GPL 3.0 Rewrite Drive Is No Democracy

linumax writes "Users will be free to comment on the upcoming complex and technical draft versions of the GNU General Public License 3.0 in an easy way, according to Eben Moglen, general counsel for the Free Software Foundation. However, Moglen said Wednesday, speaking at the Open Source Business Conference here, the rewrite of the GPL is not an election and there will be no voting on its clauses. In a session entitled GPL 3.0: Directions, Implications, Casualties, Moglen said that when GPL 2.0 was promulgated some 14 years ago, very few people cared about it. On the advice of a few dozen people and a couple of lawyers, it was written and released. "That was a fine system then. It is not a fine system now. I expect the process around GPL 3.0, when it begins in some 60 to 90 days' time, to collect a great deal of comment from people on the draft documents... ", He said."

Comments

Why would it be a democracy?

[winkydink]

Everybody knows those GNU people are a bunch of Commies. :)

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[spxero]

And hippies. With beards :)

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[AuMatar]

You apparently don't understand the difference between economic and political systems. Communism does not imply non-democratic. In fact, it works best in democracies. On the same path, capitalistic does not imply democratic- in fact, it lend itself best to oligarchies.

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[Erioll]

I went to a lecture that Stallman gave once. Your description is accurate. Though I would definitely add "zealot" to that as well. Not necessarily a bad thing (some zealots are always needed), but he does come on pretty strong.

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[Anonymous Coward]

When I read the grandparent, I instantly forsaw some self-important know-it-all making a humorless reply. You didn't disappoint. Thanks!

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[winkydink]

No, actually I do. I also understand the difference between commaon usage and dictionary definitions. It's a fucking joke, not an intellectual treatise.

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[wheelbarrow]

Tell me more about your communist democracy. Let's say that I am a snow cone maker. It costs me about 10 cents in syrup, ice, and equipment depreciation. I decide to charge 25 cents for a snow cone. Is that OK in your communist democracy? Is that pricing and production level completely my choice as a free individual?

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[Sam Haine '95]

Tell me more about your communist democracy. Let's say that I am a snow cone maker. It costs me about 10 cents in syrup, ice, and equipment depreciation. I decide to charge 25 cents for a snow cone. Is that OK in your communist democracy? Is that pricing and production level completely my choice as a free individual?

Good luck selling your snow cones in Siberia, comrade.

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[AuMatar]

Umm, there's nothing about democracy in that. Your question does not have anything to do with the government. Democracy!=individual free choice. That would be anarchy, a governmental system where everyone is allowed ot do whatever they want whenever they want. Democracy is where people vote on the laws. Similar to its close relative republic, where people vote on people to vote on laws. You can have a democracy that sets price cielings and floors quite easily. See agriculture (price floors through buying excess crops) and rents (price cielings, by setting max rents in NYC) in parts of the US.

Apparently no, you don't understand the difference between the two.

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Employe owned companies: workers own means of production, vote on how the company should work and works in free markets. Ain't communism grand?

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[SquadBoy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_p roletariat

Not expressing an opinion on who is right or wrong. But just saying you would do well to get your facts straight.

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[AuMatar]

AGain, you confiuse govenrnment and economic systems. Government is about how you enact laws. Economic systems is about who owns property and how its distributed. A democracy can very easily be a communism- they just have to vote to be one. In fact, its the most natural form of a communism, since in a communism everyone is supposed to have equal ownership- equal votes. Thus the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is similar to the "tyranny of the masses" normally caused by pure democracies.

Democracy most notably does NOT mean free, in any sense of the word. Its quite possible to have a democracy where you vote to take away freedom (or even the life) of certain groups or certain people. In fact, the first democracy, Athens, did just that on a regular basis. It was called the lottery. Thats the major problem wiht pure democracies- 50%+1 wins, even if it screws over a sizable minority. Its one of the reasomns why the US is a republic instead.

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[BigBuckHunter]

Erm. "Communism and Democracy" are apples. "Socialism and Capitalism" are oranges. You can't compare socialism to democracy, nor can you compare Communism to Capatalism.... It just doesn't work that way. Democracies usually don't vote on the rules/laws, else the minorities would get no protection (and slavery wouldn't have been abolished). Things aren't democratic if there are restrictions as to whom may vote.

BBH

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[AuMatar]

You have it backwards. Study some economics or polsci. Communism is an economic method where the employees own the means of production. Capitalism is an economic system where the investors own the means of production (these can be, but rarely are, the employees). Democracy is a means of governance where people vote on laws directly (and no, not everyone has to have a vote. Athens was a democracy, but only mean of property could vote. All you need is a substantial portion of the population allowed to vote). Socialism is a hard to define bastard term- it originally was an offshoot of communism, but now tends to be used to describe economic systems where the government (not the people!) control the means of production.

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Communism is about renouncing private property (and taking away properties from those who have some) and sharing things in the name of the Greater Good.

No it's not, it's about workers owning the means of production. You are thinking about state communism which is just a pecific implentation of the idea.

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[wheelbarrow]

You did not answer my question: Is it OK, in your Democratic Communism, for me to set my own prices for the snowcones I sell?

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[WhiplashII]

No; in a truely democratic communistic society, we would vote to decide the price. Everyone but you would vote that it should be free. Then we would take your snowcones, and you would try to get out of the country before the next vote (where we take whatever you have left)!

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[petrus4]

Socialism is a hard to define bastard term- it originally was an offshoot of communism, but now tends to be used to describe economic systems where the government (not the people!) control the means of production.

No...A socialist more honestly (in my observation, at least) is usually a closet Communist who doesn't want to admit such to himself or other people. (usually because he's scared that nobody will listen to his opinions if he does) The term "progressive" is another such euphemism for closet Communism. Most of the authors on commondreams.org (as but one example of "progressive" closet Communist websites) would protest violently if accused of being Communist, but yet the site hosts blatant Marxist advocacy such as this.

Ditto for the Nazis. (Although they were fascists, not Commies) They used the term "national socialist" because it combined connotations of nationalism/patriotism, and socialism...both terms which they thought would appeal to the population and sound like what they wanted to hear.

There's never been a bigger lie told than the one about Communism dying with the collapse of the Soviet Union. What that lie has done has been to make Communism far more palatable...because it enables Communists to maintain and propogate their existing belief systems under such euphemisms as the above.

Microsoft were correct to call Stallman a Communist. By definition, he is...because he insists that the means of production (source code/tools for creating programs in this case) be owned/freely usable by the workers. (programmers) You might say that there is a distinction between end users and programmers (the "workers" in this context) but the UNIX paradigm in particular makes no such distinction. Whether or not it is a good or bad thing is a subject for another debate, but it is true that the paradigms Stallman advocates put capitalism (at least where software is concerned) on the endangered species list. The reason why is because Stallman has the attitude that his way is the *only* correct or acceptable way...he is completely intolerant of views differing from his own.

In some situations, I do actually think that a Communist-like economic approach can be a good thing...for intangibles like power generation, net access, software, and so on. But for physical objects it doesn't work.

Capitalism works on the presumption of the creation of a monopoly, or the *scarcity* of a given commodity...so for physical non-renewables like oil, precious metals, and even agriculture, it works well. Economic Communism on the other hand does have some viable applications, but is much more favourable to dealing with intangible commodities that are abundant/inexhaustible. (Which is why software piracy/trading is as prevalent as it is, and why open source itself can work) This is repugnant to the exclusively capitalistic mind because it does not involve hard fiat currency changing hands, but what such capitalist fanatics are missing is that trade still takes place, just not in monetary form...if you have a file that I want, and I have a file that you want, we both upload, and we both get what we want. So in that sense it's closer to barter. Capitalism is hostile to barter/non-liquid forms of trade because it holds the use of liquid (capital) to be the catalyst which starts/enables its reaction, if you like.

The trick is to be willing to accept both Capitalism and economic Communism on an emotional as well as an intellectual level, and to be able to determine which paradigm is likely to be more viable in each situation. They're both part of the ecosystem, and they can both work to solve different economic problems...the real problem is when people start insisting that only one of them should exist at the expense/exclusion of the other.

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[GreyWolf3000]

I want to hug you.

This witty retort just restored my faith that here on Slashdot, somewhere, there are actual intelligent people left, and not just basement-dwelling wannabes who need to hied behind their snooty online identity to compensate for their inevitably miserable lives.

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[mqduck]

Without making any other comment, I just want to mention that the concept of communists talking all the time about the "greater good" is an invention, a tiny myth propagated by anti-communists and the ignorant. You're obviously the first, and you make yourself sound like the later.

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[mqduck]

I'm sure you didn't mean it so literally, but there are of course restrictions on who can vote. But I agree in general. For instance, the United States won't let felons vote, one of the million ways the poor are disenfranchised.

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[WhiplashII]

BTW, Karl Marx has been definitively proven wrong. One of the base tenets of his theory leading to communism is that as capitalistic economies progress, the people that own the means of production take all the profits, leaving nothing for the workers. It turns out that the division of profit between labor and capital is and has been ~75% labor, ~25% capital for as long as we can measure. This turns out to be a direct consequence of the ratio between the marginal productivity of labor and the marginal productivity of capital.

Interesting stuff!

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[Bruce Perens]

You are confusing democracy and free markets vs controlled markets. In a free market, someone else would sell Ice Cream for 15 cents, and you'd buy from him. In a controlled market, the price would be set at a level that would allow the ice cream maker to make a living. The ice cream maker is incented to increase efficiency in order to increase his margin. In the free market system, the market responds to that by lowering prices if all vendors can use the same efficiencies. In the controlled market system, the same may or may not happen.

Now, tell me which system you live in. In many cases, what we think is free market really isn't.

Bruce

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[BigBuckHunter]

For instance, the United States won't let felons vote

Actually, some states do allow it. Not that it matters at a state level, as the constitution strictly disallows us to prevent them (taxpayers)from voting . It's that entire "no taxation without representation" thing. If felons aren't allowed to vote, then they shouldn't be forced to pay taxes either. Preventing anyone from voting is a disallowed under the constitution (if they pay taxes), including felons, kids under 18, women, "negros", homosexuals, etc...

BBH

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI, it is entirely possible that communism (or fascism, both meaning total elimination of individual freedom) would come about through democracy. The eventual outcome of any government is, as history shows and the US experiment in limited government confirms, to expand government power for the benefit of the power elite.

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[mlyle]

Where does it say that? ;)

I think you might want to check into that a bit. The closest you're going to find is Articles XV and XIX:

Article XV.

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Article XIX.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

I don't see anything about taxation in there (the 'no taxation without representation' thing was a common refrain before the revolutionary war; it's not contained in the constitution). I also don't see any mention of not infringing the right to vote based on age or criminal history. Want to give me a cite? Thanks.

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[Marx's Ghost]

What are you smoking? Not even a diehard capitalist would stand by numbers like that, with any basic education. Did you learn that in 101?

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[TeXMaster]

You got it all right until the end. Being a republic is orthogonal to being democratic. Republic is the opposite of monarchy, and it refers to nation that have a res publica, something which is not owned by anybody (in particular the King) and is therefor property of everybody/nobody. A republic does not have to be democratic in any way.

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[idonthack]

My thoughts exactly, but you put it into words better than I can.

Sorry I don't have mod points.
---
If nobody notices, it's not illegal.
Generated by SlashdotRndSig via GreaseMonkey

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[Ricin]

"No...A socialist more honestly (in my observation, at least) is usually a closet Communist who doesn't want to admit such to himself or other people. (usually because he's scared that nobody will listen to his opinions if he does) The term "progressive" is another such euphemism for closet Communism. Most of the authors on commondreams.org (as but one example of "progressive" closet Communist websites) would ... "

Now define antiwar.com. A rightwing site with many the same analyses and conclusions. You know what, even Pat Buchanan actually has some interesting things to say now and then. The man has probably been demonized for a long time. Justin Raimondo is one of those bloggers that informed people will want to read. Just as much as (left wing Texan) billmon.org. I read both. And counterpunch. Good for your independant thinking.

Who's having a non-discussion here?

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[G-funk]

Isn't it a little cold in siberia for snowcones?

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[duffbeer703]

Until recently, possessing the ability to read was a special privledge only granted to the elite of society. Even european fuedal lords were dependent on the Catholic clergy to maintain records and communicate with the outside world.

Computer systems are avenues of expression. And while Stallman is an extremist who wants all information to be free, the corporate conglomorates want just the opposite -- to own everything.

Just as the feudal lords demanded tribute from travellers moving across their lands, Disney, Time Warner, RIAA-labels, represent the other extreme that wants to control what you see, hear and read. Want to watch Disney's Song of the South? Too bad. Lose the DRM key that controls access to your media? Tough.

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Communism precludes liberal democracy which is what pretty much everyone understands by the term "democracy" these days. Of course you can have other kinds of democracy in Communist states, "Sham" being one of the more popular.

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[adrianmonk]

AGain, you confiuse govenrnment and economic systems. Government is about how you enact laws. Economic systems is about who owns property and how its distributed. A democracy can very easily be a communism- they just have to vote to be one. In fact, its the most natural form of a communism, since in a communism everyone is supposed to have equal ownership- equal votes.

True, in theory a communist country can also be democratic. But, in practice the allocation of resources is extremely labor-intensive. If private enterprise and private decision-making doesn't control that process, then the government must. Therefore, the government has to be extremely big and extremely powerful, and it has to have a recognized authority to intervene in the everyday affairs of every citizen's life in any matter that involves the allocation of resources. And the really huge problem with allocation of resources is that every decision is always very, very controversial, because someone always feels they are being given the short end of the stick. Since in a communist country, the government is making all these decisions, the government has to have the means to enforce its decisions even when they are bitterly opposed, which they will often be since the government is by definition taking from one group and giving to another (otherwise they wouldn't be involved).

The result is that communist countries tend to move toward becoming totalitarian. Because the state has such a massive role in everything, its size and its power balloons out of control. And after a while they end up not being democracies. Yes, maybe it's possible for a communist country to be democratic and stay that way, but it just doesn't happen very often.

Also, in my wn view there is a second effect, too: because communism necessarily means less individual freedom, it tends to only be a reasonable compromise for a country that has a relatively low standard of living. If most people in a country are living in serious poverty, they are willing to give up a lot to ensure that the resources are spread as fairly as possible. But once the standard of living improves and the typical person has a reasonably comfortable standard of living, the balance shifts and personal freedoms become more important since poverty is no longer a crisis. Once the country hits the point where unequal distribution of wealth is less of a problem than lack of personal freedoms, the government has to do one of two things: either it has to shrink and give up power and give the citizens more freedoms (which rarely happens) or it has to become even more authoritarian and clamp down on personal freedoms by any and all means necessary in order to enforce the status quo.

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[aled]

in my observation, at least, someone who thinks socialists or progressives are the same as communist is usually a closet facist, who would protest violently if called so.
Do you feel like protesting?

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no 'wrong' modifier.

If you were to take the distribution of wealth in the USA, and apply it to $100 among 100 people:

• 1 person gets $38.10
• 4 people get $5.32 each
• 5 people get $2.30 each
• 10 people get $1.25 each
• 20 people get $0.60 each
• 20 people get $0.23 each
• 40 people get 1/2 cent each

Now, I'm not sure of the work the richest 5% of the population does, but I would bet good money that is not a lot to none at all. And I'm sure the US doesn't have a 40% unemployment rate, so a good number of that bottom 40 must be workin' hard. If I recall correctly, the idea behind communism is:

• 1 person gets $1.00
• 4 people get $1.00 each
• 5 people get $1.00 each
• 10 people get $1.00 each
• 20 people get $1.00 each
• 20 people get $1.00 each
• 40 people get $1.00 each

I may be wrong there, or over-simplifying, but I'm pretty sure that's it.

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[petrus4]

Now define antiwar.com. A rightwing site with many the same analyses and conclusions. You know what, even Pat Buchanan actually has some interesting things to say now and then.

Antiwar.com is most definitely NOT right wing. Justin Raimondo, the site's owner and lead columnist, is fairly openly homosexual. Buchanan might be right wing himself, (albeit in the original sense of the term, mind you...not a closet Trotskyite like most in the current US government) but Raimondo adheres to the old left activist's saying that if none of your allies make you uncomfortable, you haven't cast your net widely enough. What that means in the case of people like Buchanan is that, although it so happens that despite him being right and Raimondo being closer to left, Buchanan wants the Iraq war over for his own reasons, and thus he and Raimondo have at least some degree of common focus.

