP or a socket. No linking involved at all, thus no problem with GPL.
But GCC is GPL!. All that means is that RMS didn't want the patches in HIS tree. Someone else could fork gcc (are you old enough to remember egcs?) - it's just the burden of maintenance of their altered tree would fall on them. You don't HAVE to accept patches into your tree with open source (Aside: I also once talked to a microsoft developer who honestly thought random people on the net had anonymous write access to CVS trees of "open source" projects. God only knows where he got that idea. MS dept. of propaganda I guess.)
This is why the GPL is said to "discourage" forking: you have the freedom to fork, but if you do, you're stuck looking after it, and it's still GPL so anything good you add can be lifted back to the parent project at their discretion. Forking+remerging is a natural means of evolutionary progress in GPL software.
The GPL doesn't restrict your rights, it grants you rights. Therefore, an open ended version 2 or later clause is OK, since it can only grant you more rights, it cannot take any rights away that you already have.
Oh well, what the hell...
> Citing the vitimins and nutrients of a poison apple does not make it good or even neutral if they forbid you to have a non-poison apple.
:)
:)
Oh yeah, gotta watch out for "them"! "They" are lurking behind every corner, waiting to pounce and install electrodes in your brain. Soon, "they" will control all your thoughts, and "they" will force you to sit on the couch watching reruns of Friends(tm) and drinking Diet Pepsi(tm).
> And the new software Trusted Installation / Trusted Activation will be impossible to install or run at all.
You really think Linus will accept that patch? I'm pretty dubious! On the other hand, he has accepted patches to allow me to control the TCPA chip on my computer, if I were to have one. Which, I admit, strongly piques my curiousity, and is the main reason I want to get one and check it out.
I admit, if you're running an MS system, then TCPA may look like somewhat of a threat. But then, if you're running an MS system, you have already abdicated ownership and control of "your" system, and I've got no freakin' sympathy for ya.
> The new Trusted files wil be impossible to read. You will be locked out of all of the new Trusted websites.
Then, frankly, I'm screwed in any case, since I can't think of any circumstance that would induce me to run a kernel I didn't build myself. But, again frankly, I think you're being just a wee bit paranoid. Not that there's anything wrong with paranoia--some of my best friends, and all that--but I think it looks more and more these days like the balance of power is tipping away from Microsoft.
In any case, what you're talking about is not TC, though it may be based on TC. I've read the specs, and I stand by my statement that TC is a neutral technology. And like a lot of security-oriented systems, it's not that secure if you have physical acccess to the machine. I kinda hope "they" do try to control all the computers of the world with TC; it'd be kinda fun to see "them" fall flat on their faces. Again.
Remember, you're talking about the same consortium here that tried to prevent us from copying CDs by putting an autorun.bat file on them. They're not that freakin' smart!
ESR's position against Free Software has always seemed slightly irrational (or at least unjustified) to me, but I always put it down to no more than him trying to get some more limelight for his Open Software efforts. That would be unfortunate, but no biggie.
But now that he has publicly gone anti-GPL by saying that it is no longer needed, I think that ESR is finally showing his true colours.
In a world where Free+Open Software ruled the roost (we're not quite there yet), the only people for whom the GPL might no longer be needed are those people who have an army of paid-up lawyers behind them, in other words, the corporations. Everyone else would get screwed by the first well-financed litigious bloodsucker that comes along and markets the software without respecting its authors' desired freedoms.
So, it's pretty simple: ESR is pro-business, and actively desires individuals to be powerless and trodden underfoot in the corporate rush for profits.
That's pretty bad, not far off from being "evil". I must say, I didn't really expect that from ESR.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra