Slashdot Mirror
GPL 3 May Require Websites to Relinquish Code
Vicissidude writes "At present, companies that distribute GPL-licensed software must make the source code publicly available, including any modifications they've made. Though the rule covers many businesses that use GPL-licensed software for commercial ends, it doesn't cover Web companies that use such software to offer their services through the Web, as they're not actually distributing the software.
GPL 3, the next version of the free software license, a draft of which is expected to be released in early 2006, may close this loophole, GPL author and Free Software Foundation head Richard Stallman said in an interview."
Sounds like a sane byproduct of a sanely limited feature of the license to me.
Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
If they want to stick with their own GPL2 fork, they can still keep it locked up.
Fine. I'll just get my clients to use gopher.
How do you like THOSE apples, Mr. GNU?
And we've known this for how long? Granted, the story itself isn't a dupe (afaik), but every article on the GPL3 in the past few months has mentioned the idea of websites running GPL software being required to release their source code by some means. It's hardly news.
That might make life interesting for Google (and probably Yahoo) as I'd bet a large chunk of googles operations are based on FOSS code including their clustering software, mail etc.
While I can see the point of making distributors in the conventional sense having to release the source I've a nasty feeling making web service companies reveal their source might only harm the OSS movement in the longer term... Google might be Okay as they've got the bandwidth to be able to release the source code for all OSS code used internally but not sure about the smaller providers...
--- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
I'm no expert but wouldn't it be more likely that they would stick with their previous code that only has the V2 license attached? Whats forcing them to upgrade?
There are tens of thousands of open source projects, how to look for the code is a difficult task. Codase (http://www.codase.com gets a solution for that. It understands the source code and you can search for meanings in the source.
Megite: What's Happening Right Now
If you are embedding, say, GPL md5 checksum calculator in otherwise proprietary software, will you need to publish the whole source code? If so, I'm willing to bet most companies would rather re-invent the wheel and rewrite it. I wouldn't want to publish the source code to a production web site for obvious security reasons.
while true;do echo -e -n "\033[s\n\033[u\134_\033[B";done
This doesn't exactly seem much like a loophole, more a feature (It's not a bug - it's a feature!)
By closing it off, does this mean that any CMS that's using the GPL will need a link hard-coded and un-removable back to the source for it to be valid?
Anonymous Coward
I've been pretty happy with the GPL. I understand why it exists and what it is for, but this is going a little too far. Why are web sites singled out? Couldn't you demand that anyone making money using GPL'd software in any way should hand over their modifications? If I run a modified Postfix, for example, to process mail in a certain way, shouldn't I be required to release that code? Where does it stop?
Seems like a pain int he butt, if nothing else.
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
There is a very strong "gimme gimme" theme that runs deep within the GPL community. It says, give me the source code you have because I want it. The GPL, in fact, guarantees that if GPL'd software is used in another product, both products then become infected by the GPL and the resulting work is then covered by the GPL. In a very logical sense, this makes a lot of sense. We want people who use our work (GPL'd) to also be compelled to give back their work. The payment we demand is not monetary, it is to be paid in sourcecode.
So the loophole exists that someone may be able to make available a software package through an interface like the web which does not export the actual software to the client. The application, though, is absolutely in use by the client, he just can't see the source code. The user can't even request the source code (which the GPL forces the distributor to release to the asker). This is way outside the theme of the GPL, and it is not what the GPL writers had in mind when they originally (and revisedly) wrote it. The user should have the freedom to read, learn from, and change the code to the products he uses, that is the spirit of the GPL. By hiding the code and program behind the safety of a webserver, the companies exporting the application via the web interface are restricting the users' ability to do those things.
I don't support Stallman in this. I think it is absolutely the right of these companies to do this sort of thing. And I think that changing the GPL to include such egregious usurpation of rights is a blow to Free Software, both spiritually and tangibly as we will see more people decide to either stick with GPL2.0 or go with a more lenient license.
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
You only need to provide the changes not the entire source-tree.
Not sure how on topic this is, but I thought that one of the terms of GPL was that you couldn't put more restrictive terms on an existing license. How can a project move to GPL3 if it is more restrictive than GPL2?
What is to stop someone from just putting an existing project under a commercial license? What makes GPL3 so special that GPL2 projects can move to it without breaking their own licensing terms?
...to the following questions:
What can we do to make sure that for profit enterprises won't ever consider using GPL3 code in any projects?
How can we best add legitimacy to Microsoft's FUD about the GPL?
I have a feeling this will do more harm than good to F/OSS usage out there.
I can't really codify my feelings into words since my examples are all licensed under something OTHER than the GPL (apache,php) but I think everyone sees where this would stiffle GPL-based software growth.
It's like saying that anyone who uses foo shopping cart (licensed under the GPL) to sell t-shirts online must now release any code changes they make to foo shopping cart just because the business uses it to sell t-shirts.
This has been the biggest FUD from Microsoft for the longest time. You shouldn't write an application to run on Linux because you'll be forced to give your code away! With this type of change, that might become fact rather than fud.
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
i can appreciate why rms et al are doing things the way they are, but it makes me kinda leary. if i used f/oss package $x as the basis for a web service and then made modifications to it to suite my business (custom tie-ins to my inventory system, etc.), i'm not certain that i would want to be forced to release that information to the world. which means that in order to keep that stuff private, i am forced to perform some very careful surgery to build an interface to proprietary code which is designed to interoperate with the original gpl stuff but is a seperate module under a seperate license. so all the gpl would accomplish is releasing to the world the hooks and interfaces i put into place to interface with my code. not terribly useful, imho. in the mean time, people who don't want to give away even that much information switch over to closed source stuff. which kinda defeats the purpose...
but then again, i'm probably way oversimplifying things. it's late and i'm sleepy.
The zdnet article is just a rehash of the onlamp interview with Stallman that has recently been on /.:3 .html0 9/24/1325214&tid=117&tid=156
/. blurb to this story or the zdnet article want to make you believe.
/.
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2005/09/22/gpl
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/
Needless to say that you should read the actual interview, as things are a bit more complex than what the
Well done
Am I the only one that sees this as a boon to M$ FUD? Many customers are not going to understand the finer points of the closed-proprietary vs. open source debate, and are going to be confused by conflicting concepts of ownership. I can understand that greater transparency vis a vis the license can help shine the spotlight on the virtues of the open source community, but I do think that this will be overtaken by the confusion it creates amongst the adoption decision makers....to say nothing of the reactionary attempt Microsoft will surely make to exploit it.
I like how Stallman and Theo De Raadt both have incrmental approaches. Continually chipping away.
E.g. here's some of the latest on OpenBSD and RAID:
"Take Adaptec for instance. Before the 3.7 release we disabled support for the aac(4) Adaptec RAID driver because negotiations with the Adaptec had failed. They refused to give us documentation."
and
"But having been ignored for so long by these vendors, it is not clear when (if ever) we will get around to writing that support for Adaptec RAID controllers now. And Adaptec has gone and bought ICP Vortex, which may mean we can never get documentation for the gdt(4) controllers. The "Open Source Friendly liar" IBM owns Mylex, and Mylex has told us we would not get documentation, either. 3Ware has lied to us and our users so many times they make politicians look saintly.
"Until other vendors give us documentation, if you want reliable RAID in OpenBSD, please buy LSI/AMI RAID cards. And everything will just work."
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
Have none of the above posters read the article or draft license? All the GPL3 requires is that if some code already includes a "send me the code" feature, any modifications may not remove it. It doesn't mean every GPL3'd application must publish its code in this way.
If you distribute the code to a third party then you have to give *all* the source. Currently if you are using mixed code for say a webserver you don't, as that doesn't count as distribution.
As most GPL code says you can use version 2 or later, they will either stay using version 2, or replace the code with a BSD version. Linux is fairly unique in that it is only licensed under GPL2, so this will not affect companies like Google that modfiy Linux for in house use.
========
CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
"I've been pretty happy with the GPL. I understand why it exists and what it is for, but this is going a little too far."
If the GPL stumbles? The F/OSS movement will live through the BSDs, and all the other FSF approved licenses.
This is what RMS actually said:
This inteview is also discussed on OSNews.
Windows users:
Internet Explorer is obsolete. Please upgrade to Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox.
I think that's only partially true. As I understand it, the derivative software will only have to allow the source code to be accessed if the original did as well. In other words, if google creates UltraSearch.com and licenses it as GPL3 AND includes a mechansism to download the source, then anyone who creates a derivative work would have to retain that mechanism or a comparable one. But if google had kept their sources private, then anyone who created a derivative work would presumably be allowed to keep their source private too. Of course, this is all confined to web-apps. Any software that is actually distributed will still have all the normal GPL conditions applying to it.
"This change would have no effect on existing software but could be added by developers to future versions of a particular program, according to Stallman. He said this was only a "tentative plan" as it has not yet been studied fully to see whether it would work"
So the clause might not even get added at all.
If I have an (otherwise proprietary) web application that makes a call to a GPL3'd grep command then I'd have to distribute grep to people if they asked. That sounds silly and unnecessarily burdensome and would create the sort of administrative overhead that would push people to a non-free solution.
However the mechanism Richard Mentions: seems vastly more sane. GPL3'd applications that aren't web-apps won't suddenly require distribution if they are used in a web-app, only applications coded with such use and distribution in mind will.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Here's what RMS said:
"Running a program in a public server is not distribution; it is public use. We're looking at an approach where programs used in this way will have to include a command for the user to download the source for the version that is running."
I don't think it's possible. As even RMS notes, running a program constitutes use, not distribution, and no "copyright license" can tell you how to use your software. Additionally, it's against the spirit of free software.
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
Google might have to release their code?
I can hear Gate cackling all the way from Redmond.
There are two answers to this:
First: the copyright owner of the software can publish his work under any license he wants to. This includes other versions of the GPL as well as commercial licenses. E.g. does Borland so with its CLX library used in Kylix: If you get the free version of Kylix, CLX is licensed to you under the GPL, which forces you to release your derived app under the GPL, too. If you're a commercial developper, you have to get the commercial version of Kylix/CLX and you can distribute your work under any license you want to...
Second: most (not all) GPL licensed software has a clause, stating, that the work may be licensed und version 2 and any newer version of the GPL... I personally always thought, this clause is needed, when the GPL 2 becomes legally invalid (due to whatever...). But i'm quite disappointed to see, that rms uses this clause now, to apply other rights and duties than in version 2, to the software.
Regardless what one may think of the GPL 3, it's quite sure, that a lot of developers won't like that, but although they can remove the clause from newer versions of the work, they ARAIK cannot remove the clause from already released work.
So, I personally would surely prefer, if the GPL 3 would be released as a license independant to the GPL 2, so no work can be licensed under it without the explicit approval of the copyright owner.
I other words it's as voluntary as a national ID card, and the passenger flying list. Basically your "nothing to see here" is going to gradually creep into the the rest of the code out there (otherwise what's the point of even thinking about this change).
--
The GPL is about free code. The BSD is about free ideas.
Mod parent informative... I now have Quake 3 running on Linux :-)
What license is the "GPL License" covered under (the actual legalease copyrighted text), and why cant we modify it and make public all changes?
This means that I need to make a link to the PHP source code available through all sites running on my server? Apache as well? How about Linux since that holds the entire thing together?
Yes I know they may not all be GPL3, but this is the kind of thing this 'closed loophole' will lead to.
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
Copyright law also allows authors to impose restrictions on "public performance". Originally, the idea was that the distribution of sheet music for a melody was restricted, but playing a piece on the radio was not reproducing the sheet music. The public performance clause closed that loophole. Here, public performance would amount to "playing" the code (i.e., the "noises" it encodes, as it were) over the web. The analogy is strong, except that there's lots of stuff specified in code that doesn't go out over the wire. However, that probably just means that what's "played" and broadcast is a derived (abridged) work.
(IANAL. This ain't legal advice. Kowtow before the Law guild.)
You cant change the license of a released product, but you can release a new version of your program under any license you want. Thats how I understand it. So, a program once licensed under GPL2 will allways be available under GPL2 -it cant be taken away.
Websites like Google use customized GPL software internally. They'll just ignore GPL3'd code and hang onto what they already use.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
From 6 of GPL2: You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
... Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
From 9 of GPL2: The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time.
Both of these clauses have to be read together, in a mutually compatable way. What it amounts to is that licenses cannot impose their own further restrictions on sublicensees, but that licensees may have some choice as to which version of the GPL they themselves are bound by. (Of course the sublicensees get the same choice, since 6 prohibits restricting it down the road!)
So basically it's because the GPL makes an exception for itself.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Talk with her. Seriously. And if it fails, screw her and get a mare.
Sounds like lots of people would simply quit using GPLed stuff then and move to one of the BSD systems. For web frameworks and platforms the vendors would have to choose. Most Java frameworks are Apache-licensed anyway, and for other GPLed project the group would have to choose either to turn into hobby-only projects or to keep the old GPL.
The hard part about this is that probably every single copyright holder under the GPL has the right to choose to upgrade to GPL3, so that only singly-owned project could choose to really stay GPL2. But IANAL.
*** Dangerous Virus ***
I think everyone is misunderestimating how disinformative this article is. GPL 3 will embetter the whole Internets.
This article is straight up Elmer.
Fool me once, shame you. It fool me. We can't get fooled again.
But what do the users perceive as being the application? Is it the UI in their browsers, or the stuff running on the server that spits that UI out? If you consider what the *users* see as your web application (the final UI rendered out to them), they've already gotten the code for that. In the literal sense of the GPL, all of the users have the code they're using due to the nature of the web itself.
That's kind of a thin distinction, I realize. I hope the FSF aren't quite dumb enough to alienate such a huge mindshare segment, but if they are, as devs there are still plenty of viable platform options. Just off the top of my head, Apache doesn't require the GPL, nor does perl or Java, Postgres is BSD-licensed, and Solaris/*BSD make perfectly fine operating systems to run web/db servers on...
Or if not, what prevents: 1. Fork GPLed web app w/ button into GPLed web app w/out button. Make source code available, of course. 2. Another party now takes forked code (which is identical to first web app but w/out button), and ports it to their own web app w/out button and w/out releasing source code. Is this a violation or not?
Sorry, I am very confused. Either that, or the new GPL 3 is going to make reuse of GPLed code a pain by forcing me to program in certain features, like adding a thousand lines of code for a "download source" button to a hundred-line little GPLed utility that I write (that borrows 10 lines from the original web app with the "download source" button, which seems to proprogate virally). To me, this seems to defeat the purpose of the GPL by making it rather awkward to reuse code, possibly impossible if the new app doesn't lend itself well to a "download source" button (what if the app has no user interface?).
#include ".signature"
So I have this apple in my proprietary tree, which I decide to release under GPL3... Now if I eat the apple and next mornign go to the toilet, is my poop licensed under GPL3 also?
You don't know what you don't know.
The O'Reilly interview that this article references was covered here before and all that this new article and submission do is introduce a little confusion. Not that the proposed provision isn't worth talking about, it is.
The addition would offer protection for developers who choose to include a particular feature in their code whereby that feature would have to be retained in future versions. That feature being the ability of users to download the source. It is completely optional for the original developer.
Rome wasn't bilked in a day.
When you release software of any significance or note, it's important to be very clear about what license you are releasing it under. Don't just say "GPL" as that's ambiguous. GPL? Most recent GPL?
What if the GPL license evolves into something you don't want? Such as disallowing *any* commercial use?
Be specific!
Specify "GPL 2.0" if that's what you mean. If you have any other conditions, make sure they're specified clearly. EG: "In order to use this software, you must also do the hokey pokey in front of your boss."
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
I don't have any particular problems with the GPL3 except that it is very very different from the GPL as it currently exists. (I don't have problems with it per se... I personally think it's a little bit too "viral" but that is anothe debate entirely. Software authors have the right to specify whatever terms they want for software they write.) GPLv3 removes a lot of freedoms granted to licensees under GPLv2 and as such the specific wording of a piece fo software licensed under the GPL could easily be misconstrued. What if, for instance, the software simply claims to be licensed "Under the terms of the GNU GPL"? Which version is it supposed to reference? From a legal standpoint either party could argue that it might be licensed under the terms of ANY existant version of the GPL license!
The two licenses are so dissimilar in fact that I think that the forthcoming GPL license should have a new name and/or abbreviation. The GPL as it stands has furthered a specific idea and revisions to it have always served the purpose of clarification. The GPLv3 license is quite wildly different in purpose than any GPL license before it and as such should be renamed appropriately. Microsoft might call it the RGPL as in "Restricted GPL License" while Stallman might prefer "SOPFEEGPL" as in "Stallman's own personal Fuck Everyone Else GPL"
I should interject here that I have been *specifically* licensing my software under GPLv2 for many years now. I don't want some freakshow whom I cannot control being able to change the terms by which my code may be used. I am happy to contribute to many other projects (including the Linux kernel) which are specifically GPLv2, but I will rot in hell the day I license something under the bastard abomination that is the GPLv3 license.
Thanks for the advertisement.
So it's not a feature that applies to apache, the kernel or anything other than the web application itself. It's not retro-active; the developer has to add it to a newly released version and if you don't like it then continue developing the existing version without it.
In that case my software will remain GPL2. I write software for websites to use, for example email(), a PHP mail() clone at http://sf.net/projects/poss and honestly, I don't think they should have to make my software avaliable, because they arn't distributing it! They are just using it!
Well done.
fish and pipes
This is a really interesting move by the GPL board. Its clear that the target is Google. Under GPL3 they would have a tough time not releasing GoogleOS and GoogleFS and all the other enhancements that they are working on that are still in beta.
;))- but then IANAL.
The problem is that the only reason we know about either GoogleOS or GoogleFS is because it didn't cost them anything. If they knew they would have to release their IP if they decalred it as an enhancement, wouldn't they just claim that they were using Slackware through out, and no you can't see our server logs. Whats stopping them from turning round and saying, in light of the GPL3 we will now be moving to OpenBSD - ne nah ne ne nah.
How do you define a modification? If you create your own start up script for Apache, or create a custom configuration... is that a modification? Will it be defined as any modification that requires a recompilation of code? (Kernal configuration is going to be fun). How will already understaffed GPL projects be able to 1: enforce a code submission 2: handle the increased noise, as every man and a dog submits their patches?