Being inclusive and accepting of diversity is, in my observation, a major characteristic of the left. I've tended to suspect that as an autistic individual myself, if I was ever going to become politically active, it would have to be with a left party, simply because right wing groups would not accept me.

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[petrus4]

in my observation, at least, someone who thinks socialists or progressives are the same as communist is usually a closet facist, who would protest violently if called so.
Do you feel like protesting?

Not particularly. I'm not authoritarian, but I suppose I do have some views which would probably be characterised as right wing...at least from the point of view that most of the people on Slashdot from what I've seen have tended to consider Capitalism the spawn of Hell. One thing which I *have* been known to react strongly to in the past is attempts to dominate me, and I'm far too lazy to want to rule the planet myself.

I must ask though...have I struck a nerve? ;)

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[petrus4]

Just as the feudal lords demanded tribute from travellers moving across their lands, Disney, Time Warner, RIAA-labels, represent the other extreme that wants to control what you see, hear and read. Want to watch Disney's Song of the South? Too bad. Lose the DRM key that controls access to your media? Tough.

They're not going to succeed at doing that, though...and there are also enough other people opposed to that when they do fail, St Ignucius won't be able to claim complete credit for it, either...Not that that will prevent him from trying, mind you.

I've often wondered why Stallman is so desperate to be percieved as a Messiah. Methinks that he perhaps does not realise the scale of the burden that would be involved in actually being such a figure. Simply trying to *look* like one while taking credit for other people's work is easy. I realise however that that is the other (and probably the main) reason why he bothers me as much as he does; not only is he a narcissistic, demagogic Marxist fanatic, he's also a complete fraud, for the most part.

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[RevAaron]

Well.. Technically, under Marxian socialism and communism, there is democracy. Or rather, there is supposed to be democracy. The crucial difference between a capitalist democracy and a socialist one is that a socialist country adds democracy to the area of the economy, where a capitalist democracy keeps it only within the political arena. Also, most socialists- including Marxian socialists and communists, as well as non-Marxist anarchists- believe in taking democracy further than it has been done within the market democracies.

Even the Soviet Union and other so-called "communist" countries have democracy- it's just sham democracy. As Stalin famously said, the 1936 Soviet constitution was "the most democratic in the world." However, in the Soviet union, as a security measure that was supposed to be temporary, Lenin pushed through the democratic bodies a ban on parties. Parties and "full democracy" was supposed to come back after the civil war, but didn't. I think that's mostly bullshit, but Lenin and Trotsky both had some pretty paternalistic and authoritarian ideas. Something that Marx and Engles never advocated, as well as a lot of other socialist thinkers before Lenin, during the life of the Soviet Union, and after the Fall until today.

Socialism, at least in the form Marx and a lot of other Marxists and anarchists advocated hasn't been tried. Anarchist Spain worked out pretty well, at least during the time they ran their own show before being defated by the fascists. It's not something I expect most folks to understand, but it's always tempting to try to explain.

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[RevAaron]

Is that OK in your communist democracy? Is that pricing and production level completely my choice as a free individual?

That depends. Generally, the answer is "yes." Some socialists believe that profit is morally wrong. A lot of others believe that profit isn't morally wrong, but that it shouldn't be isolated within shareholders or owners, when its the employees who were responsible for producing that wealth. So, depending on who you ask, the pricing is your choice- but the idea is that no one would buy from you since you're gouging them, when from someone else they get a more reasonable price. Most socialists believe in economic democracy; so let's say you are an organization with 10 people- employee-owners. You would decide pricing together, through a vote, rather than one person asuming total control (a boss).

There is no State in a communist society. I'm guessing that you're thinking that Big Brother State will tell you how much the Sno Cone should cost and how many you should make.

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[RevAaron]

"dictatorship of the proletariat" doesn't use the word "dictatorship" in the same way that those of us who know 20th century history are used to. Using the same meaning, the USA or the UK (for example) are examples of a "dictatorship of the bourgeois," because the bourgeois class is the group of people who control most of the wealth and command most of the power. It has nothing to do with a dictatorship in the sense of Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet, etc.

Your so-called communist countries never were communist. And not even socialist. None of thost "communist countries" ever claimed to be communist.

When it comes down to it, a socialist economy has nothing to do with sharing in the name of the Greater Good. Fundamentally, it is about getting the true worth of what you produce with your work. Most workers produce goods and services at their jobs, getting paid a wage. That wage is far below the true worth of what they are producing. That results in profit, wealth that is isolated in a small number of pockets, relative to the number of workers who produced that wealth. Socialists believe that the wealth one produces through work should be his; it isn't about throwing it all into a big pot and sharing, giving everyone the same whether or not they contributed, regardless of hours worked or the job they did.

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[Anonymous Coward]

" previous condition of servitude"

13th - Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

No voting while in "servitude" to the state for conviction and punishment for a crime. Check, makes sense. After you get out of prison/off parole/whatever and are "free" again and no longer in "servitude"? You should be allowed to vote, near as I read it. It should be automatic full manumission.

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, I run my own business. This means I'm a socialist by default? Whatever... you obviously don't understand how it works. Your company charges more for the product you produce, BUT it also provides you with beneifts and generally adds value to the product.

Funny thing is the companies that 'exploit' thier employees the most by Karl Marx' standards (Microsoft, Google, etc) have some of the best jobs in the country, companies that sell things at cost or worse (GM!) have some of the worst jobs and a more unstable outlook.

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[Hurricane78]

Living in an illusion of a democracy that in fact is a economy/commerce-feudalism also does not mean you know what democracy is. ;))

but i think poeple shourd get it: Democracy with humans is as unrealistic as communism with humans. the theory of both of them is not that bad, except for one part: They need humans who rule the system.

But they forget that humans are humans. The *only* reason in nature that we exist is that we "won" over all other life that existed. We still do this even if we don't want it, becasue by the hard rules of nature you simply go extinct if you don't do it. That's one of the - if not *the* - basic concept(s) of evolution, no?
And now those forms of government expect us to be fair? Pretty unrealisitc, huh? ;)

I guess the only thing that will work is some kind of new non-human open-source overlord. ;))
Really... new sourceforge-project anyone???

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[dascandy]

> Thats the major problem wiht pure democracies- 50%+1 wins, even if it screws over a sizable minority. Its one of the reasomns why the US is a republic instead.

That explains it. The US appear to think they can screw over anyone they damn well like, even convict people that have never been to the US based on US laws that don't apply at any time.

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[hdparm]

I'll tell you what the communism is. It's just the fucking excuse made up by tyrants so they can keep screwing-over dumb masses. It is an impossible society that sounds pretty cool to morons who can use their brains only to process and accept propaganda.

Trust me, I lived most of my life in one of those fucked-up countries.

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you can of course define the term "democracy" to mean anything you want for you personally. After all, definitions can never be correct or incorrect, but only more or less useful.

But you should note that the common definition of the term "democracy" both in science and in popular understanding is different from your one. Ancient Athens was not a democracy by any modern standard, and the same is true vice versa.

To an ancient Athenian, *all* the modern democracies would be "oligarchies". To the ancient Athenians, "democracy" did not mean that some majority *elects* a government, but that the majority (more precisely: the "demos") actually *does* the government (thus, democracy = "government by the demos"). This was possible because the "demos" was relatively small and you did not need experts in the administration, so through rotation of positions, it was possible to "let the demos do the government".

On the other hand, by modern understanding, to be characterized as a democracy, a society needs to fullfill at least these criteria:

• A government that is legitimated by the people through free elections.
• Guarranty of certain basic individual rights, especially minority rights. This totally *contradicts* ideas like the "dictatorship of the masses". Even in periods of the Athenian democracy, the demos was not allowed to do anything it wanted, btw (e.g. it was not allowed to abolish the Athenian democracy).
• A working juridical system.
• Guarranty of certain social freedoms like freedom of the press, etc

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[moro_666]

Even the Soviet Union and other so-called "communist" countries have democracy- it's just sham democracy.


please use the word had. the soviet union collapsed 15 years ago, it's time you people get over it :)

and actually communism and democracy aren't the oppositing fields here, democracy is opposed by dictatorship , communism is opposed by capitalism.

and wether you like it or not, from the financial/intellectical point of view, the gpl is really communism all they way through ... and most of it's supporters come not from the former soviet union (actually russian programmers for example think mostyl about profit nowadays ...)

dont be scared thou, communism and socialism as presented by gpl isnt really that bad (the only bad communism we had was the one of stalin's, where capitalists where shot or sent to siberia ...)

however i still like bsd licence more ... plain-clean-simple == enough for me.

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[Ed Avis]

A capitalist system does have democracy in the economic area, but some people have more votes than others, depending on how much money they have. Economic decisions are made by the collective buying power of individuals deciding what to buy, how many hours to work, what to invest in, rather than by a central authority. Monopolies and other market imperfections make it more difficult for individual voices to be heard, of course (e.g. at the supermarket I can't decide directly which suppliers to buy from, only those that have been selected for me by the supermarket's buying department); also a lot of 'voting power' is aggregated in firms, and while those are nominally controlled by their shareholders, the management of the company can tend to follow its own interests rather than listen to shareholders.

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[humina]

The problem with your communist commentary is the fact that you left freedom out of the equation. In communist Russia the government owned everything including the press. it could therefore limit what could and could not be printed. Since the government also owned the prisons it could take unfavorable journalists and do whatever they wanted with them in their prisons or gulags. Communism is often associated with the government oppression of dissent (whether this is fair or not is beside the point that the association is there). Since RMS stresses freedom, it does not help in understanding what he stands for by calling him a communist. He does not want to jail proprietary software developers. He wants to increase the freedom that software users and developers have. I would describe RMS as a software freedom advocate.

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[NoMercy]

Democracy (eg republic) is the oposite of autocracy (eg dictatorship)
Communism is the oposite of capitalism.

There are capitalist dictatorships, and communist democracys... well in theory at least, unfortunately most communist democracys are horridly corrupt, and you tend to have one party which /always/ gets into power, in the soviet days they even gave out vodka at some polling stations to get people to come along and vote for the only candidate that was standing.

Go on write it out 100 times: "Communism is an economic system not a political system"

And then hope you never live under communist economic system or a in a dictatorship.

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[vandan]

Well said, comrade :)

Thank Christ there are some people who have some idea about what the topic they're engaged in.

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[sl0w]

Wow! Thanks to CivIII and CivIV, I understand what he just said!

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[rjstanford]

the constitution strictly disallows us to prevent them (taxpayers)from voting

Er, no it doesn't. Someone else posted the revelant sections, but let me add a personal note - I'm not a US citizen, but I live in the US (and have for about 20 years now, I am a permanent resident). I don't get to vote. I can guarantee you that I have to pay taxes.

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[Rockin' Az]

Those who fail to understand philosophical distinctions and the fallacy of cold war ideological dichotomies are doomed to repeat them.

A. de Rozario 2005

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, why would it be a democracy?

If you don't like the GPL 3.0, then write your own license!

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[iamacat]

I dunno, it depends on weather people voted for a law that sets price controls for ice cream. If they also voted on a communist economy though, quarters and dimes are only useful as collector's items. You get syrup and ice for free, give out your ice cream cones to anyone who wants them and just take whatever you need for your normal life. Kind of like using GPLed software. Hmm...

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[petrus4]

Since RMS stresses freedom, it does not help in understanding what he stands for by calling him a communist.

Actually, it does, for the reasons I've already outlined. The other thing you're missing is that the definition of freedom in Stallman's vocabulary is the freedom to do exactly what he decrees, and only what he decrees. He tries to marginalise licenses (the BSD and MIT licenses are both good examples) which don't conform with his ideas.

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[petrus4]

Those who fail to understand philosophical distinctions and the fallacy of cold war ideological dichotomies are doomed to repeat them.

I understand that that is the convenient response, yes...the one that doesn't require thinking. I already responded to the "Communism is dead" canard though, so I don't really feel a need to again here. As I said though...I've noticed that the main people who object to my insistence that Communism is in fact not dead are among the aforementioned closet Commies themselves, who primarily resent the fact that I've blown their cover. ;-)

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[WhiplashII]

Youare talking about the distribution of wealth, I am talking about the distribution of income. Obviously, some people have hoarded high incomes, and now have high wealth - but that does not change the basic relationship of about 75% of income goes to workers, 25% of income goes to return on capital. It comes down to the fact that putting in more capital gives about a 25% return, and putting in more labor gives about a 75% return (not quite that simple, but that's where you start). Look up "GDP marginal return on capital" to get started (that is probably not the official name, but some good stuff seems to appear in that search).

It really is amazing how little people know about economics. For example: Does saving more (by custom or fiat) cause sustainable economic growth?

BTW, most of the people in the top 5% of the US work harder and smarter than everyone else to get there (although there is a lot of luck involved, of course). Think about all the rich people you known (though admittedly, I probably have a better sample than you) - 1. Bill Gates 2. Warren Buffett 3. Paul Allen 4. Helen Walton 5. S. Robson Walton 6. John Walton 7. Jim Walton 8. Alice Walton 9. Larry Ellison 10. Michael Dell, and that guy you know that built a company and sold it. What do they have in common? They worked their buts off, and were better at what they did than everyone else. (Admittedly, the Waltons had their father/husband work hard and now they are executives, but they still work long hours).

Really, don't just believe what you have been told - challenge it, predict the effect of their proposal on the real world (where people do not work hard for $1, they only give $1 worth of work). You cannot just give away money - money is a measure that you use to determine if you will get fed if you give away non-food related labor. If the government gives away money, then I know that accepting your money in exchange for something you want from me will not result in food getting made... unless you think farmers should work for free... and transport companies... and packagers... etc

To see what happens when the government tries to take money from people and give it to other people, see Argentina. They started as one of the best economies in the world (higher growth than the US!), and then Unions and expensive government totally destroyed it.

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[Rockin' Az]

I don't disagree with you that Communism isn't dead. Communism is a political philosophy and philosophies don't die - they just become more or less popular. And yes I through in a quick, response that did not present a coherent counter-argument (alas lack of time - which I am doing again). I just think that your definition of communism is overly broad and therefore not useful. As it happens the reason you felt the need to make the statement you did is because the poster you were replying to didn't understand the socialism/communism distinction at all.

One feature of communism that I don't think features much with progressives etc, is the idea of revolution and the (armed) overthrow of the capitalist state. Many progressives are in favour of wealth redistribution, a greater emphasis on the needs of society as a whole (rather than policies that encourage individualism) etc, but I don't see much advocacy of armed revolution.

Anyway I haven't read your other posts and I've still got plenty of work to do etc, so I'm not really in a position to criticise your position. Have fun.

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[japhmi]

Many progressives are in favour of wealth redistribution, a greater emphasis on the needs of society as a whole (rather than policies that encourage individualism) etc, but I don't see much advocacy of armed revolution.

Right, because they want to use the government to do the armed revolution for them. They want to use taxes to "redistribute" financial wealth. If someone doesn't pay their taxes, then people with guns come to take you to prison. Their idea of armed revolution is silent, but it's still there.

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[squiggleslash]

Socialism is a hard to define bastard term- it originally was an offshoot of communism, but now tends to be used to describe economic systems where the government (not the people!) control the means of production.

Seriously, why did you even say that?

Socialism predates Communism. It started with Robert Owen's attempts in the early nineteenth century to improve living and working conditions for the workers in his mills.

As for "now tends to be used", why yes, it does, misleadingly, but not exclusively and rarely accurately. Two of the most successful examples of socialism are entirely non-governmental - they being the trade union movement, and the cooperative movement. Your definition is so wide it could be used to describe the government of Germany in the 1930s, or most other Fascist regimes, groups ideologically opposed to socialists and socialism.

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[BigBuckHunter]

Thank you for beating me to it.

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[BigBuckHunter]

Someone else posted the revelant sections, but let me add a personal note - I'm not a US citize

But you are free to vote. Simply become a US citizen (which you are free to do), else go vote in your own country. Me thinks you want to eat your cake.

BBH

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[duffbeer703]

"They're not going to succeed at doing that, though"

Don't count on it -- the great consolidation of media has made it possible to control most mainstream literature and recordings. Do you expect somebody on Viacom/CBS/Simon&Schuster's CBS to speak out about copyright injustices?

I'm not a Stallman fan by any stretch of the imagination; but he represents the other extreme and does deserve some credit for managing to be heard.

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[drsquare]

Of course, there were free elections in the Soviet Union, and China is a bastion of freedom and democracy.

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[petrus4]

One feature of communism that I don't think features much with progressives etc, is the idea of revolution and the (armed) overthrow of the capitalist state.

This depends on your definition of the term revolution. They generally don't advocate doing it by force of arms, no...but even the mildest definition of a progressive would usually in my observation imply someone who sees society as a dynamic, changing entity, and they very often have a vision of what they want to see society move towards, as well. So it could to a degree be defined as revolutionary, if the person in question seeks replacement of the paradigms/institutions that exist at the current time. Wikipedia talks about there being some socialists/Communists who have the idea that a capitalist state's own institutions should be used to assist in the process of destroying it.

It's also worth remembering that pacifism is a concept primarily associated with the left, so while they don't advocate armed revolution, in many cases with different things they will advocate what they see as passive forms of civil disobedience. (At least a thirst for) martyrdom and attempting to at least appear to take the moral high ground are two signature tactics of Richard Stallman in particular, and the left in general. The left know from long experience that the appearance at least of having the moral high ground is of extreme importance in asymmetrical (geurilla) warfare. (Stallman vs corporations like Microsoft, as one example)

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[petrus4]

Don't count on it -- the great consolidation of media has made it possible to control most mainstream literature and recordings. Do you expect somebody on Viacom/CBS/Simon&Schuster's CBS to speak out about copyright injustices?

No, but they don't need to. The internet allows people to entirely create their own artistic/journalistic infrastructure/ecosystem. There are tons of alternative news sources online now, and they're not all run/participated in by the left, either.

Broadband Internet access, peer to peer distribution, and widely available 3D/video editing software mean that individuals don't need to rely on conventional media for their news any more, and if people were more proactive, it'd mean we wouldn't have to rely on conventional media for entertainment, either. If not enough people know how to use 3D editing software, they should learn. It's not difficult, and there are several packages available now, the combination of which mean that laypeople can now do anything TV stations can. The tools are available for people to bypass the media conglomerates completely...they know this, and they're extremely worried about it. People just need to start using said tools.

Re:Why would it be a democracy?

[rjstanford]

But you are free to vote. Simply become a US citizen (which you are free to do), else go vote in your own country. Me thinks you want to eat your cake

Hey, I wasn't complaining, merely clarifying a misconception. I do, after all, pay US taxes. And your comment, while true, was along the same lines as saying, "Well, its easy for everyone to go to Washington DC, just get a car and drive it (or walk for a while) and you're there." Completely true, but not the whole story.

Wait wait wait...

[Spy der Mann]

does that mean that the GPL is *NOT* open source? (you can see but you can't touch)?

But... I thought... GPL... open... *HEAD EXPLODES*

Re:Wait wait wait...

[Deathbane27]

You're certainly free to write your own version and release software under that new version's license (assuming it wasn't already released under GPL 3), but you get to call it something else.

Re:Wait wait wait...

[Red Alastor]

It's as open source as Red Hat. You are free to reuse the code but not the trademark. If you modify it, rename it.

Beside, this non-democracy is exactly how it should be. People having a clue about law get together to write a legal bullet proof license. They will take comments from the community to improve it but there won't be any vote.

It's the same way open source projects works. Do you think Linux is a democracy ?

What keeps developers (and license writers) honest is that if they go too far, someone can fork.

Re:Wait wait wait...

[Trevahaha]

I believe the GPL allows you to copy it only in whole, not sections. So technically, GPL doesn't allow you to take it and modify it for your own use... even if you rename it.

Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc. 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

Re:Wait wait wait...

[HunterZ]

That statement doesn't make any sense because the act of changing it would by definition make it become a different license document.

Re:Wait wait wait...

[Trevahaha]

They say you have to copy it verbatim. They don't say "in whole or in part." So that means it would violate copyright if I took sections of the GPL (verbatim) and made my own GPL.

Re:Wait wait wait...

[jmv]

does that mean that the GPL is *NOT* open source?

No, it is not. The GPL is copyrighted by the FSF and modifications to it are not allowed.

Re:Wait wait wait...

[Dwonis]

Can contracts be copyrighted?

Re:Wait wait wait...

[Bruce Perens]

The text of the GPL is constrained to be the same everywhere, so that we don't get a million GPL flavors that aren't compatible with each other and increase the combinatorial problem, as happened with the Mozilla licenses. There must be more than a dozen Mozilla license variants now. They breed like tribbles, and are just as annoying.

Bruce

Re:Wait wait wait...

[Bruce Perens]

Yes, contracts can be copyrighted. And in addition, you don't get to change the license that someone else has put on their own work.

Re:Wait wait wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the point is that it's ironic that GPL is about taking code and using it for what you want to do with it, but the actual GPL cannot be customized and released as something like "My GPL."

Re:Wait wait wait...

[Bruce Perens]

The GPL turns copyright on its head. It's fair play to use copyright to do that.

Bruce

Re:Wait wait wait...

[SilentUrbanFox]

They breed like tribbles, and are just as annoying.

But are they as cute?

Re:Wait wait wait...

[Dwonis]

That certainly was not my point. I didn't even have a point; I was asking a question. The reason I asked is that I was curious to find out if contracts fell into the same sort of exceptional category as "facts" do. (IIRC, you can't copyright, for example, the ionization energy of potassium bromide.)

For the record, I think the last thing we need is a bunch of licences that look like the GPL we're all familiar with, but that are not, in fact, the GPL.

Re:Wait wait wait...

[adrianmonk]

The text of the GPL is constrained to be the same everywhere, so that we don't get a million GPL flavors that aren't compatible with each other and increase the combinatorial problem, as happened with the Mozilla licenses.

Let me play devil's advocate for a minute. If increasing the number of licencses floating around is bad, why are they writing a new version of the GPL? I'm sure there are reasons in favor of it, but that is what everyone says when they create a new and incompatible license. Sun had reasons for creating its own license when releasing OpenSolaris. I'm sure the FSF has reasons, but why is the FSF any different? Why should they be treated specially?

Versions 2 and 3 will still be different licenses even though they both share the "GPL" name. To what extent will code licensed under V2 be compatible with code licensed under V3 and so on? Can I mix code that is under V1-or-V2-only license with code that is under V3-or-later license? Doesn't the V3 GPL place restrictions on the use of code that the V2 GPL doesn't, and wouldn't that make them incompatible? Can I take V2-only-licensed code and incorporate it into a V3-or-later project? I agree the problem goes away if one package says "V2 or later" and the other says "V3 or later" or something, but the same argument can be made about all incompatible licenses: GPL and BSD are incompatible, but if you release a package under both, then its code can be mixed with other code licensed under either, so I don't see how that's any different either, except perhaps that some software already says "V2 or later" and therefore implicitly includes V3, whereas relatively little software is licensed under (say) both BSD and GPL.

Re:Wait wait wait...

[gscrivano]

It will be not so different from GPL 2, there is no reason to fear such things.

Re:Wait wait wait...

[Bruce Perens]

FSF intends to retire GPL 2 - which means not recommending it for new work. FSF also has, for much software, a transition path from GPL 2 to GPL 3, because of the line criticized elsewhere in this thread. And FSF recognizes real problems in the license that must be addressed. Also, FSF has deprecated LGPL in favor of GPL-with-exception, reducing the number of licenses one need deal with. So, IMO they are handling the combinatorial problem more responsibly than others.

To what extent will code licensed under V2 be compatible with code licensed under V3 and so on?

It is a goal for GPL 3 that it be compatible with GPL 2. But I'm not sure how this can be achieved while fixing some of the problems also on the goal list. Time will tell.

Bruce

Re:Wait wait wait...

[squiggleslash]

As others have pointed out, not really. You can't modify the GPL, you have to choose it or choose something else (like a written-from-scratch thing that achieves the aims you want to achieve.)

That said, you can also dual license or add licenses. There's nothing to stop you saying "This is provided under the terms of the GPL, you may also link this code with this other bit of code, as long as you...(etc etc.)" Linus Torvalds did something similar to ensure people were aware that the fact your program is written to load and execute under the Linux kernel using the Linux APIs does not mean it has to be subject to the GPL in the same way as a kernel modification would be. Arguably, it was unnecessary, but he did it anyway.

Moglen is mistaken

[Scareduck]

However, Moglen said Wednesday, speaking at the Open Source Business Conference here, the rewrite of the GPL is not an election and there will be no voting on its clauses. He couldn't be more wrong. If people don't like the rewrite, they won't use it.

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[Anonymous Coward]

no kidding. thats the problem with these groups. they fail to realize that people wont use what they dont like.

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[epiphani]

My Problem:

  * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
  * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
  * the Free Software Foundation; either version 1, or (at your option)
  * any later version.

This is on my software. If I dont like GPL 3.0, and dont want my software distributed under it, I'm already screwed.

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[pe1rxq]

That would be voting about its use. No matter is nobody uses it it still won't affect the actual license.
They do NOT get to vote on what is in the license.

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[ashot]

is that really what it says? Thats pretty silly, why would they do that?

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[pimpsoftcom]

He couldn't be more wrong. If people don't like the rewrite, they won't use it.

Wrong. IANAL, but many OSS projects use the "version 2 or greater" clause when making there projects GPL. This could *force* upgrades and use of the GPL to version 3.0, by simply releasing it... After all, people already agreed.

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[T-Ranger]

Well, then you should't have included the clause "or .. any later version". Pleanty of software is GLP 1 or 2, but lacks that clause. If you diddnt want to leav open the possibility that somehow a third party could screw you, then you shouldn't have included that clause.

Sucks to be you

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[pe1rxq]

To make it easier to start using v3 when it is available.
The problem is that you have to trust the FSF not to go nuts and do only good things with the next versions.
You don't have to add that one line to your program though, you could just release it under one specific version. Only problem than is that when a new version comes out and it is good you and everyone who has contributed to it in the mean time would have to agree to the relicensing.

Jeroen

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[foandd]

* the Free Software Foundation; either version 1, or (at your option)
* any later version.

This is on my software. If I dont like GPL 3.0, and dont want my software distributed under it, I'm already screwed.

Then you should have used a different license, or amended the GPL as you applied it to your software to omit that phrase. Both are easy and legally acceptable ways to have dealt with it. Blaming someone else because you didn't spend any time thinking through the implications of what you were doing is like blowing your nose in your shirt: you could, but why bother?

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[Derekloffin]

IANAL but usually this seems to apply not to the work itself, but to the people that who use the work, and it's optional, not required.

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[6*7]

Nothing is forced, if something was published under GPL2 it still says "2 or greater". The users of licensed stuff can choose: 2 or greater. Nothing changes for them.

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[at_slashdot]

"Wrong. IANAL, but many OSS projects use the "version 2 or greater" clause when making there projects GPL. This could *force* upgrades and use of the GPL to version 3.0, by simply releasing it... After all, people already agreed."

You can't agree to something that you don't know. Nobody can enforce such thing. (of course IANAL)

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[dj961]

Thats why god gave us the < operator.

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[Kelson]

If you're the only copyright holder, or you can get agreement from the other holders, you can relicense your next version under a modified license without that clause.

You can't stop people from forking the older versions and using the code under GPL3 terms -- you already released it under conditions allowing that -- but you can lock future versions to the GPL v.2.

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[ballwall]

This would only be a problem if v3 was less restrictive than v2. If you don't like the new restrictions in v3, you simply leave it as is and people can either choose the less restricted v2, or the more restricted v3. The new restrictions about web services and production and such (if they actually go that route) won't apply to those that choose to still use v2 on your software. I don't see how it's a problem.

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[Barto]

Just change the clause to the version you like. Yes, other people out there have the option of redistributing the code under GPL 3 if they downloaded the earlier version, but so what? My guess is GPL 3 will be more strict than 2.

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[SoSueMe]

To me, this reads that, if you don't like GPL 3, you can use a previous version that you do agree with.
At least that's what I interpret the "at your option" part as stating.

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait.. +5 Insightful? This is either interesting or flamebait.
Since the poster didn't even read the small part of license he pasted it.

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[Krach42]

No, this has been covered before by either Eben Moglen or ESR (I think that's the guy). That clause "v1 or later" protects you as well as your viewers. What this means is that someone can take your code and use it with v1, or v2, or v3. Any one that they want. You don't have to force a newer version on them unless you want to. (By updating the clause to say v3 or later.)

Each version of the GPL won't take rights away from the original author (that's pretty much, literally impossible.) it just defines how the author designates that others can use it. In the case of saying "v1 or later" you let anyone use v1 of the license if they darn well so please.

The only way someone is screwed with the clause "v1 or later" is, if they're not the original author, and they want to redistribute your software, and they are unable to comply with any version later than v1.

In short, the author/copyright holder can never be "screwed" by a newer GPL license even if it does include the "or later version" part of the clause.

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[Krach42]

If you don't like the GPL 3.0 no one is forcing your users to use it. You gave them the choice of v1, or any later version.

The newer GPL isn't going to hurt your rights (that's impossible) rather it's on what restrictions other people have. And so long as they can get a license under the v1 of the GPL, then even if you don't like the GPL 3.0, you can just tell everyone to accept it under the GPL 1.0.

This "or a later version" is not a LIMITING clause, it's a PERMITTING clause. Saying that if a newer version of the GPL comes out, that they have every right to accept your source code under those terms (and trust me, GPL 3.0 won't make it so people can just rip off your source code.)

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[Bruce Perens]

That line does indicate a lot of trust that the FSF won't screw you over. This trust is probably warranted. The one wild-card is RMS, and I simply don't see RMS screwing this up - he knows how much it means.

Bruce

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[Krach42]

Self Correction, I'm pretty sure it's RMS not ESR.

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[ecklesweb]

I just recently changed my software to be licensed under specifically version 2 of the GPL because it seems like a poor choice to license your software under a license that you haven't yet seen. Granted, I'd be surprised if GPL 3 had anthing that I radically opposed, but say it does. If you don't specify one or more specific versions of the GPL under which your software is licensed, then you are screwed and it does suck to be you. How easy is it to go back after GPL 3 is distributed and re-license your software under GPL versions 1, 2, and/or 3?

If I was going to let the user choose any future GPL that hasn't been written yet, it's a short step to saying I hereby license the software under any license approved by the OSI at the user's discretion. I mean, if you care so little about the content of the license and you're distributing it open source, why restrict yourself and your users to just the GPL?

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[Trogre]

Each version of the GPL won't take rights away from the original author (that's pretty much, literally impossible.) it just defines how the author designates that others can use it. In the case of saying "v1 or later" you let anyone use v1 of the license if they darn well so please.

Yes, but that choice is left up to the viewer if you specify "or later".

This means that if the GPL review board goes insane and the GPL v3.0 does away with the "must provide source code" clauses, your program can suddenly be locked up in commercial software and any improvements made not given back to the community. You will be legally powerless to do anything about this since, even though you retain copyright, you have licenced the software for use with anything that calls itself "GPL", even if it's completely different to good old GPL 1.0.

Is that really what you want? If so, why not just go for a BSD licence?

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[Anonymous Coward]

Sucks to be you

That's nothing! My software ships with *this* license:

"This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 1, or (at your option) any later version. Or you could use the BSD license if you want. Or any license that starts with the letter 'A'. After the year 2005, Microsoft may use this software with no obligation at all (public domain). Or if you write your own license and it has an even number of letters in it, you can use that, too."

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[sparkz]

Same here, except most of my code has always been GPL 2 without the suggested boilerplate text of "or later". FWIW, the Linux kernel also avoids this "or later" suggestion. As a later poster mentions, including the "or later" text could mean that your code ends up under any license known generally as "the GPL" - whether RMS goes insane (okay, some might want to argue the future tense, I'm not one of them), the FSF is bought-out by Microsoft, etc, etc - not likely, but you don't want to put work into code on the basis that "whoever calls themselves the administrator of GPL can control the license to my software retrospectively" really, would you? http://steve-parker.org/speedtouchconf/

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[TheSpoom]

See, this is what I've thought about in the past, though I think it quite improbable: If someone wanted to kill a lot of Open Source programs all at once, they could forcibly buy up the Free Software Foundation somehow, then release a GPL V3.0 that allowed anyone to use the binaries of GPL applications in any project for any reason, without restriction or need for source code. They would then be free to take any GPL'd products in their own application and sell them, and the original developer would have no recourse whatsoever.

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[Anonymous Coward]

"If someone wanted to kill a lot of Open Source programs all at once, they could forcibly buy up the Free Software Foundation somehow, then release a GPL V3.0 that allowed anyone to use the binaries of GPL applications in any project for any reason, without restriction or need for source code."

Yeah, except PLENTY of Free/Open Source software (like the BSDs, X, and tons of other software) is already licensed such that people can use it without restriction or distributing source code, and they get by just fine.