How is this ever going to be enforcable? Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife - great idea, totally unenforcable in a court of law, in a libre society (it sure as hell is free as in beer - have you seen gas prices?
There is a big difference between writing a sensible, modular enhancement that you think will benefit all, and hacking together a patch that makes a project work better in your situation.
This is not a licence enhancement so much as a declaration of faith. How serious are you about FOSS?
Scared of flying, pointy things snce 1979!
This will be great for things with an MIT/Berkeley license (e.g. *BSD). The license allows you to do with the code as you please (as long as you preserve the Copyright notice) and hold the author harmless.
That's really simple.
There seems to be a lot of confusion about the GPL, even among people who like it a lot. The simplicity of the MIT license makes it a no-brainer.
Also, there is some question as to whether or not the GPL is a contract or not. There is the possibility that someone could "take back' the license. As there is no apparent consideration (e.g. you didn't pay for the license, did you?), a court might say, OK, he took it back. There was no contract.
That sort of ambiguity, until put to rest, causes trouble for some.
So the MIT (modified Berkeley) license will look better than ever.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
You know, some webapps have parts the run on the client. This basically clarifies that, while code can run on the server without being distributed, code cannot run on the client without being distributed.
(As someone pointed out up above.)
Stallman said developers may be encouraged to add a command to their GPL-licensed Web application that lets users download the source code. The inclusion of this command in modified versions of the program will then be enforced by an additional clause in GPL 3.
THAT'S IT not "use ANY GPL3 code on your site, you must give up the source."
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Both of these clauses have to be read together, in a mutually compatable way. What it amounts to is that licenses cannot impose their own further restrictions on sublicensees, but that licensees may have some choice as to which version of the GPL they themselves are bound by. (Of course the sublicensees get the same choice, since 6 prohibits restricting it down the road!)
That last sentence is not consistant with what I've believe to be common opinion. If that was the case, "GPLv2 only" code is not compatible with "GPLv2 and higher" code because the "and higher" would have to apply to the Program as a whole, and I know they are mixed in many projects. The popular interpretation of 9 seems to be that you have the choice. "GPLv2 or higher" means you can create derivates that are any of the following: "GPLv2 or higher", "GPLv2 only", "GPLv3 or higher" or "GPLv3 only" (or 4,5,6). In fact, it would make "GPLv2 and higher" code incompatible with "GPLv3 and higher" code, since the Program as a whole could not be licensed as "GPLv2 and higher" per section 2b).
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
An article mentioning RMS, and only a single post mod'd funny? Incredible!
...Oh, wait - there'll be more funnies in the dupe later tonight ;P
RTFA
get a clue
stop posting disinformed bullshit
I am the bastard of base minus 12! Turing was the ejaculate of my complete machine!
Yech!
to use your example if Coca-Cola bring out a new dishwater flavour carbonated beverage and set up a promotional CMS which they host at www.dishwater.com then they can put whatever they like on it, but if the CMS they use included a /source URL which gave access to the source then the dishwater one must also do so, so you could go to www.dishwater.com/source if you wanted to get the source, including modifications made to the source for that particular site. There is no obligation to have the /source link navigable by mouse from the home page or links off the home page.
I can see why such a feature might be desirable for some kinds of software. For example, you might want to ensure interoperability among different web services based on free software. And, after all, commercial software vendors apply even more onerous restrictions to web-based software, such as "per user" licensing costs.
However, I think it would be a good idea to have two versions of the license, one with this provision and one without, and give them different names, say WGPL (Web GPL) and GPL. If the FSF only releases a revision of the GPL that includes this provision, I suspect many software authors will stick with the GPL2, and they'll be missing other clarifications and improvements in the GPL license.
I'll just write an online store for gopher, ???, IPO, go bankrupt!
It is aimes at Google, but it will hurt small business. As someone who has build his existence on providing web pages, this change in licence will threaten my business model, which is about providing an added value to my customers trought additions to the GPLed code that I chose not to spread, so my competitiors will not also have that added value. Till now, this was perfectly legal.
How does this translate to documents I created using GPLed software? I have some pretty elaborated Google Indes prediction tool I'd hate to give away. Before somebody cries about those documents are not licenced under the GPL, because I have the copyright on them - what about webpages then? And what about dynamically created webpages?
I did contribute to OSS software under the GPL in the past, and I am using Linux on all of my 11 machines. Althought I use the penguin, I will have to move to another OSS platform (BSD?) if this change to the GPL will be made. Living and working on a budget, having to care for a family, I cannot afford risking to be viable under a changed GPL that would effectively force me to share all I do to all of my competitors.
Screw the FSM - Real geeks believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn
The GPL is a licence (*not* a contract) that a copyright holder grants to you to allow you to do certain things that you normally would not be allowed to do (copy, distribute, use etc). The copyright holder also requires that if you do one of those things, distribute, you must also do a few more things (make the original and your changes to it available to others with the same grant of rights and conditions).
What RMS said was that if you use GPLed software at a web site, then that is *use*, not *distribution*, so the requirements don't apply.
BUT, they're considering adding a requirement to GPL3 that if you offer to distribute the source from the web site (with a "download here" button or similar), that anyone who does so *also* has to have the same (or similar) mechanism for your source *and* their changes.
It's a no brainer. If you don't like the new rule, use GPL2, or don't make your source available *from the web site*.
Where there may be real problems, mixing GPL2 code that does not have the "this version or later" clause with GPL3+ code. Linux, for example, does not have the "this version or later" clause, so you won't be able to use GPL3 code in Linux.
That's what I find scary: the whole idea that we'd have to give 100 different modules their own port through the firewalls and let them cheerfully accept connections on our server and send data from our servers.
First of all, it would be a titanic amount of work to just review all the code and make sure it doesn't contain any back doors.
Second, ok, let's assume the code isn't malicious. What about buffer overflows? So now each time someone finds a gappin (security) hole in, say, libgoatse, they automatically know it works on all web sites that use libgoatse. You can even automatically scan for them, if it's a standardized way to ask for the source. I can see a blaster-style worm that just scans all ip addresses and just sends a malformed "send me the libgoatse sources" request to everyone.
I don't know, maybe I'm overreacting, but I wouldn't sleep easily at night knowing that there are some 100 modules in a dozen web apps that just talk freely to the outside world.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Another dodgy flamebait /. story ... while it does mean a website could be forced to serve source code, this is only if the original software distribution included such a feature. This doesn't seem any worse (or abusable) then the clause which basically states that a copyright message presented in the normal interactive running of the program cannot be removed (i.e. abusable but generally non-problematic in practice). The question is if either of them are really worth it as long as all other aspects of the GPL are enforced? Do they bring a real benfit without loss? KISS says these are both unneccessary complications.
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
Scenario 1: My company has a website, built in-house with GPLv3 tools and components. It is serving data to customers with web browsers. Is it required to make the code for its website software public?
Scenario 2: My company has an internal software application built in-house with GPLv3 tools and components. This software generates research data. A summary of this data is made available to its customers as, say, PDF files. How is this different from scenario 1?
Scenario 3: My company makes a business out of supplying critical stock trading services to its customers. The backend messaging servers are built on Linux, or use other GPLv3 tools. The application opens interfaces, be they proprietary, to paying customers, so that they can interact with this messaging server.
How is this different from scenario 1?
cat
Though the rule covers many businesses that use GPL-licensed software for commercial ends
Well no, it absolutely does not. The GPL covers distribution not use, if it covered use, no one would be able to use GPLed software in a commercial setting.
Closing this "loophole" would amount to drastically changing the philosophy behind the GPL.
Though I do vaguely remember reading something about the new rule being an edge case that covers rather rare circumstances, and not a reinvention of the GPL.
Seirously, taken literally this says that if I run a webapp on a GPLed server or even a GPLed OS, I have to release the source code. Yeah, that would fly.
sic transit gloria mundi
For many years, I've been a staunch supporter of the [L]GPL, as a playing-field leveller in the world of software.
However, I've taken advantage of the right to use GPL code in delivering web services, or other services across other client/server connections.
If this new principle comes in, we'll see the GPL hopping across server-client boundaries, just as bird flu is presently threatening to jump the species barrier and create a human pandemic.
I urge all software authors to think very carefully before adopting GPLv3, especially if your software is likely to be used in a server framework.
Unless I've misunderstood the concept, this new provision, if implemented (say) in MySQL, would require a website to disclose all its source code to anyone who can access it.
I wonder if it would be legal to stick up a website EULA, and require visitors to click onto it, and have provisions in this EULA whereby site visitors waive all GPLv3-specific claims before they are allowed to access the main site content.
Authors - if you really want to truncate your potential userbase, revoke your [L]GPLv2 licenses and switch to v3.
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
The existing GPLv2 contains a different loophole. In reading about GPLv3 planes, I haven't yet seen any effort by the FSF to close it, but I wonder if anyone else has more info.
The exploit is this:
When you modify and distribute a GPL program, you must provide the recipient the source code, in one of three ways. Either you give an "offer" to supply the code anytime in the next 3 years, or you let her download it from the same system as the binary, or you ship the source along with the binary.