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[T-Ranger]

The copyright holder most definitly can be screwed because they have placed the agreement they have with their users under the power of a third party.

The license can become less restrictive, and you dont want it to: Maybe vN+1 will simply be a copy of the BSD license; if you dont want your code to be reused, closed, then you just got screwed because a third party made that allowance for you. Maybe it will have a clause that allows for using the code if they make a donation to The Human Fund in the authors name.

vN+1 could be more restrictive; these restrictions could be ignored by continuing to use vN, true. But these new restrictions might be unacceptable to you, to the point that you no longer want to be associated with the FSF at all. Lets say that vN+1 has a clause that the software isnt allowed to be used in, say, abortion clinics; you're pro-choice, an in a legal sense, it doesnt matter as the clinics can continue to use vN; but in a moral sense it does; your pro-choice friends stop inviting you to parties because you are associated with the enemy. You cant argue "but thats not what I sigined on for" because it is, you said "or later" and those two little words makes you a religious nut job with no respect for women.

Unlikely? Yes. Possible? Yes. Possible to get screwed? Yes.

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[Richard Dick Head]

Well, if your software is entirely yours (contributors?), and there aren't any extra copies floating around on the web, just relicense (no "at your option"), and remove the old code and binaries from your site. Nothing in the GPL says anything about code dropping off the face of the earth. :)

(Although, this is why places like sourceforge/freshmeat/etc are important, a place to keep code in the public in the event the original source vanishes... *cough* Nessus *cough*)

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[TheSpoom]

So? What if I don't want my software used in that way?

That's like saying, "These people do this, therefore everyone else shouldn't mind it." It should be the choice of the copyright holder how their software is licensed.

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[laughingcoyote]

Two flaws in your argument, though:

1. How is anyone going to "forcibly buy" a nonprofit entity which is not publicly traded? Hostile takeover is possible only for publicly-traded companies. They can offer however large a wad of cash they like, but RMS is still free to say "No thank you, not for sale". What are they going to do from there, come in and put a gun to his head? That type of coercion, being illegal, would void the resulting sale anyway.

2. Even if RMS did sell off to MS, and they made GPLx.0 state "You may not under any circumstances distribute source code for programs distributed under this license", that would not in any way impact the existing licenses. If the code -I- have in my possession already is licensed under v2.0 or any later version, then I simply choose to continue using 2.0, and am still free to go on distributing all I like. I've already accepted that license, and it specifically states that I may go on using the old one instead of the new if I like. Commercial EULA's generally include a provision that the licensing company may change the license anytime it wants and that you automatically accept such changes, but the GPL contains no such provision. And no one will use the new license, and a new FSF will come up to replace the old, and open-source programmers will use their GPL. Easy enough solved, wouldn't create a bit of trouble at all.

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[TheSpoom]

1. I realize this and stated that it was improbable in my post. It was just something I thought when I GPL'd a bunch of my programs a while ago and saw the "any future version at your option" clause.

2. Read my post again; I'm not saying that they could add additional restrictions to the GPL, I'm stating that they could remove the requirement that source code needs to be provided with distribution in V3, which would allow commercial companies to link against GPL code without having to provide the source or any of their derivatives.

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[laughingcoyote]

Ah, do see your point with #2, missed that at first. That would be a problem, but FSF being a nonprofit entity specifically designed to promoting free software generally and the GPL specifically, very unlikely. It might even in fact be illegal-since FSF is nonprofit and accepts donations, nonprofits are generally expected to use donations made to them largely or completely for the purpose they stated they'd be used. If they sold out like that, and changed the GPL that radically, both the old and new owners may well open themselves up to lawsuits for fraud.

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[Spit]

This means that if the GPL review board goes insane and the GPL v3.0 does away with the "must provide source code" clauses, your program can suddenly be locked up in commercial software and any improvements made not given back to the community.

Well that's just tough luck, you should have read the fine print. But your strawman hypothetical is about as likely as RMS becoming major shareholder in Microsoft.

You are free to write your own license.

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[ashot]

well, you = user (not author)

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[duffbeer703]

"Each version of the GPL won't take rights away from the original author (that's pretty much, literally impossible.)"

Nonsense. The FSF folks have mentioned numerous times that GPL v3 will "deal with" software patents. Who knows... maybe GPL v3 will grant a license to applicable patents held by the author.

That may not be a big deal to you, but such a move will have a chilling effect on companies contributing to GPL v3 projects. Its simply to expensive to risk losing patent protection.

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why the FSF needs rules of succession (what happens when RMS dies, which unfortunately everyone does eventually?). There needs to be a constitution that spells out the spirit of the GPL such that certain kinds of changes for future versions are impossible because they aren't in the spirit of free software. Then people can confidently use "or later" because the worse that can happen is the license can be made "more free", in the form of prohibitions on patents, etc.

There is always the option to use the earlier version.

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[Spit]

The one wild-card is RMS, and I simply don't see RMS screwing this up

If there is one person I would trust with the best interests of software freedom, it would be RMS who has no concern for pragmatic issues such as corporate acceptance or development models. The goal is always clear to him.

Imagine for a moment a petty egomaniac like Eric Raymond in this sort of position.

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[Spit]

This is on my software. If I dont like GPL 3.0, and dont want my software distributed under it, I'm already screwed.

To take a different angle on this; If there were a legal hole in the GPLv2 which had unforseen legal complications, your software would automatically be protected when a revised GPL which took care of this oversight was released.

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[WalksOnDirt]

I never expected the Reform Party to be taken over by right wing extremists, but they were. Just because you don't see how the FSF could be subverted doesn't mean it can't.

I wouldn't want to rely on a court deciding that the BSD license is an unworthy successor to the GPL.

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[Bruce Perens]

If there is one person I would trust with the best interests of software freedom, it would be RMS

Yes. The only problem with that is that he's done a piss-poor job regarding the GFDL. There is an anti-DRM provision so vague that it doesn't allow you to store GFDL documents on systems with login security and file permissions. If you look into that, you find that RMS actually doesn't approve of login security, so that might even be deliberate. That's the license that applies to the entire Wikipedia, and those folks don't yet realize how messed up the license is.

The most galling aspect has been RMS total unwillingness to come to the table with the Debian developers who wanted to work that out.

Eben says Richard knows that GPL 3 is more important than GFDL, and that he'll behave.

Bruce

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[Spit]

The only problem with that is that he's done a piss-poor job regarding the GFDL

I think RMS heart's in the right place and his "right to read" paranoia might pay off in the future, but he could be a little pragmatic on this issue.

Regardless, those who don't read the fine print will pay the price. Those who do read it and are happy can be assured their content will never legally be locked with DRM.

If you look into that, you find that RMS actually doesn't approve of login security

Yeah I've always been amused about RMS' attitude towards root and the GNU banishment of wheel, that's one of the first things I change in my build. To be honest I would like to live in a world without root, but one must be realistic.

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[cow-orker]

Yes, but that choice is left up to the viewer if you specify "or later".

This really boils down to whether you trust the FSF to Do The Right Thing. If you think so, you put the "or later" clause in and allow your program to be "upgraded" to a recent version of the GPL, thereby retaining licensing compatibility with newer software. If you don't trust them, you don't put an "or later" there.

If so, why not just go for a BSD licence?

Because decapitating youself just to be sure nobody else can do it is not a very sane strategy?

Really, with the BSD license, you're powerless to begin with. With the standard version of the GPL, the FSF might screw you. Come on, how realistic is that? St. Ignucius gives up on his ideals no sooner than hell freezes over.

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[tokul]

This means that if the GPL review board goes insane and the GPL v3.0 does away with the "must provide source code" clauses,...

You still own the code. If you don't like it, remove "or later" from next release of your software. If somebody follows 'or later' clause, they can do it only with old version of your software. Yes, they can fork your code. No, they can't use modifications from GPL v2 only licensed new software.

If so, why not just go for a BSD licence?

Because BSD licence allows commercial abuse of your work here and now. Insane GPL review board is not active today.

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[gowen]

That's the license that applies to the entire Wikipedia, and those folks don't yet realize how messed up the license is.

Of course they do. They didn't when they started, but they do now.

They just care more about producing good work than licensing issues.

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[Rogerborg]

Why is it "impossible" that GPL 3.0 isn't going to hurt your rights? Please be specific in your answer, and remember that your audience are coders. We generally use binary logic, not fuzzy.

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[metamatic]

And that's not the only problem with the GFDL. There's also the fact that it doesn't preserve the freedom to modify and redistribute which was the whole point of the GPL--authors can specify bits of documentation which you're not allowed to change.

I've been tempted to release documentation under the GFDL with protected sections saying that the GFDL is misguided and that Richard Stallman is an ass.

Then there are the problems with GPL that as far as I know nobody is interested in solving--like the fact that it's possible to take GPLed software and make it effectively proprietary, by locking it to proprietary hardware or data files.

For example, even though Linux is under the GPL, I can't change the software I was sold on my TiVo. It hasn't protected my rights at all.

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[Bruce Perens]

Then there are the problems with GPL that as far as I know nobody is interested in solving--like the fact that it's possible to take GPLed software and make it effectively proprietary, by locking it to proprietary hardware or data files.

There was actually a planning meeting around GPL, DRM, and other issues at a NY Linuxworld conference at least two years ago. At that meeting, I suggested license language regarding the right to modify the programming in an embedded device. The idea was accepted at that time, but I have no idea whether anyone else involved with the project has held on to the thread for all that time.

Bruce

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[Krach42]

Because as the author you hold all rights to your work. This is why the MySQL people can relicense their code under a non-GPL license to another company.

As the copyright holder you can pick what licenses you want everyone else to use your work with, but none of those licenses can ever take away your fundamental rights as the copyright holder to do whatever you want with that code.

Now remember, some of us have studied IP law (however limited it may have been) and actually understand that the compyright holder cannot be denied any rights by a third party (unless it's the government, and there was due process involved.)

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[Krach42]

"Each version of the GPL won't take rights away from the original author (that's pretty much, literally impossible.)"

Please reread. My rights on the original code that I released are always protected, and they're mine, and no one can take those rights away.

I could give a god damn shit about the chilling effect of companies contributing. If they don't believe in free software they can go write their own code. Meanwhile, I'm committed to free software, and I have no problem surrendering that any patents that I might be able to claim upon my software are forfeit.

The GPL already has a chilling effect upon contribution from companies. If they don't want to play along, then fine, that's their rights. But if you're going to use our Free software, then use it right, and they shouldn't be allowed to use Patents against it.

Re:Moglen is mistaken

[Rogerborg]

Yes, yes, you did IP law 101. We're talking about the specific case here of a copyright holder licensing their work under "GPL 2.0 or any future version". Does your understanding of rights not include the right to limit duplication or use?

Rewrite Drive

[foQ]

When I saw this article I thought there was some new GPLed DVD R/W drive or something.

Re:Rewrite Drive

[Now.Imperfect]

me too, I was thinking there was some debate about whether programs under GPL can rewrite your drive....

Compatibility is key...

[hagbard5235]

It would be nice if a balance could be struck between the ideals of the GPL (which I don't oppose) and some other licenses. For example, it would be nice to see compatibility with the Eclipse Public License (which the FSF doesn't seem to think poorly of, it just happens to be incompatible). Please note, I'm *NOT* seeking an FSF sell out of their ideals here, I ascribe to them myself in my private Open Source contributions, but rather consideration of how not to have the GPL be an impediment to projects that don't violate those ideals, but happen to be using other licenses.

Re:Compatibility is key...

[AuMatar]

WHy don't those other projects just use the GPL? THe GPL is a minimal attempt to get a propogating license out. If they chose to use another license, its their own problem for deciding to use something more restrictive. If they want to fix the problem, they need ot change, NOT the GPL.

Re:Compatibility is key...

[j00bar]

There are ***many*** GPL-compatible free software licenses:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLC ompatibleLicenses

Eclipse happens to be incompatible:

"For example, it requires certain patent licenses be given that the GPL does not require. (We don't think those patent license requirements are inherently a bad idea, but nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL.)"

Re:Compatibility is key...

[Kjella]

I think there's a big overestimation that the FSF actually has the power to "fix" things. How many open source projects have some code that says "GPL 2 only"? I doubt any project would reject code based on that. Then there's the issue of momentum and the network effect. If you wiped all code off the face of the earth, the GPL is a rather unremarkable license. It is all the GPL and GPL-compatible code that makes it valuable. If moving to GPLv3 cuts me off from significant amounts of that codebase, I'm not going to. And the more software that doesn't move, the stronger the reason to stay with GPLv2. It's like a gravity well that constantly absorbs more and more matter, and I think very few realize just how strong. I think it's even out of the FSFs hands.

Re:Compatibility is key...

[Mechanik]

WHy don't those other projects just use the GPL?

Because for one, we want people to be able to take Eclipse and it's various open-source projects and be able to bundle their own, potentially closed source plugins and other components with it. The GPL, depending on interpretation, is not very condusive to loading and running other code at runtime (a la shared objects/DLLs).

The GNU philosophy, in a nutshell, is "we are opposed to commercial software." The Eclipse project encourages and enables commercial use. The more companies there are shipping Eclipse based products, the better it is for us.

Re:Compatibility is key...

[AuMatar]

So let me get this straight. You disagree with the GNU philosophy, a well known and published one. You, based on this disagreement, decide to use another license which does not bind you to parts of that philosophy. Now you complain that your disagreement with the Free SOftware philosophy makes it harder to develop things and you want *us* to change? You can't have it both ways buddy. If you want to use our code, you do so on our terms. If not, you have that right. Just don't complain that our principles aren't as flexible as yours. If you want to be compatible with code produced under the GPL, the onus is on YOU to change to OUR license. Not for US to move to YOUR philosophy.

And by the way, your restatement of the Free Software creed is horrible. Commercial/non-commerical makes no difference. Its wether the software allows the principle freedoms that matters.

Re:Compatibility is key...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your comments in this thread do nothing but reflect poorly on yourself and the GPL. I would suggest you simply stop writing comments. Perhaps, you should read some of Bruce Perens comments in this thread and hopefully you will realize what it takes not to look like a complete and utter fool.

Re:Compatibility is key...

[Mechanik]

Now you complain that your disagreement with the Free SOftware philosophy makes it harder to develop things and you want *us* to change?[...]If you want to be compatible with code produced under the GPL, the onus is on YOU to change to OUR license. Not for US to move to YOUR philosophy.

I never said anything of the sort. I didn't ask anyone to give up the GPL. If it works for you, then use it. It doesn't work for us, so we don't use it. To each their own.

Re:Compatibility is key...

[Spit]

If a license is incompatible with the GPL, it is because they have chosen to be.

Possible damage to OSS

[goldspider]

If the clause discussed earlier on Slashdot is included, the GPL 3.0 will do more to hurt the FOSS movement than help.

For the sake of truly free programming, we have to tear down the zealots speaking on our behalf.

Re:Possible damage to OSS

[Anonymous Coward]

That means no more Slashdot, right?

What will I do at work?

Re:Possible damage to OSS

[Mr. Sketch]

we have to tear down the zealots speaking on our behalf.

The problem is the zealots are writing the GPL.

Re:Possible damage to OSS

[Kelson]

The problem is the zealots are writing the GPL.

Who do you think wrote it in the first place?

Re:Possible damage to OSS

[AuMatar]

Not really. It won't require you to give up your website code for using Apache, it will require you to release the code if you base yourself off of a GPLed piece of websoftware- for existance, one of the many GPLed CMSes. Thats the exact same case as someone who releases a piece of non-web software and uses GPLed code. It levels the playing field so you can't just use GPLed code without recontributing just because you're ont he web.

Re: Possible damage to OSS

[Black Parrot]

> For the sake of truly free programming, we have to tear down the zealots speaking on our behalf.

We wouldn't even be having this discussion if not for those zealots.

Re:Possible damage to OSS

[vertinox]

For the sake of truly free programming, we have to tear down the zealots speaking on our behalf.

Zealotry never hurt a movement.

Take the current US political system for example... Oh wait... Ummm... Let me rephrase that...

Zealotry will control a movement whether you like it or not and in fact control it with an iron fist and beat anyone who opposes them into a bloody pulp and call them a heathen ubeliever who is going to hell for disagreeing and you are going to pass more rules to control any disenting views.

So maybe yes... Zealotry doesn't hurt a movement after all, but it sure sucks to be on the receiving end of it.

Re: Possible damage to OSS

[Halfbaked Plan]

Agreed.

There wouldn't be zealots to tear down, etc. etc.

But that's a tautology.

Re:Possible damage to OSS

[Dwonis]

Please provide references showing that Eben Moglen is a zealot.

Re:Possible damage to OSS

[Krach42]

Dude... the whole *idea* behind the GPL is an ideological war. If you want "truly free programming" go pick up BSD software, and leave the GPL alone. Until you do that, the only reason you *have* the GPL is because some zealots had the stones to think it up to enforce their zealotrous ideology.

Re:Possible damage to OSS

[mrchaotica]

In other words, it would keep people from doing somthing like, say, using GNOME Office as the back end for some kind of web-based office service (e.g. a competitor to this one) without giving users access to the changes.

It's exactly like the GPL version 2, except without the "software as a service" loophole.

Re:Possible damage to OSS

[Richard_at_work]

And the GPL becomes a usage license. Leave my output alone.

Re:Possible damage to OSS

[humina]

Here:

http://www.geocities.com/isaac_hee/Eben_Moglen.htm l

Re:Possible damage to OSS

[Dwonis]

Of course. My mistake.

Forced upgrade?

[ecloud]

Is old software which simply states that it is released under the terms of the GPL construed to always be tracking the latest version? What if the author doesn't want to? I hope new releases will have to specifically state that they are using GPL 3.0?

Re:Forced upgrade?

[dajobi]

A lot of software is distributed "under the GPL 2.0 or later, at your discretion", allowing compatibility with future versions of the GPL. Personally I wouldn't want to do that - distribute my code under a license that I haven't even read. Who knows whether I'll agree with whatever legalBOL RMS decides to throw out?

Re:Forced upgrade?

[Kelson]

The default wording is "Under the terms of the GPL version X or later." So the author or a fork can keep using GPL2 or switch to GPL3 with no fuss. (One exception, IIRC, is the Linux kernel, in which Linus removed the "or later" text way back in the beginning, so it's perpetually GPL2 unless everyone with a copyright stake can agree to relicense.)

Most software I've seen includes a copy of the license with the source, often in a file called COPYING, so you have the exact text of the GPL version that they used.

Re:Forced upgrade?

[Dan-DAFC]

The notice that you are supposed to attach to each file covered by the GPL (2.0) includes the following text:

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

So you can choose to be bound by a later licence if you like, or stick with the version that you agreed to.

Re: Forced upgrade?

[Black Parrot]

> The default wording is "Under the terms of the GPL version X or later." So the author or a fork can keep using GPL2 or switch to GPL3 with no fuss.

Hmmm... What about the other way around? If a project is switched to GPL3, will the hereditary nature of the GPL mean it's still also under GPL2, whether they want it to be or not?

Re: Forced upgrade?

[Kelson]

As I understand it, it should be kind of like incorporating BSD code in a GPL project.

The original BSD code can be used under either the BSD or GPL licenses, but the combined code can only be used under the GPL. If the pieces are kept distinct, you should theoretically be able to extract only the BSD-licensed sections and use them under BSD terms, but you have to be absolutely certain you haven't grabbed a mix of BSD and GPL code. Of course, if you have access to a copy of the original codebase, you can just work from that under the original terms.

Substitute GPL v.2 for BSD and GPL v.3 for GPL and I think it'll be about right.

Re:Forced upgrade?

[feijai]

So you can choose to be bound by a later licence if you like, or stick with the version that you agreed to.

Only if you are the licensee. If you are the licensor using the GPL, you have no say in whether or not the license gets upgraded.

This is not good news. There is a massive amount of code out there which relies on the GPL. Let's say that you put out code under the GPL 2.x and Stallman suddenly decides in 3.0 to add a clause that says that the licensee no longer has to do the viral thing, can use your name in his advertisements, gets to poke you in the eye. Great, says the licensee: I'm upgrading! Time to get eye poked out.

This is why the GPL is bad: using it puts enormous faith in the hands of people who, not to put to fine a point on it, are crazies. This is how we want to be showcasing the stability of the open source paradigm?

Re:Forced upgrade?

[m50d]

The recommended copyright text is "version 2 or any later version". Authors who blindly copied that will be giving their users a choice of either 2 or 3. Authors who thought about it and copied that will be getting what they want. Authors who thought about it and didn't want that, as in the case of the linux kernel, will have used a different copyright text.

Re:Forced upgrade?

[GoCoGi]

No, the "or any later version" clause is NOT in the GPL, it is what the FSF puts onto its own software (where not putting it doesn't make sense at all). You should not use it, if you're not the FSF :).
The linux kernel does not, for example.

Re: Forced upgrade?

[Kjella]

Substitute GPL v.2 for BSD and GPL v.3 for GPL and I think it'll be about right.

Well, not quite. Since the "or higher" part is considered a right to relicense (otherwise the work as a whole would have to be "GPLv2 or higher" under the GPL, which would be incompatible with GPLv3), it is probably legal to replace any occurance of "GPLv2 and higher" headers with "GPLv3 or higher", in which case you've completely lost track of what is GPLv2.

Re:Forced upgrade?

[Kjella]

IIRC, is the Linux kernel, in which Linus removed the "or later" text way back in the beginning, so it's perpetually GPL2 unless everyone with a copyright stake can agree to relicense.

Being such a large project, quite a few of the contributors are missing and even a few dead in the literal sense. That's not going to happen.

Re:Forced upgrade?

[feijai]

the "or any later version" clause is NOT in the GPL

I beg to differ. Search for "later". A charitable reading of section 9 is that you have three options when you deploy under the license: (1) specify a GPL version -- this is not explicilty stated, only implied (2) specify a minimum GPL version (3) allow any GPL version.

But the example for how to apply the GPL will do #2. And if you don't include any notice in your program, then you are bound to #3. Guess what percentage of coders release their code under one of those two because they didn't realize the #1 was even an option.

The linux kernel does not, for example.

Parts are, parts aren't. From extable.c for example (a random selection):

/* Rewritten by Rusty Russell, on the backs of many others...
Copyright (C) 2001 Rusty Russell, 2002 Rusty Russell IBM.

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

Get ready to get poked in the eye, linux users!

Too many licenses

[Professor_UNIX]

Why bother rewriting the GPL when there are many other fine licenses out there like the BSD license which can be used instead? The FSF should encourage people to use this tried and tested license to ensure their software is fully "open source" in all aspects, including commercial uses.

Re:Too many licenses

[dajobi]

You're quite free to use and modify GPL software for commercial purposes. What you can't do is then refuse to distribute your modifications under the same terms. If you want to take code from others and not give anything back in return though, BSD is for you. MS and Apple seem to like it.

Re:Too many licenses

[goldspider]

You forget that the FSF zealots believe that commercial software is inherantly evil.

Re:Too many licenses

[jzeejunk]

GPL's philosophy is very different from BSD. Code under BSD license can be used in a closed source app for example. If GPL had to be changed into BSD, there wouldn't have been two such licenses in the first place. The idea here is to just improve upon or fix shortcomings of current GPL.

Re:Too many licenses

[The Nine]

Got some evidence for that, pal? Something like Stallman being on record as saying "commercial software is inherently evil" would suffice (I'm assuming Stallman can spell better than you). Fairly unlikely, since he himself has sold his own software for money in the past.

Re:Too many licenses

[grumbel]

### You forget that the FSF zealots believe that commercial software is inherantly evil.

No, they only think closed source software is evil, commercial software is quite fine for them, you can even order from them: https://agia.fsf.org/order/ if you want to.

Re:Too many licenses

[mark-t]

Actually, you _CAN_ refuse to distribute your modifications, even if the program you modified is used for commercial purposes (by you), as long as you don't actually distribute the program to anyone else in the first place.

Re:Too many licenses

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine getting something like that for xmas/birthday/whatever.

Wouldn't you just cry?

Re:Too many licenses

[Anonymous Coward]

s/evil/amoral/

Re:Too many licenses

[mw13068]

As a "FSF zealot" (to use your inflammatory words) let me clarify something for you.

The FSF does *NOT* think that commercial software is evil, amoral, or any of those things. Commercial software is just fine. Many people create commercial Free Software and they are a valuable part of the Free Software movement.

What *is* wrong is software that takes away the user's rights to do what she pleases with the software. Be it studying the source code, modifying it to suit her needs, sharing it with friends, etc.

The *restriction of the user's freedom* is what the Free Software Foundation is against.

Have a nice day.

Re:Too many licenses

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL restricts what the user can do with software too. It forces the user into accepting a viral license.

The only true free license is BSD.

Re:Too many licenses

[mw13068]

Your view on the BSD vs. GPL licenses is beside the point of the parent's post about commercial software, but I'll address it anyway.

The GPL doesn't "force" anyone to use it. Many people write software and choose not to use the GPL, and it is their right to do so. People who complain about being "forced" into this "viral license" are people who are trying to take without giving back. That is not allowed by the GPL and Free Software community. People who don't like it, are free to write their own software and keep it as secret as they like.

Have a nice day.

Re:Too many licenses

[goldspider]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't a clause being considered for the GPL 3.0 that would forbid companies that patent software or use DRM from using software licensed under the GPL 3.0??

That kind of restriction seems to have more to do with pushing an agenda/ideology and less to do with making information free.

The BSD license is truly "free". The GPL 3.0 smells more and more like a restriction-laden indeological agenda.

This thing needs to be SOLID.

[dslauson]

Most of us here on slashdot have an opinion on what should be going on in the GPL, but obviously most of us are not lawyers. This is, without a doubt, a legal matter, and this thing needs to be airtight. I wouldn't want this thing to be a true democracy, but hopefully they will be willing to listen to a little input here and there.

Re:This thing needs to be SOLID.

[Overly Critical Guy]

The only input that matters to them is Richard Stallman's. That's their idea of "freedom"--i.e., it's Stallman's idea of freedom and you must conform to it, or you are not truly "free."

Re:This thing needs to be SOLID.

[GoCoGi]

Well, if you don't conform to it, maybe Stallman won't like you, but does that really harm you?

Re:This thing needs to be SOLID.

[Spit]

You're free to not use GPL software and have your opinion of RMS. If you don't like what you're given for free, then either use OpenBSD or go fuck yourself.

Re:This thing needs to be SOLID.

[Pyrowolf]

Why can't someone provide a simplified flexible, almost modular GPL license similar to what they've done with Creative Commons. Heck, pick the "modules" you want, and run with it, with a site that has both legaleze and simplified requrements?

Damn sure there will be a vote

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Everybody's free to leave that out when applying the license to a new program.

Re:Damn sure there will be a vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok. So what if I release a GPLv2 project, and a splinter group takes the code and re-releases it as a GPLv3 project ... and I want to fold in some of the derivative code into my GPLv2 project .... what then?

Re:Damn sure there will be a vote

[Stradenko]

They would be unable to make a derivative work under a different license than you give.
So, they've violated your license (since they aren't the copyright holders of your work) by distributing it under different terms than you originally described.

Re:Damn sure there will be a vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you sure? If my (stock) GPLv2 license includes the "at your option - upgrade" text, then that right extends to the next user down the chain. Seems to me they can push it along ... but I can't get the benefit of derivative works back (without adding more chips).

Re:Damn sure there will be a vote

[Erioll]

I think you're right. If you use an unmodified GPL2 that includes the "upgrade" clause, then to fold the upgraded code back into YOUR project, it must all go to GPL3 as well.

Only if you had modified your original licence before any releases to not have the "upgrade" clause would they have violated moving to GPL3. But as of now, you can't fold their work back into yours without YOU changing your licence.

Re:Damn sure there will be a vote

[nick8325]

Everybody's free to leave that out when applying the license to a new program.

You sure?

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

Re:Damn sure there will be a vote

[Stradenko]

GP specifically stated he was releasing it under GPLv2, I took that to mean without the upgrade clause (since that really isn't part of the license itself, just part of the suggested way to grant the license)

Certainly with the upgrade clause derivative works could *potentially* become incompatible.
Is the GPL v3 going to have terms that aren't GPL v2 compatible? who knows.
But it seems to me that you could have different licenses affecting different parts of the codebase, so long as they are mutually compatible.

Re:Damn sure there will be a vote

[6*7]

Well duh!

If I modify the GPL license the result is a (valid) non GPL license.

RTFF: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL

Re:Damn sure there will be a vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the clarification S; I thought the upgrade clause was the default. I wonder what the numbers are on major projects that have chosen either to include or remove that text.

Anyway, here's a fun scenario ... what if we have another X.org type split, and half the developers splinter to a GPLv3 project. If the new group ever accuses the old of improper graft (hehe..) and they go to court, what would be the position of the FSF? The EFF? Would you have to pick sides when making your donation?

Hopefully it doesn't ever come to that ... but there's certainly an incentive for the FSF to get it right (and keep the community happy).

Re:Damn sure there will be a vote

[Kickasso]

"This program is free software; you can redistribute it etc"

These words are not a part of GNU GPL.

Re:Damn sure there will be a vote

[Anonymous Coward]

The given paragraph is not part of the license. It's the suggested but not mandatory way of applying the license to a program.

Re:Damn sure there will be a vote

[nick8325]

It appears to be part of the copyright on the text of the GPL. According to it, the FSF (who hold the copyright to the text of the GPL) do not give you the right to distribute licenses based on, but different from, the GPL. Or have I misunderstood?...

Re:Damn sure there will be a vote

[Kjella]

Ok. So what if I release a GPLv2 project, and a splinter group takes the code and re-releases it as a GPLv3 project ... and I want to fold in some of the derivative code into my GPLv2 project .... what then?

That depends on the wording. If you said GPLv2 or higher (the default), you can't. If you said GPLv2 only, they can't relicense it. You still can't use their code but you could sue for copyright infringement. Any license with "GPLvX or higher" can be replaced by "GPLvX+1 or higher" or "GPLvX only".

I've seen people that claim you can not change the license in that way, but any other way would be absurd. Why? Because the GPL requires the work as a whole to be licensed under the same license. "GPLv2 only" and "GPLv2 and higher" code would be incompatible, because the work as a whole can't be licensed under "GPLv2 and higher". Even "GPLv2 and higher" and "GPLv3 and higher" would be incompatible, because the work as a whole could not be licensed as "GPLv2 or higher".

GPLv2 and higher operates like a dual (actually, multi) license in one. You can license it under GPLv2 or GPLv3 or GPLv4 or .... and you only have to satisfy one, not all (though you can choose more if you want to). It would be perfect legal for me to take a "GPLv2 and higher" program and release it as "Only even numbered versions of the GPL", which you couldn't use in odd numbered versions!

Re:Damn sure there will be a vote

[nick8325]

"Although we will not raise legal objections to your making a modified license in this way, we hope you will think twice and not do it."

According to the copyright notice on the text, distributing changed versions of the GPL is not allowed. It seems that the FSF will just quietly ignore these copyright violations, though.

Re:Damn sure there will be a vote

[arose]

It's not part of the license document.

Re:Damn sure there will be a vote

[nick8325]

Oh, I see, the original paragraph...oops. So that can be changed but not the rest of the GPL...fair enough.

Point

[slavemowgli]

Well, he does have a point. Technical things like this should probably be written by experts on the subject matter rather than being decided by everyone who just happens to have an opinion after they read about it on Slashdot; and for that matter, nobody's being forced to use the license for anything, anyway.

And if you don't like the new GPL... feel free to modify it to your liking. There's already a few pieces of software out there that use a modified GPL v2 (typically, these are projects that are GPL'ed but grant you special permission to link with this or that non-free library even though this would otherwise not be allowed by the GPL), so you could do the same thing here.

And to those who'll reply now and tell me that I can't modify the GPL because the license as such is itself copyrighted to the FSF... I insist that that's irrelevant, as a license is not a creative work but rather a technical description of the terms the author offers you the software under.

Re:Point

[truedfx]

And to those who'll reply now and tell me that I can't modify the GPL because the license as such is itself copyrighted to the FSF... I insist that that's irrelevant, as a license is not a creative work but rather a technical description of the terms the author offers you the software under.

Whether you legally have the right to modify licenses by default is irrelevant, as it is explicitly permitted for the GPL.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL

Re:Point

[ajdlinux]

And to those who'll reply now and tell me that I can't modify the GPL because the license as such is itself copyrighted to the FSF... I insist that that's irrelevant, as a license is not a creative work but rather a technical description of the terms the author offers you the software under.

The FSF actually does allow modification of the license, as long as it uses a different preamble etc. The license under which you can modify the GPL is not actually free, but that's needed because it is a legal document.

Unfortunately...