That 3rd choice provides the loophole, although it requires two cooperating people to abuse it. PersonA hires PersonB to modify the program, and give him 100s or 1000s of matched discs of binaries and source. PersonA then takes out all the source discs and grinds them into powder, and then sells the binary-only discs to customers.
He's allowed to do this because of "first sale" rights, which state that someone who legally recieved a copyrighted work can redistribute it, even in damaged or partial form. The customers are buying a modified GPL program, but they didn't get the source included, nor did they get an offer to request the source later.
Note 1: To keep the loophole working, PersonA can never duplicate binary discs himself to sell. That would be copyright infringment. He must always buy new pairs of discs from PersonB, and keep on trashing the source code- although rewritable media will make it more affordable)
Note 2: PersonA must trust PersonB, because PersonB is allowed to give out GPL copies to 3rd parties if he chooses. There is no way PersonA can prevent this, except by enticement of future profitable sales.
1) According to the [seemingly] more-informed posters, this isn't such a bad thing.
2) I just release most of my stuff into the public domain, anyway, and let the world do with it what it will. Make money, lose money, hack, whatever, I don't really care.
Postfix is not GPL at all. It is the IBM Public License, it has never been GPL either.
Now here is the license for the IBM public license, included with Postfix: ftp://mirrors.loonybin.net/pub/postfix/LICENSE.
In this case you may modify Postfix as you please without having to hand over the code (IANAL, the document is written for lawyers, and it is extremely lengthy).
cat
It is important to understand that GPL3 *may* (does not have to) provide means for such licensing. But you (as the developer who releases software under license) *may* use this option or not. Perfectly OK to me. In fact as a developer and copyright owner you can release your software under any license - if it follows common law it is perfectly valid license. F.e. I can license my software that you can use it only wearing bunny suits. ;) And this will be perfectly legal.
So in fact this is not a case. You are not forced to use GPL3 (you can stay with GPL2 f.e.), you are not forced to imply such web-schemes licensing and so on. It just gives more choice (of predefined licenses - since always you can write your own). Choice is IMHO a Good Thing.
I have never understood the difference between different versions of GPL. Now we have GPL ver 1, ver 2 , ver 3. Not to speak of LGPL.
What the heck? Can't we stick with a single version? And does it matter so much?
Even RMS has stated in an interview that it is really difficult to monitor the misuse of GPL. So how will having 3 different versions of it help ? It will only muddy the water more. I suspect a lot of these corporations are sneeking in GPLed code to create closed source propritery softwares.
Linux Help
for all things on Linux
If you read the article, you will see that RMS is quite clear about the circumstances under which this rule would apply. If the original software has a "download source for the currently running version" button, websites based on modified versions will be required to maintain this functionality.
Modify the application such that the "download source" feature is still completely functional but merely gives you the pre-modified, original source? :o)
I'm going to hell.
The (current) GPL actually has a phrase about future versions of the GPL. It comes down to this: you may choose to stick with the old version (GPL2) as long as you like, but you can't fall back to an older version (GPL1) than the one used for the code you have changed.
In other words: the problem would not be that companies like Google have to cease using their current linux codebase & modifications, but it does mean they loose support for projects that choose to upgrade to GPL3.
So the question is: will all projects upgrade to GPL3 (likely, eventually) and - if so - will companies like google have enough momentum to do all maintenance on GPL2 legacy *without* support from the FOSS movement?
Will they just cheat, and how long will it take for FOSS people to find out and take action? Or will they simply release all changes they made and try to sift proprietry stuff from FOSS and play "nice" on that only?
--
And remember: Nothing is illegal if one hundred businessmen decide to do it -- Andrew Young
You couldn't be more wrong:
There are two grants in this clause:
1. [marked with first] the unconditional grant to make derivative works;
2. [marked with second] the conditional grant to distribute derivative works.
This means you may modify a GPL'd program and keep your changes to you. If the licensee is a 3000-employee enterprise, the IT team is not obligated to distribute the changes to each employee as long as each employee is not permitted to take the software home (ie, if the firm is not distributing/licensing its changes to the employees).
Got it? IANAL & TINLA, but I am a paralegal.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
It doesn't make an exception for itself. Say FooBar is distrubted under GPLv2 and higher. I can follow either GPLv2 or any later version of the GPL but I have to redistrubute as "GPLv2 or higher" - as redistrubuting under GPLv3 imposes additional restrictions.
The only way round this is if GPLv3 has a specific clause to say I can use redistrubute under GPLv3 only
You are right in that the GPL does not expressly say "If you do not distribute the software, you do not have to distribute the source", but it certainly *implies* this notion, which is why I presume that even the FSF people have said this. Below are a few sections from the GPL license itself (copied verbatim from the www.gnu.org site):
DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, but I have a fair grasp of the English language and can extract meaning and intent from written documents (most of the time).
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
{SECTION 2: The section that applies to modifying the source.}
====
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
====
Notice that it says "and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions". By including "and distribute" in that clause, the license is specifying that those particular conditions *must* be met when *all* the actions of causality are in place. Thus, for those conditions to apply you must "modify your copy or copies" AND "copy" AND "distribute".
Moreover, further down in Section 2 it states:
====
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.
====
It does more than imply -- it expressly states -- that the intent of this section is to "exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works", and not its access or modification.
All other sections of the license stipulate conditions on copying, distributing, or redistributing the original work or its derivatives, and do not directly deal with modifications as in Section 2.
Consider also that the notion of not having to distribute the source to modified versions used in-house without distribution is expressly stated in the GPL FAQ:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequir eSourcePostedPublic
====
Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?
The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.
But if you release
Carol vs. Ghost
That tries this stunt (if the code is in a website, publically accessed and has the option to download the source, then your derivative must have equal option). And you know what? It hurts (meaning it's not Free). Because if I want to take the code and make a derivative that is *not* a website, I can't make the option available.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
I know at first this addition may seem really scary and potentially counter-productive to the free software movement, but how it really works is actually quite elegant. Not surprising, seeing who it's coming from.
The good thing about this addition is that it won't change things for the software that's already out there. As a user of the software, your previous rights can't be retracted, and it's not something Stallman and Moglen are trying to do. Remember, the GPL is about protecting the rights of the users of the software. What this addition does is that it gives a new control to the original author. See, it's only if the code already has a feature to let you download the source code that you would have to include it later on. If such a feature is added at a later moment, as I understand it another person could fork the code previous to that and then continue developing it without the code download feature. If I make a software and I want the new feature, I'll just put it in there. Then subsequent versions based on the code have to include it. If I don't think the new feature is necessary, I don't add a code downloading feature and then this addition to the GPL won't affect the software.
It doesn't sound so dangerous now, does it?
RMS and Co. finally addressed the "weakness" I once wondered about in the existing GPL: how strictly does one define "linking" in this age of webservices.
He addressed it badly.
If the following software come under a future GPL3 license which has this clause, here's who may need to release internal code:
- WebServices
- Web servers
- Email servers
- B2B and EDI software
- ERP software?
About the last one, I'm not sure - but ERP software provides services to trading partners via B2B software, very similar to how Google provide services to external entities via TCP/IP stacks). This indirection thing is a can of worms. Ignoring it for now, here's an example:
"Moe working for midsize company X. He comments in a local paper about their company modifying something in their email server software (which happens to be GPL'd.) Random Joe1 reads this, and send Moe's company an email asking them to pony up with their modifications - he now being a "user" of their Email system by virtue of that very email.
And then there are the requests from random Joe3,Joe4,Joe5... JoeN. And Moe must make sure that any changes are correctly sent to the correct requestors.
Poor company X - it was only a biscuit company before. Now it's also in the software distribution business. I can just imagine companies lining up to take advantage of such possible GPL v3 "freedoms".
Some applications release under the current GPL licence and "any future versions released byt the FSF". Great. I hope software I use doesn't come under that category. It's good that Linus DID NOT give the FSF free license (pun intended) on the future of Linux - IIRC, Linux is restricted to some specific version of GPL Ver. 2.
I think I'm coming close, unfortunately though the links to the obscure web sites don't seem to be working, any clues?
This is, sadly, a common misunderstanding when it comes to the GPL. By using the term "infected", you are either misinformed or attempting to misinform; I'll assume the former...
'Infected' is a common term describing how the license propogates, that is by contact.
Let's say I write a CGI script implemented in an interpreter distributed under GPL 3 and/or my CGI script calls such an open source program. Does this mean, I have to distributed the CGI script source code?
Regardless of the Agnetha-consequences and current implementation, this needs to be preserved.
If people invest effort in circumventing the license they do not wish to collaborate.
Whether it be through web-services or key-based activation is irrelevant, with every GPL release there will be lazy fucks who try and use it for their own good.
RMS is right to be on top of it.
all your source code are belong to us. Well, luckily I use Resin instead of Apache.
1. tell what you think "distribution" means[...] Distribution (aka publishing) WRT copyright law is the act of making a copy and selling/donating/renting it to another (legal) person.
1a. a corporation is one type of person. In some acts, a corp is represented by some employee that has permission to execute that act. For instance, my enterprise's IT manager (who has proper permission from the rules of the corporation) goes to the MS dealer and negotiates a site license for XP Pro. Who will pay the bill, the IT manager? The IT department? No, the corporation. Who is the licensee? The corporation.
2. note that if Wal-Mart[...] You have noticed you were talking about a tangible good (aprons) instead of copiable, intellectual content? (which we are discussing here) If you were talking about software, for instance, the answer would be: No, they have not distributed it (see #1 above). technically? We are talking about copyright law here, so technically, ie, legally, this does not count as distribution... because no other person is receiving the copies, just the same (legal) person.
3. What is your standard for decide this isn't "distribution"? The copyright law. The person that bought/got/modified the software is the enterprise (acting according to its own internal regulations [*]), the thing starts to be distribution when an authorized person inside the enterprise says "hey, guys, you can take our rebranded OpenOffice.org home and install in your computer"... because then the "Enterprise" person is distributing to the "Employee" person a copy of the software. As opposed to an authorized person inside the Enterprise installing the software in a computer that belongs to the enterprise (no distribution there).
3a. [*] even when acting against corp regulations, the corporation is still liable for the actions of its employees, if others (mainly execs) take notice of said actions and do nothing about it. But this is another can of worms.
4. what stops me from modifying a GPL program like Mozilla and selling binary-only copies to random strangers? The fact that you would then be distributing it?
5. Which is never the case. Sure it is. When your enterprise buys a site license for XP Pro (3000 seats), the enterprise is the licensee. When your IT manager downloads Apache and installs it in an enterprise's server, with permission from the enterprise's execs, the enterprise is the licensee, because the IT manager is doing that on behalf of the enterprise.
6. If a 3000-person enterprise walks into Fry's[...] Enterprises do not have "personal" usage of nothing, only commercial, because they are commercial by nature. Anyway, even for personal use (which an enterprise can buy for an exec, for instance) XP Pro's license only permits installing in one machine.
better now?
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Or alternative Linux procedure:
install:
sudo apt-get install quake3
run:
quake3
If you're using some linux from scratch installation it may perhaps be more difficult, but then again so would installing Quake3 on Windows XP Embedded be...
Yes. They can. Except that there is no "automatic join organization". They would have to require that each "customer"/"partner" sign a legally-valid, notarized document, that would make each customer/partner liable (up to his personal quota) for any of the organization's liabilities (and this is serious stuff).
This loophole is not only in the GPL, but in any copyright license: I am associated with a videoclub. We have 5000 DVDs, we pay a monthly fee (to buy new DVDs and pay for the four employees) and stay with 5 DVDs all the time if we want, without paying rent. As I am not renting the DVDs from the videoclub, the videoclub is not distributing the DVDs, so the videoclub does not need to buy the (more expensive sometimes) "for rent" version of the DVDs. And yes, we have legal counsel and we operate inside the law.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
This whole idea smells like RMS is trying to exploit what is known in business as lock-in. People will resent it.
Amazing magic tricks
This is why I will either continue to use GPL v2 or add an permission to run a website without giving away the code to the GPL v3.
while (!asleep()) sheep++
I know it's been said, but this is a really terrible idea. Horrible.
Many many websites currently use GPL software and suddenly making them have to relinquish thier code is a bad move. This will inspire hatred and resentment from companies all over the web and make RMS look like another highway bandit.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
We will see which license schemes succumb to their own self-importance. I predict that both Microsoft's and Stallman's extremes in GPL3 will sink to the bottom of the mire of open and closed licensing schemes. And good riddance to both, is what I say.
Salut,
Jacques
Duh
I love the GPL, but we don't need GPL fundamentalist (RMS) terrorizing anyone that wants to use free software.
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html
Remember that, and all will be clear.
The current GPL states you do not need to accept it to use it; indeed, it rejects the idea that there is any legal need to do so. How can the GPL3 go back on this?
How on earth does that translate to loophole? It's not a loophole. Its common sense. You want to limit adoption of GPL products in the commercial sector? This is the way to do it. You can forget me ever releasing under GPL 3 if this is true.
If you see spelling or grammatical errors don't blame me. I tried to preview but IE here at work borked the CSS
I don't think a lot of people here quite understand what the new version of GPL is all about. They aren't saying that if you use GPL'd stuff to host your website, then you must release all the code for your website. What they are saying is that if you modify GPL'd software, and make your website available to the public, then you must release the source code of whatever programs you have modified. If someone take a GPL'd office suite, modifies it so it runs in a web interface, and lets the public use it, then technically, they aren't releasing binaries. So, they are modifying the source code, the public is getting to use that source code, but they aren't releasing the binaries. Just because you GPL software, doesn't mean the code that you write that's interpreted by the GPL software must be released. Otherwise, everything compiled with GCC would have to be open source.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
I'm going to get modded down right away, and this post will turn into dust, but here goes.
1) READ THE ARTICLE BEFORE POSTING
2) UNDERSTAND THE ARTICLE BEFORE POSTING
3) THIS GPL CLAUSE ONLY APPLIES TO SOFTWARE THAT ALREADY PROVIDES A METHOD TO DOWNLOAD THE SOURCE CODE.
3b) THIS MEANS THAT IF GMAIL IS BASED ON FREE SOFTWARE AND THE SOFTWARE IT'S BASED ON HAS A USER ACCESSIBLE FUNCTION THAT ALLOWS THE SOURCE CODE TO BE DOWNLOADED, THAT USER ACCESSIBLE FUNCIONALITY MUST REMAIN IN TACT IN DERIVATIVE WORKS.
4) THIS DOES NOT MEAN YOU MUST RELEASE THE CODE IF THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR DIDN'T.
I write code.
...for me to switch to Windows based servers and ASP.
Which is why I prefer the BSD license. I don't need to have my lawyer looking over my shoulder (at great expense) in order to get any work done. Loopholes? Grey areas? No thanks.
How about this?
If I'm running a GPL3 app somewhere one the middle, back, or OS side, with NO customer visibility such as a rules engine for my business logic, and it includes the RMS button, do I have to push the code for the button all the way to the front end?
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
No, absolutely not. An organzation can have almost any membership rules. In fact, there is a very popular kind of organization, known as the "corporation", that explicitly shields its members from liability!
ROTFL. You owe me a cup of tea and a new keyboard.
Members (shareholders) of the corporation may have limited liability (up to their share value, that can be brought down to zero by dissolving the corporation), but they have liability.
Employees of corporations have less liabilities (remission rights for the corporation), but have liability as well.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
It's gonna be so cool when I can use gnu ls and type ls --download-source-tarball. Yeah!
GPL needs to make the license more user friendly, not less. Closing "loopholes" is moving in the wrong direction. That just limits the potential usefulness of the software.
Side note: Can they legally add restrictions (ie. close a loophole) in a license for existing software? Doesn't the GPL itself prevent this?
Since you are using an antiquated version of redhat (It's Fedora Core 4 now you dork), lets compare with an antiquated version of windows!
User: "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Windows 2000"
Zealot: "Oh god, I installed it like it wanted to, but it wouldn't start cause directx was too old? Aww. Had to go to microsoft's directx site, and , omg it has to check to see if im using a pirated version of windows! But wait! I'm using windows 2000! Stupid microsoft let me download directx damn it! *downloads the checker thing since I don't use IE and enters the code to get to the download page* Install that. What? Still can't play? Oh I need new video drivers! Gotta go to that obscure video card manufacturer website! *download* *reboot* yay quake 3! Wait no sound..."
Seriously, Windows is just as fucked up as linux is when it comes down to it. It's just that linux doesn't like to sprinkle glitter over the configuration interfaces. Linux, once it gets the gaming industry and hardware vendors, to develop on its platform will not be substantially better than windows, if better at all. It's just that unlike windows, we get to completely change what's included, and change it to the way WE want it. Not how MICROSOFT wants it. I personally like how most things for linux is free (more or less) but with enough searching you can get free and clean windows tools as well.
I'm not a linux zealot, nor for windows or mac. I use each OS for their strengths. Windows for games, Linux for development, OSX for visual tools. Comparing an out of date distribution that is not configured with a fully configured updated windows copy makes a poor comparison. Do you by chance work in Microsoft's FUD department?
[!] No, I can't see my comments. They are not worthy of +3 moderation.
The point of the GPL is to protect the users (NOT the software itself!), by giving them the freedom to modify the software they use as they see fit. A remote user is still a user!
I agree with the first part of this, however as someone who develops code for use on the web I'd say that I was the user and the people looking at my website are seeing documents that is produced by what I set up. I'm the user. The people who are looking at the web pages are consumers of my product. (the pages).
The "remote user" is not a user of the software, they are a user of the result of my use of the software. If I hadn't set it up, they wouldn't be able to see the results.
It's like requiring the plans to a printing company, and a paper factory whenever you buy a book. The manufacting info of the book is not what you are buying, just the contents.
Let's take GMail as an example. I'm an end user. I don't develop GMail; heck, I don't even work for Google at all. Nevertheless, I would prefer it if GMail were GPL v3, because then I could verify that it wasn't copying every email I send directly to the FBI, or deleting every other message someone sends me, or misbehaving in some other way -- in other words, the same thing the GPL allows me to do with a local email client like mutt or Mozilla Thunderbird.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
if you get the source code for the CMS and find an interesting, clever subset of it, and want to use that in your embedded application, now you can`t because you are supposed to keep (enabled) some code to download the source, which your embedded architecture do not have enough memory to keep, nor has the way to give to the user.