[Sheetrock]

At this point, the GPL is mostly irrelevant to the Open Source movement. Once hailed as a means to safeguard the communal creation, exchange, and improvement of software, it's now being subverted by companies and individuals generating their own licenses loosely based on the GPL but permitting the commercial extension/closed-binary distribution of code for the right amount of money.

By another token, Open Source is being used by companies as a way to get individuals to create code without compensating them. This unfairly competes with the American software industry, and exploits what was intended to be a reliable means of assuring access to code to effectively outsource a whole chunk of what used to be paying jobs -- thus stagnating the future creation of code.

So hopefully the new (GNU?) GPL will address some of these concerns as well as the issues software patents create for the individual developer.

Re:Unfortunately...

[goldspider]

Authors of GPL code aren't being screwed by any company that uses their code in accordance with the terms of the license.

If someone doesn't want their software to be used in commercial software, they shouldn't release it under the GPL.

Re:Unfortunately...

[Vellmont]

At this point, the GPL is mostly irrelevant to the Open Source movement. Once hailed as a means to safeguard the communal creation, exchange, and improvement of software, it's now being subverted by companies and individuals generating their own licenses loosely based on the GPL but permitting the commercial extension/closed-binary distribution of code for the right amount of money.

Huh? How does the existance and popularity of non-GPL licenses make the GPL irrelevant? There's an enourmous amount of very popular software in daily use licensed under the GPL that says that the GPL is far from irrelevant.

By another token, Open Source is being used by companies as a way to get individuals to create code without compensating them. This unfairly competes with the American software industry, and exploits what was intended to be a reliable means of assuring access to code to effectively outsource a whole chunk of what used to be paying jobs -- thus stagnating the future creation of code.

Nonsense. Making code freely available eliminates some work, but it also creates new work. If everyone isn't stuck re-inventing the wheel then there's more time for software to do larger, more complex jobs.

Re:Unfortunately...

[Anonymous Coward]

it's now being subverted by companies and individuals generating their own licenses loosely based on the GPL but permitting the commercial extension/closed-binary distribution of code for the right amount of money.

Some people might not like the way companies such as Easy Software Products (maker of CUPS) and MySQL AB make money, but the fact is that a lot of good GPL software gets made this way that otherwise might not be made at all, and companies do have to make money some way or another, or else they would not have any resources to contribute to free software.

I used to think this was subverting the GPL, but now I am more tolerant of this practice: it would be more accurate to say that this is subverting the old business model of proprietary software. Money from companies that want to develop proprietary software based on existing free software is actually being diverted to the development of that same free software.

Re:Unfortunately...

[Kjella]

(...) it's now being subverted by companies and individuals generating their own licenses loosely based on the GPL but permitting the commercial extension/closed-binary distribution of code for the right amount of money.

So what? If someone releases something under a non-GPL license, does that lessen GPL code in any way? Closed-binary distribution is not GPL compatible, so they can not legally take advantage of any GPL code. Unless you are referring to dual-licensed product, which by virtue of being the copyright holder, they have every moral and legal right to because it's their own fricking work. Just because someone share their work under the GPL, shouldn't mean they have to share it under the GPL exclusively.

By another token, Open Source is being used by companies as a way to get individuals to create code without compensating them. This unfairly competes with the American software industry, and exploits what was intended to be a reliable means of assuring access to code to effectively outsource a whole chunk of what used to be paying jobs

Is anyone forcing OSS developers to do what they do? "used by" implies that they have some sort of control. You might also say that a volunteer tech forum is being used to get tech support without compensating them and is "stealing jobs" from support professionals. OSS is doing the same on a global scale. Each contributes a little and together and so we don't need to hire professionals (read: pay for commercial software made by professionals).

I also get the impression you're trying to mix cards with American jobs going overseas, and open-source replacing commercial products. If they aren't compensated as you say, the jobs aren't "outsourced" because they don't appear anywhere else. They simply are no longer required, here or in India. Unfair? If you aren't able to deliver a product that has any value-add over what a bunch of hobbyist programmers can do in their spare time, well whose fault is that?

Aren't you going to get pissed at Microsoft for actually moving things in the right direction when it comes to security (XP SP2 firewall was a huge plus)? I mean, improvements like that are sure to put tons of American jobs on the line. Microsoft is really unfairly competing with support people, providing for free what they rightfully should have paid $$$ at the local computer shop for.

Note: The above post may contain sarcasm and irony. In the usual EULA style, I warn you about that after having read the comment ;)

Re:Unfortunately...

[FunWithKnives]

By another token, Open Source is being used by companies as a way to get individuals to create code without compensating them. This unfairly competes with the American software industry...

By another token, music piracy is being used by people as a way to get artists to create music without compensating them. This unfairly competes with the RIAA...

Okay, on a serious note, I don't see what you're seeing here. Most people that contribute code to an OSS project are doing it in their spare time and as a hobby, and I don't see proprietary (especially in-house) solutions crumbling to OSS as we speak. Maybe eventually that will happen on a more general scale, but I'm willing to bet that the field will adjust accordingly and keep right on going if that (unlikely) scenario does take place.

Re:Unfortunately...

[Software]

>it's now being subverted by companies and individuals generating their own licenses loosely based on the GPL but permitting the commercial extension/closed-binary distribution of code for the right amount of money.

Huh? The GPL is not and has never been promulgated as the One True License. Licensing your work under other GPL and a zillion other licenses has always been permitted. If somebody wants your code but doesn't want the license that you've chosen for it, you can arrange some other license or tell him to pound sand. You have the copyright, you do what you want. There's no subverting of the GPL if it's not used. The rights and obligations under the GPL don't change - it's just that the other party doesn't want them, so you work something else out.

>By another token, Open Source is being used by companies as a way to get individuals to create code without compensating them.

Wrong. The creators have free will - the companies don't get them to write code without compensation.

>This unfairly competes with the American software industry, and exploits ...

How is this unfair? If a company can't provide value to the customer, then it doesn't deserve to exist. The closed-source software industry does not deserve protection from the open-source software industry. I fail to see how competition creates stagnation.

Re:Unfortunately...

[Anonymous Coward]

The invention of the automobile put a whole industry of buggy-whip manufactures out of business and was therefore bad for the economy.

Re:Unfortunately...

[Omnifarious]

I have come to the conclusion that in the presence of a healthy economy, there will always be more demand for programmers than there are people who can program.

Re:Unfortunately...

[adrianmonk]

At this point, the GPL is mostly irrelevant to the Open Source movement. Once hailed as a means to safeguard the communal creation, exchange, and improvement of software, it's now being subverted by companies and individuals generating their own licenses loosely based on the GPL but permitting the commercial extension/closed-binary distribution of code for the right amount of money.

Huh? I really don't get what you're saying. You seem to be implying that the GPL and its way of doing open source predates other ways of doing it and other licenses. I don't think history agrees with you.

For one thing, some of the earliest open source software was simply released into the public domain. That's sort of the ultimate in permissive licensing -- way more permissive than the GPL is. Back in the 1980's, it was quite common for free software to be public domain.

Second, the GPL seems to have originated in June 1988, whereas the BSD license seems to have originated in June 1989. In my mind, that makes the BSD license and the GPL pretty close to contemporary. Both the BSD project and the GNU Project have histories that stretch several years back before the late 1980's, so in a sense those dates are not that significant and they are just the particular point that both groups felt it was necessary to be more formal about the licensing.

So, my perception is that there have been three strong open source traditions for quite some time: (1) GPL-style, and (2) BSD-style, and (3) public domain. The idea that non-GPL style free or open source software is a new thing just doesn't seem to fit with reality to me.

no shelf life on GPL2

[pmike_bauer]

There is no shelf life for GPL2. There is no need to 'upgrade' to GPL3 just because it exists.

No democracy? So what!

[mc6809e]

This obsession people seem to have with democracy is silly. Do doctors and nurses in the operating room vote on how to proceed with an operation? Should pilots ask for a vote on how to land a plane?

There are plenty of things democracy is good for, but sometimes you have to leave decisions in the hands of people more qualified than the average person.

Re:No democracy? So what!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikipedia disagrees with you.
I've never done any brain surgery, but I sure have fun commenting on the Wikipedia brain surgery articles. Sometimes I just make up stuff and add it. Bah! Experts...who needs 'em?

Re:No democracy? So what!

[Turn-X Alphonse]

I agreee except the GPL is for the "little people" to use, not just them. If they ignore everyone then they distance themselvs from the average person. It's like politics at the moment, it's so full of rich people who've never lived "like normal people" they forget about them and focus on other rich people's intrests.

Re:No democracy? So what!

[Kelson]

Yep. What matters most about democracy is that it makes explicit the tenet that the state governs by the consent of the governed. Either you make decisions as a group, or you collectively choose someone qualified to make decisions on your behalf.

When it comes to societal issues, it makes sense for the society as a whole to come to a consensus. When it comes to something specific, like surgery or legal advice, you go find an expert. Anyone who expects the open source community to be able to vote on GPL provisions is overlooking some important issues:

1. Who is eligible to vote? Everyone who has ever written an OSS program? Everyone who has ever used one? Everyone with an internet connection? Everyone on the planet?
2. Software expertise does not translate into legal expertise.

A smart client doesn't overrule his lawyer. If they disagree, he might discuss the issue. But he recognizes that his lawyer knows more about the law, or at least that field of law, than he does. And if the lawyer doesn't? Time to get another lawyer.

Re:No democracy? So what!

[Overly Critical Guy]

Surgical operations and landing planes aren't the same as worldwide "open" and "free" software licensing movements that are supposed to better a software community.

A software license for the free software community seems to me to require the input of, you know, the free software community.

Re:No democracy? So what!

[Moofie]

Uh, did you see this part?

"I expect the process around GPL 3.0, when it begins in some 60 to 90 days' time, to collect a great deal of comment from people on the draft documents... ", He said.

Re:No democracy? So what!

[SquadBoy]

Exactly. I always like it when I go to some professional. Lawyer, doctor what have you. You can tell they have been talking to people who don't grok this when they ask what you think they should do. I always answer "You would not tell me how to build a network and I'm not going to tell you how to do $FOO. Do what's best."

If more people had smaller egos and knew their limits life would be much better.

Re:No democracy? So what!

[Moofie]

Is the Free Software Community somehow bound to use the new GPL? I didn't think so.

Re:No democracy? So what!

[kuzb]

This obsession people seem to have with democracy is silly. Do doctors and nurses in the operating room vote on how to proceed with an operation? Should pilots ask for a vote on how to land a plane?

No, because these are established procedures. If you're inventing a procedure, then it should be put to a vote where the voters are people qualified to make those choices. In this case, it's more like a pseudo-democracy, because you're only involving people with an intimate knowledge of the subject at hand.

Re:No democracy? So what!

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes you think the lawyers aren't themselves free software contributors? As both a software engineer and an attorney, I think your characterization of our ilk may be misconceived.

Re:No democracy? So what!

[kuzb]

What makes you think the lawyers aren't themselves free software contributors? As both a software engineer and an attorney, I think your characterization of our ilk may be misconceived.

With you being a lawyer, I would hope that you are capable of reading and interpreting everything that I said, not just the bits you wanted to see, and certainly not the bits that weren't there to begin with . At no point did I say lawyers couldn't be free software contributors. I only made the point of saying people who have an excellent working knowledge of the subject should have a say in the rewrite of the GPL. IE: Lawyers and software engineers who have an intimate knowledge of the GPL. *Obviously* lawyers need to be involved. It is, after all, a legal document, and the law has bloated up to the point where it takes a legal specialist (and in this case, probably several of them) to make it air-tight.

Re:No democracy? So what!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Do doctors and nurses in the operating room vote on how to proceed with an operation?"

As put, no. But usually in your scenario, you're unconscious as well (although many procedures, you are not). Geeks, when coding, usually aren't. If you are awake during surgery, you can say "stop" and they are required hands off, otherwise it's assault (hence why they normally sedate your ass or have you sign something beforehand to ignore your comments while under the knife).

Further, doctors and nurses are subject to legal scrutiny, including standard of practice and established minority opinion standards of practice, and that's just in the civil court world.

If a health care provider does something not criminally legal but screwed up which causes harm, they are subject to tort. The writers of the GPLv3 are not.

Plus, if you have any sort of a clue, you research your doctor and ask him what can go wrong/complications, how he will proceed. If he is unwilling to give a summary, you might want to go elsewhere for your care. A doctor who does not meet the needs of his patients loses his patient base... ...This is akin to what may happen with the writers of the GPLv3--they may have their work ripped apart, leaving holes to those geeks who don't know the law but don't like the license but will try to use it, and undermining the very efforts of community adoption that the GPLv3 creators SHOULD be concerned about. This isn't a legal challenge solely; they have to allow the community to at least feel like they are being listened to, otherwise they will be kicked to the curb or have modified GPLv3 which will not stand up to legal scrutiny.

"Should pilots ask for a vote on how to land a plane?"

Fubar the landing, and you'll have angry passengers who won't fly your airline and complaints that will likely threaten your job if you keep up screwing up. The authors of GPLv3 should take notice.

Re:No democracy? So what!

[Col. Klink (retired)]

And after seeing what's going on in MA re: ODF, thank god GPL 3.0 won't be controlled by a democracy. Just imagine if MS was able to use all its resources to turn GPL3 into a BSD-style license. If not done properly, GPL3 could allow proprietary vendors to take GPL2+ code, incorporate it into a closed app, and release it binary only.

It's only because people *know* that later versions of the GPL will still meet the same ideals as GPL2 that they are willing to release things as GPL 2 or later.

Re:No democracy? So what!

[Anonymous Coward]

Furthermore, democracy (or the act of voting) does not, by any rational conclusion, turn an immoral act into a moral act. The reason I have to point this out is that many people apparently believe just the opposite.

Re:No democracy? So what!

[Spit]

A software license for the free software community seems to me to require the input of, you know, the free software community.

That's where you're getting confused. The GPL is a document by the FSF for the FSF. If you consider the FSF's charter to be to your liking then releasing under the GPL is for you.

Otherwise you're free to use the myriad other pre-rolled licenses or, heaven-forbid, write your own.

Nobody's being forced to use GPLv3, if you're worried about it just release your software under perpetual GPLv2 as the Linux kernel is.

Why would it be a democracy?

[lheal]

I would accuse Moglen of putting forth a straw man argument about putting each clause up for a vote, but it's clear from the description that someone had suggested that. How stupid.

I expect that the GPL3 will be looked over and hashed about by enough people. Hopefully it will be a fine license for the near future, and not just for the recent past.

GPL != Open Software

[Anonymous Coward]

Face it, the GPL and the concepts of "open" software are not one and the same. The GPL has always (well, v2 anyway) limited what one can do with the software and while it does make an effort to make the source code itself "open", as in forcing it to be out in the open, has restrictions that make the source code "not open" in the sense that it is free to use in any way you see fit. Now it looks like v3 is going to go even further down that path.

GPL has and always will be about pushing a particular political agenda, not about creating software that anyone can use in any way they wish to use it. I know this next statement will be flamebait, but why more people who truely want software to be "free" don't choose something more akin to the BSD license is beyond me.

Re:GPL != Open Software

[Oliver Defacszio]

GPL has and always will be about pushing a particular political agenda, not about creating software that anyone can use in any way they wish to use it.

Well, duh. The entire universe of free and open source software is purely political. Ever looked around this place? Linux and open source isn't about good software, it's about putting the screws to Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, etc, etc, etc.

That's where the old saying comes from, young man -- BSD (and its licence) are for those who like UNIX. Linux (and the GPL) are for those who hate Windows.

And, furthermore, most of the "reasons" they use to hate Windows don't even apply anymore (e.g. stability, speed).

Pure politics, pal.

Re:GPL != Open Software

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly.

Re:GPL != Open Software

[capicu]

You're going to get chargrilled for that comment, but I have something more or less constructive to say in response to it anyway.
I've tried the BSDs as well as a huge amount of Linux distros. Linux distros have better hardware support than BSDs. I can't even get BSD to boot (some don't even install) on any of my computers. Linux on the other hand (slackware) boots fine, requires a minimum of driver installation - alsaconf and ndiswrapper - and I'm productive. For my purposes, Linux is the right choice for the job.
However, I'm sure you know perfectly well that sweeping statements arent meant to be 100% :D

Anyway, is this saying well known in the BSD community? I'm curious. It's like you guys have your own little sub-sub-culture. I think I can see where the idea comes from. BSD licensing allows anyone to use the code, meaning the focus is just on getting good code out there, whereas the GPL is actively anti closed source, which explains why from the BSD viewpoint it looks like we "hate windows".
Having said all this, I'm not particularly supportive of any particular licence. If I were to release software ever - I guess it's not inconceivable - I would probably write a short licence saying that you can do whatever you want with this code as long as you don't try to stop me using, developing, or distributing it... come to think of it... is that BSD?