The GPL as it stands was successful because it's a careful balance between public rights and the rights of owners of derivates. It's well understood, tested in court, and widely used.
The GPL3 seem to want to expand the rights of the public. I am not entirely opposed to such a license existing. After all, people have the right to license their creations as they see fit. But I won't accept any software that comes with such a horribly binding contract.
What's worse is that it has the GPL stamp on it. This is going to cause confusion among many, who think that software currently licensed under the GPL2 is going to get these restrictions. Alarmist, half baked new reports will only reinforce that fear, driving users into the waiting arms of Microsoft and Sun.
I am not making any more donations to the FSF, and am actively discouraging other from doing so, while they pursue the goals of GPL3. And, if I see RMS in the halls of MIT, I am going to give him a piece of my mind. Maybe I'll even have T-shirts made up.
The GPL, in fact, guarantees that if GPL'd software is used in another product, both products then become infected by the GPL and the resulting work is then covered by the GPL.
Keep in mind that it's copyright law that is viral, not the GPL. Any time you copy a chunk of one copyrighted work into another copyrighted work, you have created a derived work whose copyright is jointly held by both of the original copyright holders. It is illegal to distribute this work unless you have the permission of both. That's the law. In this case, the GPL'd code has been released under a set of terms which provide the needed permission in many cases but not all.
The GPL does not "infect" your code. You *choose* to place code that has some strings attached into your code. If you don't like the strings, don't take the code, but don't blame the GPL for "infecting" your code.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
I would prefer it if GMail were GPL v3, because then I could verify that it wasn't copying every email I send directly to the FBI
.. regardless of what the sources contain.
Trust in a service provider is not something that you can build by
inspecting their source code. If they want to screw you, they will
No, his goal was to boost CPU and memory sales.
Not necessarily. By the time systems based on GNU were ready for some desktops, Moore's prediction had continued to hold. For instance, though Emacs is "eight megs", it's no longer "and constantly swapping" given that even a 64 MB laptop from 1999 can run it just fine.
So, now we're adding another cost to "free" software. Bandwidth costs. If I install server software with this clause, I have to pay for the bandwidth people use to download it. Wonderful. (And yes, I know the difference between free as in speech and free as in beer. But let's be honest, most people use gpl code because it's free as in beer.) I hope linux doesn't add this clause, because that'd be a fun download to pay for.
I'm also sure the network admins are going to love having to open up an extra port through firewalls and VPNs (maybe) so that my GPL3 server code can have its download code available. Which I'm sure will be secure. Oh wait, I should look at the code to audit it? Well, that costs money too. "waaah, you should be doing that anyway." well, yes, but now you just added another vector of attack to audit and lock down. anyway you look at it, it's an increased cost.
This just opens up a can of worms. Just some quick, off the top of my head problems:
1. If I have a 20 server cluster running, do they all need download points, or just one?
2. If I limit downloads, am I violating the not modifying download clause? Have fun quantifying this one.
3. Now we'll have to distinguish between GPL2, GPL3 w/download, and GPL3 w/o download. Joy. Esp explaining that up the chain.
4. As above, "required" download ports or urls or any other mechanism are not going to sit well with security and network folks. Esp. when this server software might be behind several layers of security. Yes, even for a public site. Think a database server feeding a website. Or does that apply? Who knows?
5. Two projects with download clauses are merged (say, a server and a plugin for that server). Two ports? If I merge them (if that's even possible), am I violating?
All I see this doing is adding massive uncertainty, additional costs, and driving down the popularity of GPL licenses and software. It's a hard sell as it is now in corporate circles. Plus MS will just love this. Look how hard it is to get rid of the infected/viral meme. This will be worse.
While I understand what this new clause is saying now, what I don't understand is why the license itself is preventing a modification to the parent source. The freedom to create a modified work from a prior GPL licensed work and then explicitly enabling future modified works to be created from your public distribution of your modification was the whole point in the first place, wasn't it?
Even if this new restriction helps maintain proper distribution in the sprit of GPL, it seems to me that placing any clause in the license that restricts your ability to modify the code (not the license/distribution/etc.) for a particular use becomes a slippery slope.
Will you be prevented from using snippets of this GPLv3 web code (which contains a source download mechanism) in an application that has nothing to do with a web application? Let's say you distribute your new non-web app that has a random function collected from such a GPLv3 web app. You distribute your new app with this function under GPLv3 (as did the web-app who's function you're using) and provide source via traditional download methods. Now someone takes your GPLv3 non-web-app and turns it back into a web app. How are they supposed to know they are technically supposed to distribute their code (or just that function?) via some public user interface as the original function did?
Again, I can kind of see some logic in the original thinking to not remove a author-created self-distribution mechanism, but the implementation and implication that code is now "tagged" somehow by GPLv3 to always be auto-distributable looks like a bad idea, at first glance to me.
The question isn't really a question about user vs developer, it's a question about intellectual property. Additionally, it's a question about what the web is providing the individual. Is it a product that the user is paying for or is it a service?
In what I'll call "traditional" software you get something to put on your computer and interact with, modify and re-distribute as you see fit (including for money). Nowhere does it say that if you tweak a shared object library that you MUST re-distribute it, but rather, you must distribute the code if you sell your tweaked library to someone else. If it's for your own (or your own companies use) you can sit on the tweaks all you want, it's just not in the *spirit* of free software.
AF-Design, web development.
I see the output of a PHP application to be much like the output of a compiler.
If i modify GCC to target a new platform, then i can use it in house all I like without releasing the source. I can even take binary output and give it to people. I only have to release the source if i want to start distributing my new compiler.
Or did i miss something?
This change would have no effect on existing software but could be added by developers to future versions of a particular program...
As I read it, there's no requirement here for the company to allow public download of the web application source, but to allow public download of the source of tools used on the site -- and only if those tools are modified. For example, if the site runs on a modified version of PHP, the site must allow the user to download the source to their modified PHP version.
This requirement would apply only to a small fraction of the sites running PHP; and even they would not be required to disclose their web application source.
Or am I missing something?
The fun bit about the GPL is that it's a voluntary license. You, as a developer, make the educated choice to license your work under the GPL. You don't HAVE to. You could make up your own license, and many do, when they don't agree 100% with the GPL. If the license is found to be a problem, then the people simple won't use it. If I am a developer, and some company wants to make use of my software but the license isn't quite compatible, I just might fix it if it's worth the sacrifice.
Is it even legally enforceable yet ? Last time I heard, most judges couldn't tell the difference between GPL and the public domain, in part because the GPL's popularity rests on one rather eccentric man's reputation. Ask any geek who RMS is and only the Linux crowd *might* know. Ask anyone else and they will give you a dumb stare. As far as they know, the GPL doesn't even exist. There's also the debate over shrink-wrap licenses, some courts acknowledge them, some don't unless there's a signed contract around them. I think solving those worldly problems is more important than minor details on some guy's legal utopia.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Just because the GPL3 comes out, doesn't mean you can't license your software with the GPL2.
It also doesn't mean you can't use software that was originally released under the GPL2.
Only license your software with the GPL2, and only use software licensed under GPL2, it really is that simple.
And if you don't understand why you'd use either, and are only taking some pundit's word for it, you shouldn't be licensing software.
Possibly the only true statement in your post.
No. No, no and no! First of all a) the current requirement is a linking requirement - if you linked your application to libGrep (is there such a thing?) you would be responsible for distributing *your* code under GPL; and b) the discussion here is about possibility under consideration of making this GPL requirement necessary if your application uses the output of a GPLd program. The only way you'd have to redistribute grep is if you forked the grep project for some reason and made your own modifications. And then you'd only have to give the source code to someone in a reasonable format *if they asked*.
This was never a requirement. We're talking about *your* code which wraps the output of GPLd programs - not someone elses code that you must redistribute. Wherever did you get that
idea?
Bad bad slashdot for modding up this tripe.
std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
The currently GPL does _not_ require that distributors of GPL modified code make such changes publically available.
It simple requires that the changes be made available under the same GPL license to parties that the software is distributed to. So if I change a piece of GPL software and sell a copy, I only have to give a copy of the updated source to the party I sold it to under a GPL license.
The effect of this is that the party receiving the updated source can then distribute it freely if they want to, but there is no guarantee that my changes will be publically available.
First, this is not a troll. I want better software to make and use, just like you!
As you can see all around you, the problem with GPL licensed products is not in the license (only SCO has a problem with it; this is marginal). The true problem is in the quality of code. Munich town hall, Mozilla disaster (version 1.0 after 5 years!), any large organization that tried to use GPL - nobody succeeded. It simply does not work. 99% of GPL applications that are miles away from the commerical programs. I know, somebody will say Apache or PHP, but these are exceptions, not rules, backed by companies with real money, so they can pay the docs and programmers.
The source code is not omni-potent. How many of you know the Open Office source code? How can I include OpenOffice text processor as my default email writer? Why there is no proper support of the Office documents, even on the Windows machines (OLE loading there is a function of OS)? Why AbiWord or OpenOffice cannot open my Word document properly even if I save it under Word 97 version (format is available for inspection for 7 YEARS). Immagine if Compaq / Phoenix made PC BIOS with this tempo when building the first PC clone.
Instead of making tougher limitations, why GPL does not focus a bit more on the required quality of the code, including comments, documentation and so on? And face it - communism is dead - we're all selling our brains for money. Except Red Hat, and handful of distro houses, who is making the money out of GPL?
Instead of "politicalization" of GPL, make better code!
This is the largest problem with the proposed GPL v3. It should not be called GPL nor it should be called "free". The licence takes away the freedom to use the sofware and imposes restrictions to the data produced by it. Calling the licence GPL and passing it as "free" is an obvious underhanded tactic. Shame on RMS for falling that low. If he wants to create another, non-free licence, he should clealry mark it as such. Like NFPL (Non-Free Public Licence). That's the the only way for him to preserve his integrity.
You don't seem to understand, that just because someone say, lets you in their house to take a dump, doesn't give you the right to start reorganizing their bookshelves. If you want to have control of the environment you take a dump in, get your own damn toilet, and put it in your own damn house.
And less metaphorically, even if you had the source to gmail (which seems kinda like it was developed by google from the start) you could be denied knowledge of wether they send copies of your emails to bigbrother or delete every other incoming message on the fly because configuration files are not source code, and again it ain't your house so just deal with it (and get your fat grubby paws out of their goddamn fridge, or like, ask!).
Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
Wow. Whoever thought of this is very clever. And I don't mean that in a sarcastic way.
Consider:
I have an idea for the killer web app. My plan is to write the app and release it under the GPL and, if there's some interest in it, make some money by selling hosting for it. There's money to be made that way because it's easier to just buy the service from me than to find hosting that'll let you run it yourself, but because it's GPL, you always have that option if I go out of business or raise my prices too much.
Basically, it's the LiveJournal business model.
So far, so good. I have an edge over my competitors because I also maintain the app itself. Users know who I am but don't necessarily know anything about the competitors.
But my competitors also have an advantage over me. They can take my source code, spend maybe a tenth of the time and money I put into it and make a better product than me. If I were writing a word processor, this wouldn't be a problem--I'd just download their sources and cherry-pick their work into the main distribution. That's what Free Software is all about, after all. But with a web application, it's different because they're not distributing the app. They can screw me (and their customers) over by building a proprietary service on top of my work.
The thing about the GPL, though, is that it doesn't in any way restrict the use of the program. It only affects modification and distribution (and this is the right thing, in my opinion). If they require websites to make their source code available, that would restrict use.
So, cleverly, they add the clause that if the original program has a feature that lets you download the source code, you aren't allowed to remove that feature.
Brilliant!
So if you want website operators to make the source code available, you can. But if you want them to be free of that requirement, you can do that too. It's the developer's decision and this leaves it there. Frankly, I don't see what anybody's complaining about.
(Disclaimer: I'm not actually a Free Software advocate.)
This change is going to be a "bad thing" *period*. This whole issue makes all of Microsoft's old "Hallloween" FUD, look like a frightening prophesy. The community should pressure them to stop this whole mess before it is too late. Without stirring up too much bitterness, lets remember how we _really_ got into having the two major Linux desktops today: RMS + GPL vs KDE. It played right into Microsoft's hands; divide and conquer. The lack of truly great apps is now punctuated by the number of redundancies in the offered software -- all because of that one crucial moment. Now, here we are again. There will be a split and it will hurt us. There will be factions who chose not to go over to the "other side" and become true software communists. There will be forks. Businesses will choose not to use Linux. Steve Ballmer will not throw his chair.
This will drive 20 nails firmly into the coffin of GPL license. Only extremists will use GPL3, so it will be easy to tell what software to use - avoid anything with GPL3.
Thank goodness for sane licensing: LGPL, MIT.
Well, okay, I agree that this is often the case. A document retrieval script, for example, does nothing more than serve documents which the end user browses. In that case I agree that the web surfer is not "morally" the user of the software; that instead, the guy who owns the server is the user.
But take the case of complex financial software that helps the user do all sorts of esoteric financial and strategic tax planning. I think you'd have to agree that the person who enters the necessary parameters, gets a result, tweaks the parameters slightly to try different strategies and so forth is "morally" the user in this case. Putting it on the web so that the user doesn't need to physically install the software on his own computer does not make him stop being the user, I think. He's still engaging in a complex interaction with the software, and that interaction is his purpose for visiting the website.
So we take it one step further. Take ANY OSS program and put it on a server. Granted, the bandwidth requirements for some programs make this infeasible, but plenty would work fine. Should this technical, morally irrelevant step of delivering only results rather than the package itself really exonerate the distributor (i.e. owner of the server) from making the code available? I think it shouldn't. Otherwise you could imagine a company putting a program like GIMP online -- maybe not now, but certainly if bandwidth becomes cheaper -- just to get out of the source distribution requirement.
So, if you need to make a blanket rule, I'd say you should err on the side of safety. Make everyone distribute the code, even if it's just serving documents, so that you don't open a tremendous loophole that might ultimately defeat the GPL and allow commercial interests to de facto transform open software into proprietary software.
The problem with GPL (both GPL 2 and the currently proposed GPL3) is it gives an unfair advantage to companies that develop web apps over those that develop apps run locally.
Suppose one company uses GPL code to make a word processor that runs locally on the user's computer. Suppose another company uses GPL code to make a word processor that runs remotely through the user's web browser. The first company would have to distribute its code and thus hurt its ability to charge users for its product. The second company would NOT have to distribute its code, and can therefore charge for use of its word processor just like any closed-source company could, even though the word proceccor was made with GPL code.
Do you see the problem here? Just yesterday there was a slashdot thread talking about more and more software becoming apps stored on a server run through a browser. As this phenomenon grows, the GPL becomes less and less effective because such apps aren't affected by GPL.
For example, Microsoft (whom many here hate) could use GPL code to make web apps, charge users for the use of those apps, and NOT distribute the code.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
We need a Van Helsing to put RMS him back into his coffin. Seems like every 6 months he climbs out at night and starts to terrifies the citizenry.
I understand the proposal and it is not as dangerous as the FUD-masters say (in particular the proposal is meaningless unless the original author inserts a "download the source" feature).
But there seems to be a huge problem. Currently the GPL is just an exception to copyright law, allowing the receivier to do something with the code that they would not normally be able to do because of copyright. It does not prevent the user from doing anything that is not restricted by copyright or other laws. This makes the GPL completely legally bulletproof, because if it was invalid the result is that the user is only allowed to do *fewer* things.
But as far as I know, modifying the program for your own use in any way does not violate copyright law. So there is no way the GPL can enforce this without itself becoming some kind of contract, legally requiring signing by the parties involved, since agreeing to it actually reduces your rights.
Isn't this the same problem that force the "advertising clause" to be removed from BSD software so that it could be compatable with the GPL?
If everyone including web developers are forced to release their code under GPL3, then this spells out hell for 2006 and beyond seeing as it gives hackers a nice giant heap of code to plow through and crack into commerce and other data sensitive web operations. Just think, GPL3 comes out in 2006 and by 2007 massive amounts of developers release under GPL3 and now hackers can have their way with boat loads of code that may or may not give them access to credit card info among much other sensitive information. I'd rather stay on GPL2 and forget about some license that's going to force me to release all this code that I hacked together to get some software running. It'd take months to go through it all and remove any possible holes in some code I've seen.
Every time someone talks about the GPL being about freedom of speech, I need to assume his thinking skills are seriously impaired. GPL promotes control, not freedom. It adds a set of restrictions to code you modify and then wish to redistribute. Adding restrictions does not create freedom, but instead control by the original author in the way his code can be used by other coders.
The only people who were free to do whatever they want with the code were end users who had no intention of redistributing modified code. So GPL3 is addressing this "loophole" by saying if other people are using your code running on your web server, they must have source code access. Thus, a code user has been more broadly scoped in order to extend the control of GPL.
In the future more such indirect uses of code will be indentified to increase control of GPL. Why? In the end people have selfish interests in obtaining power. GPL is no exception, but instead a perfect example of the selfish nature of people. This isn't a bad thing, since many great things have been accomplished by self-interested people. But quit lying about your altruistic motives.
Vote for Pedro
Yes. That OSS application is still available elsewhere for the user to download if he wants it. If, however, he simply wants to use my copy of it, which I've made available on my website, why should I be forced to provide him with source code. I'm not distributing it.
If you come over to my house and ask to use my computer, which is running Linux, should I be forced to provide you with the Linux source code? If you ask, and it's not too much hassle, I'm sure I would provide it, but why the hell should I be required to provide it?
Exactly, the GPL is changing from a contract based on copyright to a more general EULA. Modifying code and running it on your web server is not a copyright violation, but GPL still wants their contract to impose restrictions on how this is done.
Vote for Pedro
The troll you're arguing with is just trying to justify flawed arguments with half-truths and misrepresentations of what you might have said in a pathetic attempt to make it sound like he's right.
Nevertheless, I would prefer it if GMail were GPL v3
Regardless of what you prefer, we're talking about copyright licenses. An addition like the one proposed would take the GPL from being solely a copyright license into the realm of being a usage license as well. Usage licenses are not on very firm legal ground, and most people object to them when they understand what they represent.