Re:GPL != Open Software

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure the reason for RMS creating the GNU system and the GNU GPL is not Windows sucking.

Re:GPL != Open Software

[Anonymous Coward]

1. The GPL is an open source license. That means it fits very well into the open source concept.
2. From the GPL: "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope." That means that the GPL does not place any limitations on use.
3. Open Source has an agenda as well (beeing bussines friendly), the fact that it differs from the Free Software agenda (bringing freedom to the user) does not make it disappear.

Re:GPL != Open Software

[JonJ]

That's where the old saying comes from, young man -- BSD (and its licence) are for those who like UNIX. Linux (and the GPL) are for those who hate Windows.

Actually, GPL and Linux are for those who enjoy freedom. Please remember that Stallmans ideals existed long before Microsoft had a close to monopoly.

I would probably be considered an "FSF zealot" too, so let me say this: I do not care about what Microsoft does with Windows, as long as I am able to choose a free(as in freedom) operating system to suit my needs.

"Possible" is not "probable"

[NickFortune]

The one zealots in question makes a great deal of sense when he argues the benefits of free software.

The other one... well, he wrote the first two versions of the GPL, which has been moderately successful after all is said and done :)

C'mon. lighten up. It's not like there's a shortage of alternatives if Stallman implodes. But given that he's done a good job so far, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one. The man has his blind spots, but he wrote the licence that enabled an enitre movement. Let's see what he has to say first.

Re:LOL IT'S SOCIALISM

[HoneyBunchesOfGoats]

You created an account just for that comment? I really think you need to get a life.

Moglen isn't mistaken

[Anonymous Coward]

On the contrary, I'm sure they're well aware that developers can take it or leave it. Hence there's no need for democracy.

Democracy is for decisions which have to be taken collectively; it's unnecessary in a context where you can vote with your feet.

eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

it's now being subverted by companies and individuals generating their own licenses loosely based on the GPL but permitting the commercial extension/closed-binary distribution of code for the right amount of money.

If you're the copyright holder, there's nothing stopping you from releasing your code under a modified GPL, or under the GPL *and* another license. Or whatever you want. You're not subverting anything by doing so. (When you said "generating their own licenses", I assume you're referring to copyright holders).

Mod parent up

[CaptainCarrot]

Exactly! This needs to be professionally written in such a way that it has a very good chance of standing up in court. To take a vote among a group of legally unqualified geeks will not help achieve this.

Re:Mod parent up

[Kjella]

Exactly! This needs to be professionally written in such a way that it has a very good chance of standing up in court. To take a vote among a group of legally unqualified geeks will not help achieve this.

No, in fact they're fairly orthogonal. When you want to make any form of agreement (except the "all your computers are belong to us" EULAs, which can be written purely by lawyers), you have negotiators and such working on what the agreement should contain, and then you send it over to legal for them to make it legally solid. The FSF are "selling" this to the community as the license people should use, and while I know they have their own agenda, not caring what the end-users of the license thinks is a lousy way to gather support.

I don't mean the literal wording, but topics of interest and possibilities of handling them. Software patents. ASP models. Source terms (I think that all binary suppliers should be *required* to offer source with the binaries, but that the user can decline and retain the option of getting it later that he has today. No more playing games like e.g. the Linksys drivers, where source of the modified versions were almost impossible to get). There's many topics where there could be a legitimate discussion about how we would like to resolve this, without us being lawyers. It might be a good idea to have a lawyer screen it and only present feasible ideas, but a lawyer isn't there to tell you which one to choose.

Re:Mod parent up

[Spit]

I don't mean the literal wording, but topics of interest and possibilities of handling them. Software patents. ASP models.

I think Moglen and Stallman have considered these issues at length in the decade since they drafted GPLv2, and in fact are the reasoning behind GPLv3.

Re:Mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

To take a vote among a group of legally unqualified geeks will not help achieve this.

Considering that 90% of developers can barely write a program that's not full of holes, I don't have much confidence in their legal drafting abilities.

There will be a different kind of vote.

[Mr Z]

People will vote with their feet. The review and editing process will mold and shape the final GPL v3. Then the voting begins as people pick their licenses going forwards. Either they'll pick GPL v3 or will stick to some other license.

Voting won't change the contents of GPL v3 directly, but the fact that people will vote with their feet after it's released still means the broader community will have some impact. Either that, or FSF will demonstrate itself to be focused only on its own needs and interests, and so may alienate others. I don't think they've ever been too afraid of alienating others in the interest of maintaining ideological purity. So, it'll be interesting to see how effective the review and feedback process is, and how many people actually adopt GPL v3, and what impact that has on any follow-ons to GPL v3.

--Joe

YEP, I DID JUST THAT

[YEP, I DID JUST THAT]

You created an account just for that comment?

YEP, I DID JUST THAT

Re:YEP, I DID JUST THAT

[networkBoy]

At the risk of username pollution, why did you create an account for the reply?
-nB

DOING THAT WOULD BE MORONIC!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

You guys DO realize that you can't make a coherent legal document by voting on clauses, right? You're more liable to wind up with some popular but ineffective mish-mash of rubbish and nonsense that can't stand up in court. And the WHOLE POINT of a license is a document that stands up in court!

Anyhow, you don't need to vote. If you don't want your stuff licensed under GPL 3, only distribute it with a license for GPL v. 2, or by some other license. Hell, if you're stubborn and want to take your own legal advice just write your own version of the GPL 3.0 with whatever clauses you do or do not want.

If it's yours to license, YOU get to choose what to license it as. There's no one with a gun to your head saying you have to "upgrade" to version three!

True, some authors have licensed their work with GPL 2 "or higher" clauses, but the licensee, NOT the licensor, gets to choose which version of the GPL (including an "old" one) they're accepting! So if you download GPL 2+ licensed works, you can choose to abide by the GPL 2 *OR* by the GPL 3, at your option. Now, you can't mix and match, but you still don't have to accept the GPL 3 from anything unless and until people start distributing their works under "GPL 3 or higher" licenses. In which case you can ask the authors to license it under your terms, or distribute some other software. Yes, *distribute* NOT "use"--the GPL explicitly does not cover mere use of the software. It's not a EULA. Read it some time if you don't believe me.

And if they're totally out to lunch here, guess what? Someone will "fork" the unpopular GPL 3.0, rewrite it the popular way, and people will use the DemoGPL v1337 or whatever to license their works under. Just don't expect Eben Moglen to write it for you, and don't expect it to stand up in court if you decided to write it by having random non-lawyers design it by committee...

-----
By reading this post, you agree that I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice even if I'm merely rehashing what actual lawyers (including Eben Moglen himself) have said, and to write your own damn license instead of complaining that you don't like a license you haven't even read yet. In the event of a material breech of this license, your only recourse is to STFU. That is all.

Why should the process be democratic?

[Anonymous Coward]

If a developer doesn't like the terms of the GPL, he can alter it to suit his needs, choose another license, or write one from scratch. If the GPL was the only option, I could see where a vote might be warranted, but not in the current situation we find ourselves in.

Besides, if you permit anyone and everyone to vote, what's to prevent opponents of OSS from stuffing the ballot box to wreck the GPL? I could see Darl and his minions gleefully sitting at their computers, voting over and over to make the license as unattractive as possible.

An alternate...

[Anonymous Coward]

This license has always been more appealing to me, fuck the restrictive GPL.

In his quest to keep all things open...

[Eric Damron]

Moglen I think sometimes goes too far. Isn't he the one that feels that if a GPL'd program is used to _produce_ code that that code should be gpl'd also. I don't remember the details but I think it had something to do with companys using open source products to produce web sites that interact with the public.

It seems to me that if we aren't careful we won't be able to use gcc or any other open source compilers to produce non-GPL'd code even if they are linked only to non-GPL'd libraries. Don't get me wrong, GPL'd code is great but Linux should be a platform that allows both open and closed source applications.

Re:In his quest to keep all things open...

[mw13068]

The GPL has nothing to do with the *output* of a program. The only exception is if the program output is a large amount of verbatim copy of the GPL'ed program's source code.

For example, the BISON parser generator copies its own source code into its output. This out put would be covered under the GPL. BUT the GNU/FSF folks have made an exception for BISON which allows people to use it to create output for inclusion in non-free programs.

To put it another way, you can use a GPLed program to produce output and the GPL will have no effect over that output. That output is yours to do with as you please. That's part of "Freedom 0" in the GNU Free Software definition.

Have a nice day.

Re:In his quest to keep all things open...

[Kjella]

I don't remember the details but I think it had something to do with companys using open source products to produce web sites that interact with the public.

Not quite. It is the case where people are selling access to a GPL'd program, instead of distributing it in the traditional sense. Web hosting and the ASP model would be a few examples. If you want to talk about more explicit exploitation, you could sell access to a server, located on their local network operated by their local operators, but that technically and legally is yours and so you never distribute it, you only sell access and don't have to give them any source. This is getting more and more important as things move to web services.

Re:In his quest to keep all things open...

[mindstrm]

This is true, absolutely.

But with the web, things can get tricky.

What about a fancy AJAX framework that generates a sizeable amount of javascript as part of the application... in this case, simply running the software requires distribution of parts of it.

Re:In his quest to keep all things open...

[Eric Damron]

That's right, that's what it was.

But do you see the very thin line between a gpl'd ASP.NET implementation and code that is generated by a gpl'd compiler?

This becomes very fuzzy in my mind. Of course it could just be my mind... :-)

Why is this bad?

[PhreakOfTime]

Why is this presented as a netgative?

This is how it works, voting!=good decisions. There are more than enough examples that just having the 'right' to vote is of no real benefit. Recent history being an example. The point is responsibility. Not 'rights'. Rights do not come free of charge, they come with responsibility. Simply because you are not accustomed to recognizing that responsibility and think its 'absence' is some sort of melevolant action, is quite frankly, naive.

If you think you have something important to CONTRIBUTE to this license that is being developed, then get off your fat ass and make yourself heard. They are ASKING for you to do that if you simply read the statements of the organizers. But since nobody ever does... here it is; This will also be a very public and watched process and so we need those leaders in the community to step forward and play an important role. It is also rare that we get to see a license under development and to get involved in that process," she said.

It just isnt possible that there is nobody competent enough on slashdot, who has editor status, who can write an article that presents the IMPORTANT parts of the story, and not the sensationalist parts...

Im just guessing that the editor is american, because nobody else is so disconnected from the responsibilities that come with voting as americans seem to be.

Re:Why is this bad?

[vertinox]

This is how it works, voting!=good decisions.

I would highly agree.

There is a reason that referendums are forbidden in the current German constitution.

Re:Why is this bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right, Americans are ignorant of responsiblity. And apparently, you're ignorant as to what a generalized falicy is. Keep you're nationaly bigotis comments to your self, and perhaps people will take you more seriously.

Other than those two comments, I agree with you.

QBRADQ (Will Register Soon)

Draft version of GPL 3.0

[Anonymous Coward]

All your base are belong to the community

Seriously: I welcome our GNU GPL overlords

[davidwr]

I for one welcome our GNU GPL overlords.

No, seriously, they are smart people and I trust they will do a good job. In the unlikely event that I don't like what they've written I won't use it for my projects.

Re:Seriously: I welcome our GNU GPL overlords

[TuringTest]

Except you won't have a coice if OTHER people use it for their projects on which you rely...

Ah, but that is called "freedom"... do you like it?

Re:Seriously: I welcome our GNU GPL overlords

[Anonymous Coward]

In the unlikely event that I don't like what they've written I won't use it for my projects.

Exactly. I wish we could say the same about government.

Re:Seriously: I welcome our GNU GPL overlords

[Anonymous Coward]

uhhhh, 5 insightful?

biggest troll ever

Wiki QWZX

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not put the GPL on a Wiki page and allow people to read it and modify it? I can well imagine with all the people giving their input, it would gradually evolve toward a great document.

Considering the importance of the GPL to the community, it would certainly be better than RMS and his buddies sitting in a room with no transparency.

Re:Wiki QWZX

[Kelson]

Somehow I expect it would end up looking like this:

GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE VERSION 3.14159

You may reuse this source code for any purpose, as long as you don't work for Microsoft or let it run on Windows. Each and every modification must be published, with full commentary, on Slashdot at the earliest possible convenience. If I want to use your code, I'm free to do so, and I don't owe you anything, but if you want to use my code, well if you can read this you've found the hidden message and you must provide documentation. SCO sux. This license shipped by weight, not by volume. Some settlement of terms have have occurred during development.

Proof socialism does not work

[pl1ght]

Always ends up a dicatorship

I'M PUSH BUTTONS

[I'M PUSHING BUTTIONS]

I'M PUSH BUTTONS

This thing needs to be SOLID-Building Woody.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Most of us here on slashdot have an opinion on what should be going on in the GPL, but obviously most of us are not lawyers."

Really? Sure could have fooled me. Anyway why don't we Wikify the process? WikiLaw or something.

Also here's one for discussion. Can GPL2 and GPL3 code be mixed? If not, does that mean more forks?

What is your problem really?

[twitter]

"My Problem: [quote from gpl] .... "either version 1, or (at your option) any later version." This is on my software. If I dont like GPL 3.0, and dont want my software distributed under it, I'm already screwed.

You have already given the world the four software freedoms to your code. A new license can not take that away from your users because they would chose to keep the old license. What more can they take from you? What have you thought of that my innocent mind can not?

You can't push a rope and you can't make a man work. If you don't like the changes to the GPL you can publish all of your new code under any other license you like. Code grows quickly or dies. It will soon be useless without a maintainer.

Re:What is your problem really?

[Trogre]

That's right, they can't take away those four freedoms.

They can of course add the Fifth Software Freedom, which is missing from the GPL v2:

5. The freedom to improve the program, and withold changes from the public.

Would you want your software released under such a licence? I don't know, perhaps you would.

Re:What is your problem really?

[SpaceLifeForm]

Your 5th freedom is not ever going to be part of the GPL.

Re:AND I'M RETARDED

[networkBoy]

A new kind of troll, and I'm just feeding you eh?
-nB

Re:Why not get all serious about things...

[heinousjay]

it works best in democracies

You know, even though you apparently have no sense of humor, you sure made me laugh.

Just kidding...

Re:LOL IT'S SOCIALISM

[Frodo Crockett]

ou created an account just for that comment? I really think you need to get a life.

This is the future of Slashdot. Really, how many comments here are truly original? One man with a few dozen such accounts could replace 90% of posts on Slashdot!

You didn't describe democracy.

[Spy der Mann]

You described demagogy. Here in Mexico City, governor wants to use polls for everything, so that the easily-manipulable people will vote in favor of whatever the government tells them. The same thing is done by Hugo Chavez. All decisions aren't taken by him, but by the uninformed / misinformed people.

A true democracy, however, is about the people choosing someone who will take the decisions, whether the people like it or not. They chose him to take responsibility for his actions.

And certainly I think that Richard Stallman would be the person I'd vote for. In any case, the experts are already deciding for us. And that's good.

Re:You didn't describe democracy.

[djp928]

Actually, you're the one not describing democracy. Democracy is one man, one vote, like old-style Athens. New England town meeting style government, where the whole town gets together to vote on matters is true democracy. What you're describing (and what the US currently has) is a representative republic. Republican government (as in the style of government, not the US political party) is where the people directly elect representatives to make all the decisions. It's basically democracy-by-proxy, except your particular proxy isn't always the one you would have liked to have had.

-- Dave

Re:You didn't describe democracy.

[metamatic]

Here in Mexico City, governor wants to use polls for everything, so that the easily-manipulable people will vote in favor of whatever the government tells them. The same thing is done by Hugo Chavez. All decisions aren't taken by him, but by the uninformed / misinformed people.

That's nothing. Here in America decisions to go to war are taken by a small number of elected misinformed people.

Does it really matter?

[kuzb]

We see reports of companies misusing GPL'd code a lot, and we almost never hear about a successful prosicution. A great example that comes to mind is Maui X-Stream, who has been proven guilty of violating the GPL several times in most, if not all, of their products. However, we never hear about those people actually doing jail time for it. One has to ask, is the GPL effective at all?

the Zealots are at ZDNet.