This addition would be tantamount to the GPL dictating software features (like the feature that allows users to download the source). I wouldn't go anywhere near code licensed like this. If I want to use some GPL'd code, I don't want to be forced to include any certain functionality just because of its license.
--
Promoting critical thinking since 1994.
Bravo, Richard M Stallman! After GPL3 comes out, I will be the first to include the command "download source code" in my Web-based software, so with GPL3 corporations should never remove this command, and this is a good thing. To the folks that say that GPL is about control and not freedom: GPL is about the freedom of the user, and the user wants to have the source code, even on a Web-based application.
If that's the case, then rms has lost his marbles. Any sort of good standing that gnu/linux kernel usage had in corporate server rooms will be lost as well.
I hope I'm just not understanding this correctly, but if I do, then the GPL will become just as viral as the regular FUDsters make it out to be. That's not a flame, just my observation
I'll start by proposing the question:
If we get real the real facts, then maybe we can stop our blind speculation.
This would make GPL-based products unusable for service-based business plans. First companies adapted to the GPL with a service model, now there's a taking of their trade secrets? Time to have someone who's lived outside of university walls to run things. Maybe someone like ESR. Stallman's mental problems are an embarrassment to the community, and now he's a communist. I like Linux and the GPL but this would make me recommend Windows
I hope someone is paying attention to the fact that a serious number of open-source developers are leaving GPL in droves because it is already too restrictive. What's next, requiring users to publish every line of code running on Linux? A lot (if not most) code changes that GPL PRACTICALLY restricts are stupid customizations that allow someone to make a living, not some generic improvement to the code that people gladly contribute back anyways.
The only useful thing I see about GPL is dual-licensing option, e.g. XPDF.
max khesin.
I think he has gone from an innovative fellow with a fresh idea to some nutcake who just went over the deep end. To say that if I, say, use phpbb for technical support for my company, and I, say, extend search capability but do not redistribute the code anywhere, GPL3 would require me to release the code?
;)
Likewise, if I develop OpenDocument forms and macros created in OpenOffice for internal use, if OOo moves to GPL3, then I'd be required to release my forms and macros to the public?
And, if I use an open source commerce system to sell product, if that open source system is licensed under the GPL, not only would I have to give up custom business logic, but look and feel as well since it is a work produced using an open source project, and give it away FREE to competitors?
Likewise, if I develop a web app using Kdevelop/Quanta+, according to GPL3 it would be a derivative work and cannot be a proprietary program that I can sell or use to my own advantage?
If I were to develop a search engine that is massively, transparently, and reliably clusterable, and uses say, the Linux kernel as its base, and I've extended the kernel to enable that fault-tolerant capability on a massive scale across thousands of servers, I'd be forced under GPL3 to release that source to competitors (MSN, Yahoo, etc.) even though I wouldn't be distributing the product but only offering a service? (Google is the obvious example here)
You are providing exactly the ammo that Microsoft has been claiming in their FUD about open source all along. That is exactly the kind of viral effect Microsoft claims the GPL causes - and up to now Microsoft's FUD is a pure lie, based on GPL1 and GPL2, but if this is actually going to be what GPL3 brings, you've now destroyed any compelling incentive to use open software, leading people right to the Microsoft Windows/Office/Dev Studio shackles, or at least abandoning GPL for BSD, which leads to abuses such as outfits like Microsoft leeching tons of others' work and releasing it as their own (TCP/IP stack, upcoming Monad, and WinFS, which I suspect is based on ReiserFS).
Congratulations RMS, you've become a Microsoft tool, whether you realize it or not. We need an alt.rms.eat.shit.and.die.die.die newsgroup now!
That'll be the end of GPL3. Of course I can still release code under GPL2 for another 100 years.
if i write a website in php, the php i write is not the application executed by the user. The php would create the application for the user, not be the application for the user.
i know php is a bad example as its php license licensed, but you get the gist...
I can see no other law that would make GPL3 enforceble. GPL3 based on DMCA is combination that will make a lot of people barf. Open Source is a lot saner movement than FSF, this whole dicussion proved that much.
The "remote user" is not a user of the software, they are a user of the result of my use of the software.
So, you're claiming you have never used Slashdot or even Google Search. Sure. That makes lots of sense.
The "remote user" is not a user of the software, they are a user of the result of my use of the software.
The "local user" is not a user of Windows XP, they are a user of the result of Windows XP, such as VGA signals to the monitor.
If I hadn't set it up, they wouldn't be able to see the results.
Some desktop PCs have software installed by the IT-department, instead of the PC's assigned operator. But it's the guy sitting at the PC who is using it, not the IT contractors who may be back in India by this time.
Just as code generated by a GPL'd compiler should not be inherently under the GPL, nor should a document created with a GPL'd word processor be automatically GPL'd, the web sites served by a GPL'd web server need not be automatically GPL'd.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
The OP talked about a theoretical GPL3 where "websites running GPL software being required to release their source code". I was pointing out how such language was very far reaching and the language Richard used was far more limiting in reach.
Expounding upon your understanding of the GPL2 is irrelevant to this discussion, as we are talking about a GPL3 and the additional language it may hold. Never? We are talking about a no-yet-existing GPL3 and the language it might have. I don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
More social control from a supposedly "free as in freedom" license, I see.
*dons flame-retardant suit*
Apparently you can't have a free people and get them to do what is "good for the community" without forcing them to do so. [1]
Remember, freedom is slavery kids...
[1] Not that this comes as a surprise to anybody who has studied socialism and/or communism. It's the same problem of "freedom and community good vs. social control to enforce the goals of the community" all over again, but rather than occurring in international politics, it is occurring in the virtual politics of end-user license agreements.
(As long as I'm at it: go BSDL!)
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
I use linux because I happen to think it's far, far better than Windows, thanks.
"Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
Ok, so if someone allows me to use software installed on their computer (corporate computer, web server, ISP, koisk, leased computer / TV-top box, etc.), and they derived that software from someone else's GPL 2 licenced software, then it's not been distributed to me, so they don't have to give me the source code.
I can see how that could become an issue. But then if I'm depending on someone else's computer, then that could become an issue anyway. And trying to prevent the former issue could get complicated.
What if I've been allowed to work on source code on someone else's computer? This hasn't been distributed to me either?
If they've allowed me to install the software on my computer, then it has been distributed to me, and they do have to give me the source code. The GPL 3 aims to clarify requirements or fix loopholes to prevent the source code being rendered less useful through patent restrictions, DRM, etc. This sounds like a good idea.
As to using software on someone else's computer, perhaps it would be more practical to instead add a restriction that the server/koisk/computer, etc. display a message like "This [whatever] is the property of [whoever]." This would stop people from falling into the trap of thinking "this is my TV-top box", if it's on perpetual lease or something.
I don't know under what particular circumstances it would be sensible to require this message, and what to do with e-mail servers and the like that can't display the message. Anyway, just a thought.
Just a quick reminder: Quake III uses OpenGL.
Didn't I tell you you were wasting your time with that troll?
Oh right. I forgot about that. It's been quite a long time since I've used quake3 so I forgot (woops).
/usr/bin/xine should just be like "Hey! it's a +x file! Try to with that!" but nooooooo that stupid shit dialog has to parse my entire /use/bin directory (a good 45 seconds) and THEN select xine EVERYTIME I try to open a avi file where the server doesn't send a mimetype (since firefox in linux is a bit retarded about remembering mime/file association settings in 1.5/1.0.x). ... err a bit offtopic, but a much needed rant anyhow.
Even still, I could add more steps if I specified that the videocard was a Voodoo2 or other things like that. The point I was getting at is with current distribution of operating systems, linux is pulling ahead with some, I repeat SOME, features, but I suppose windows is doing the exact same thing. An example would be default sound support in today's distributions of linux vs. Windows. Course, windows easily kills that statement with "you still oversample +20db when you set 100% to all channels...". Windows is pulling ahead of linux, still, with its ease of use, and is playing the catch up game with system stability (I suppose that when you hardly reconfigure repeatedly it would work fine, but I am a performance freak... I perhaps tweak too many services/settings and windows finally throws in the towel). That ease of use thing, clearly shown in gnome 2.10... Why the HELL does it have to open the parent folder when I type in the name of the app to associate an application with MIME in firefox? Typing in
[!] No, I can't see my comments. They are not worthy of +3 moderation.
Yes, and copyright law is on my side. It recognizes that if a big company buys a single copy of a book and hands out photocopies for all their employees to use on the job, they have infringed copyright by distributing unauthorized reproductions.
Sure i cannot buy 10 copies of Windows, Delphi, Oracle, etc and install it on 20 computers for 20 users. That software (same as the book) is not GPLed.
But i can purchase 10 boxes of Debian Linux, and then install it on 20 machines. Debian Linux is GPLed.
Going back to, say, RedHat Enterprise - then it contains not-GPLed software and i cannot that software on more than 10 computers. The rest of RHEL - i can distribute to 20 PCs.
...but indeed it is quite uneasy to caught the thief red handed.
Although projects like XVid and NetFilter managed to do it several times.
http://gpl-violations.org/about.html#why
If the license requires sites to publish the source code of the GPL software used, won't this make it easier for trouble-makers to see exactly what version/revisions of the software you're using and which bugs/flaws are still unpatched?
I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.