[twitter]

This poster pointed to the original interview with RMS and detailed the mistakes in the Zdnet article:

The proposed change would thwart removal of a button to download software that an author put in, not make a download button manditory. This interesting and mild idea is being considered carefully to avoid problems it might cause if abused by contributors.

There's more, but it's not worth the trouble to detail. That last Slashdot story was just more BS from another Wintel rag.

If you have a real objection to a real proposed change, let's hear it.

Re:the Zealots are at ZDNet.

[Kjella]

The proposed change would thwart removal of a button to download software that an author put in, not make a download button manditory.

I guess that'll answer the question: How well can you hide a button and still technically have it available on your website (I've seen a few companies who'd score high on that without even trying...) It would have to specify size, layout, placement, reachability by linking and any number of things to work. It's a nice idea on paper though.

Too many licenses-ApacheX

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you want to take code from others and not give anything back in return though, BSD is for you."

Netcraft confirms it: The Apache License is dying!

UPDATE! Netcraft confirms as well: The MIT X Window System License is also dying.

Damn! Now why didn't they go with that all-purpose "Save us from evil capitalism" GPL license? This NEVER would have happen.

---
The "are you a script" word for today is lessons.

LUNIX LOL

[bunnyman]

yuo fail it

Some protection

[Chuck Chunder]

This is not good news. There is a massive amount of code out there which relies on the GPL. Let's say that you put out code under the GPL 2.x and Stallman suddenly decides in 3.0 to add a clause that says that the licensee no longer has to do the viral thing, can use your name in his advertisements, gets to poke you in the eye. Great, says the licensee: I'm upgrading! Time to get eye poked out.

I think there is at least some defence against that. In regards to to future versions the GPL states in clause 9 that "Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns".

If the new version of the GPL had a "poke in the eye" clause I think it would be very easy to argue (in court if need be) that the new version is not "similar in spirit to the present version" and therefore the forward grant would be void.

Obviously "spirit" is a bit vague (and needs to be for any changes to be allowed) but it should protect against outrageous changes in direction.

That statement's not a part of the GPL

[InfiniteWisdom]

It's your fault for putting on your software. That statement is not a part of the GPL itself, but is juat the boilerplate statement that is suggested for applying the GPL to your code. If you didn't want your users to be able to use future versions of the GPL without your approving it first, you shouldn't have included that statement. Instead, you could have taken a cue from the Linux kernel license and included a statement like this:

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

AGPL Fork

[Doc Ruby]

The democracy comes when people adopt the new license. I predict it will be draconian, specifying that people who merely interoperate with GPL3 SW will have to publish source code. Just leveraging the market share of GPL software to force other authors to go GPL, regardless of justice, fairness, or any other consideration than Moglen and Stallman's revolutionary fervor.

Which is too bad. A sensible GPL3 that people would adopt would address interop by making only reasonable demands. Just as we got, in addition to GPL, an LGPL, we also need an AGPL for APIs and interfaces. Which require any app that interoperates with an AGPL app to open, publish and document its APIs, and carry the AGPL. That would make AGPL apps virally force developers to open interfaces. The denial of which openness is indefensible, except on the basis of programmers' rights to do anything we want, except when bound by agreement otherwise. API access is even more important than source code access, though it comes along with OSS (except for real, explicit documentation). And API access is the biggest drag on interop, where getting the rest of the source is usually just a bonus.

There's nothing magic about Moglen. He's just the expert who wrote the last GPL(s). There's no reason we can't write a forked "GPL 3.0", which merely requires the AGPL I described, even using those GPLs as the original "source" from which to produce the new version. When it proves more popular than Moglen's GPL 3.0, democracy and open source will have conspired in the market for maximum freedom, as chosen by the free.

Re:AGPL Fork

[Shadowlore]

When it proves more popular than Moglen's GPL 3.0, democracy and open source will have conspired in the market for maximum freedom, as chosen by the free.

And if the inverse occurs? Will democracy and open source then have conspired in the market for minimum freedom, as chosen by the free?

Re:AGPL Fork

[Doc Ruby]

Ipso Facto

Voting on clauses != blindly approving the result

[InfiniteWisdom]

I'm not saying they should have an open vote on the GPL clauses, but your argument doesn't necessarily make sense.

People could vote on what the clauses should be in principle (eg. patent licensing clause) and then professional lawyers could draft a coherent document that incorporates those principles. You could then potentially take another vote to ensure that the final document encompasses the ideas people approved.

Not a democracy, but democratic enough.

[gg3po]

It's not a democracy. It's more of a meritocracy. It isn't entirely without representation, however. The members of the FSF that will ultimately make the final decisions have gained their considerable power by the choice of the masses that use their software and licenses. RMS is nothing without the collective respect of the thousands (millions?) that use his code, licenses, and philosophy in their own projects. They are, in a sense, casting their vote for him -- recognizing his importance -- every time they type code in EMACS, compile with GCC, or slap a GPL on their latest release.

If FSF were a government that had the means to force your use of their code and licenses, things would be different. All use of FSF and related projects is completely voluntary. No one forced these hoardes of end-users and developers to hold these individuals in high regard. They have chosen to do so based on their past merit. Because of this, if at any time the FSF were to violate that trust, it's power would evaporate overnight. The masses of FOSS enthusiasts from which they derive their power would throw their support behind another organization (fork?). There is nothing stopping them from doing so. This is why, although not a direct democracy, the FSF knows it must at the very least hear our opinions and take them into consideration or face irrelevancy.

Regardless of all this, I'm rather tired of sound-bites proclaiming democracy as the end-all, be-all of government. Might (sheer numbers/popularity) does not make right. Democratic principles should be observed, but within certain agreed-upon limits -- the rule of law. A majority should not have the power to vote for enslaving a minority, for example. This is why the right to defend one's own liberty, and the rules of the game that permit that liberty -- the law, is so crucial. If a majority rises up with the purpose of oppressing my minority, I have to be prepared to enforce the rules, the limits -- ensure that they are adhered to -- as Malcolm X put it: "by any means necessary."

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin

"There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." -- John Quincy Adams

GPL 3.0beta

[jack_csk]

Can't RMS just come up with a beta version, we will see how good / bad it is.

Actually, Siberians love ice cream, even in winter

[bcatanzaro]

I lived for 2 years in Siberia and often bought ice cream from street vendors when it was below freezing. It makes life easier for the street vendors - they don't have to plug in their portable ice chests... =)

So the two groups actually worked together?

[lightspawn]

On the advice of a few dozen people and a couple of lawyers, it was written and released.

Wow, both people and lawyers...

Free software

[nuggz]

The GPL only has 1 restriction and that is that if you distribute the software the recipients get all the same rights you do.

The ONLY thing you aren't permitted to do is give them less than you have, which isn't that bad because it wasn't your software to begin with.

GPL is for people who want their free software to stay free, and not get embraced and extended by someone else.

You can't outsmart Moglen

[Anonymous Coward]

You're free to vote GPL 3.0 into oblivion by not using it, but the *text* of the GPL is not under your control, which is what Moglen said.

Moglen is not mistaken. What did you think, that you could outsmart a professor of law on his own turf?

The fight is over the GPL3 *NAME*

[aphor]

There are (for the purpose of this post) innumerable possible licenses out there. Only one of them will be called GPL3.0, but if you don't like the one arbitrarily named GPL3.0 you are perfectly free to use one of the others. Keep using GPL2.0, for instance. The democracy in the GPL3.0 is VOLUNTARY ADOPTION. This license will not be foisted on anyone.

The real problem is that lots of people may dislike GPL3.0, and they will likely go with plan B, which may not be the same license as everyone else. Then we will all have to read the fine print again. Of course, upon rejection of the GPL3.0 license, these same dissenters can (and probably will) wish they had an acceptible GPL, which provides the perfect motivation for a GPL3.1 fork. We all have to choose between the LGPL and the GPL as things stand, because there was a bifurcation in the types of GPL software, their users and their respective licensing needs. It isn't clear whether this situation is more or less dangerous than the debate that led to the LGPL. The implied message is clear: "GPL3.0 may not be any good."

The expression that GPL3.0 might be bad is meaningless because it doesn't exist yet. Communicating this to a mass audience is FUD. The purpose is to stir up demand for participation in the GPL3.0 drafting process, which will complicate it, and slow it down, and sacrifice the quality of the final product (even if only the timeliness). If there was real reason for concern, people would already be embroiled in an Internet wide debate on what needs to be fixed with the GPL. Maybe that is already happening, and it's just the people most qualified and or interested that are participating in the debate, at a quiet level compared to Slashdot controversy. If I wanted to derail those people, the best tool at my disposal is to try and discredit them and force them to spend their valuable time defending themselves and their work from angry mobs of mouth-breathers who refuse to Google the issue themselves.

Here's a hint: if you ever get a feeling of righteous indignation, you're playing the victim, and you're ignoring your real opportunity to do something positive.

Re:The fight is over the GPL3 *NAME*

[slumos]

> This license will not be foisted on anyone.

Except for everybody who exactly followed the instructions in How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs and used these terms:

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

Re:The fight is over the GPL3 *NAME*

[emh0]

At the beginning of the GPL you will notice:

Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

In other words, the GPL itself is not 'open source'. It cannot be modified, forked, updated, etc., except by the copyright owners (the FSF). The only thing we mortals are allowed to do is distribute verbatim copies.

Re:The fight is over the GPL3 *NAME*

[Anonymous Coward]

I must express my curiosity as to which definition of "foist" you are using in order to arrive at the conlusion that the license text, and the choice therein, constitutes an act of foisting anything on anybody.

Re:Voting on clauses != blindly approving the resu

[Anonymous Coward]

Even that won't help if the clauses are at odd with one another. Nor will the most popular clauses necessarily reflect those which best protect GPL'd software.

But is it still GPL?

[Urusai]

If you modify the wording of the GPL, have you had your license to use the term "GPL" revoked automatically? Or does the GPL licence allow you to modify that part? I'm confused!

Re:But is it still GPL?

[T-Ranger]

Read over COPYING in some GPLd package, it details out how to use the GPL and that this is allowed.

Lanal, L == I ?

[bug1]

FTFA-"Lanal" is web-speak for the disclaimer "I am not a lawyer."

Firstly, L doesnt stand for I, I stands for I.

Secondly, its all caps, its an acronym, its not a word.

Maybe if the artical was written by someone with a clue...

Re:Lanal, L == I ?

[bug1]

Furthermore...

Maybe the guy who wrote it works for Lbm, you know, "International Buisness Machines"

MOD PARENT UP

[TeXMaster]

In this ocean of ignorance, someone that knows what he's talking about.

Kibbutz (Re:Why would it be a democracy?)

[TeXMaster]

So why didn't this happen with Israel's kibbutzim? Note that regardless of the ideology behind them (i.e. not all of them where ideologically communist or even socialist), the kibbutz is in practice a communist cell of a democratic organism (the State of Israel). (Of course we could go on and on at length on if and why they failed, and if and why they were a success, and why there weren't many industrial ones and blah blah blah, but that's totally off topic.)

Re:Kibbutz (Re:Why would it be a democracy?)

[duffbeer703]

Kibbutz exist to solve a different problem -- originally it was not possible to succeed on your own as a farmer. By forming a collective, the residents of a kibbutz could pool resources and protect themselves in a harsh environment. As things got better in Israel, the kibbutz movement began to decline.

Communal societies work as long as they are voluntary and small. Unfortunately, people by their nature want MORE, and a society that depends on non-family oriented communal social structures degrades into something like the Soviet Union or China.

Re:Kibbutz (Re:Why would it be a democracy?)

[TeXMaster]

Didn't I mention I didn't want to discuss the reasons of their rise and fall? :) I only wanted to point out that communism and democracy are not intrinsically in contrast, regardless of the anticommunist obsession Americans grow in.

Re:Kibbutz (Re:Why would it be a democracy?)

[crawling_chaos]

Didn't I mention I didn't want to discuss the reasons of their rise and fall? :) I only wanted to point out that communism and democracy are not intrinsically in contrast, regardless of the anticommunist obsession Americans grow in.

If the reason that the kibbutzim failed is directly related to a long term incompatibility between the democratic political model and communist economic model, then why they failed is extremely relevant to your point. Therefore, claiming that you don'ty want to discuss those failures severely weakens your argument, because it looks like you are not willing to defend your own example. Is the decline of the kibbutz movement directly linked such a fundamental disconnect? Or are there other reasons? I'm not familar with the kibbutzim (the last time I remember reading about them was actually back in middle school in the late 70s) so please enlighten me.

Re:Kibbutz (Re:Why would it be a democracy?)

[WhiplashII]

Exactly true - the best example of a truely communist society is most families. A small group of people that trust each other can form a communist society, and it will be more efficient than a capitalistic one.

It just doesn't handle complexity or failure of trust.

Re:Kibbutz (Re:Why would it be a democracy?)

[duffbeer703]

It is relevant, because you can't have a large-scale communal society without some sort of government framework enforcing the rules of the commune. We're wired to desire property.

The Soviets didn't set out to be despotic; most party members in the early days were true believers in the communism and desperately wanted it to work. But the ambituous see communal living as an opportunity to gain political power and the lazy see an opportunity to goof off.

But small tight-knit communal structures work and work well. You see it today in cities with large asian communities -- immigrant socities provide capital for members to start businesses.

Re:Kibbutz (Re:Why would it be a democracy?)

[TeXMaster]

Briefly, the kibbutzim fall is an effect of people not volunteering for it anymore. It had nothing to do with it being incompatible with the democratic political model. Rather, it's related to a widespread feeling, as mentioned by the previous poster, that while they were the correct way to overcome the difficulties of fighting off the desert (and please the Isarel vs Palestine discussion out of this, since it's not relevant) from an agricultural point of view, it wasn't adequate past that. In particular, the kibbutz fall was tied to its inability to appeal in an industrial context: although there were a few industrial kibbutzim, they didn't have much success, and weren't well seen by the rest. BTW, in other democratic countries there are other examples of communal groups, but they never reached an 'echo' or 'call' as strong as the one of the Israelian kibbutz. Also interesting, once again they are mostly agricultural coopoeratives, although there are a fw (very limited number) industrial ones. These are even less socially comunist, but very close to what Marx describe as communism, i.e. the workers owning the means of production. (Of course, I'm not mentioning the open source project, which is an essentially anarcho-communist environment, in the strictest sense)

Re:Kibbutz (Re:Why would it be a democracy?)

[crawling_chaos]

Briefly, the kibbutzim fall is an effect of people not volunteering for it anymore. It had nothing to do with it being incompatible with the democratic political model.

In other words, when given a chance to vote for a communal model or for a more traditional capitalist one, people vote for the latter. While "incompatible" might be too strong a term, it does seem that free people making free choices do not choose the communist economic model. The only places where communes have existed for long periods of time is where a strong central government forces the residents to stay on them. It appears that in capitalist democracies you need to build walls to keep immigrants out, whereas in socialist autocracies you need to build walls to keep your citizens in.

Re:Kibbutz (Re:Why would it be a democracy?)

[TeXMaster]

It is relevant, because you can't have a large-scale communal society without some sort of government framework enforcing the rules of the commune.

Well, you can't have communal societies of any scale without some kind of government framework enforcing the rules of the commune. Actually, I'd go as far as saying you can't have any kind of society without rules and ways to enforce them. So the problem is not so much that some kind of rule-enforcing is needed, but how it is implemented.

We're wired to desire property.

Not all communism goes to Proudhon's extreme of equating any form of private property with theft. Even in the kibbutzim (to keep on topic with the specific example) some degree of private property was allowed. So it's more a matter of where to draw the line.

The Soviets didn't set out to be despotic; most party members in the early days were true believers in the communism and desperately wanted it to work. But the ambituous see communal living as an opportunity to gain political power and the lazy see an opportunity to goof off.

True for the last part, but even if not initially set out to be despotic coomunism in the USSR was still not really a voluntary option. It was imposed, when something like this can really only work when it 'grows from below'. The political power seizure is an extremely serious problem, and needs continuous thorough changes in the 'government framework' to prevent it. However this can lead to a lack of general bearings in the direction the State moves. If you take it to Mao's extreme of the "continuous revolution" (to prevent the re-formation of classes with bureaucrats on top) you obtain a State that cannot sustain itself.

But small tight-knit communal structures work and work well. You see it today in cities with large asian communities -- immigrant socities provide capital for members to start businesses.

Again, we're dealing with an essentially voluntary-based community.

Re:Kibbutz (Re:Why would it be a democracy?)

[TeXMaster]

In other words, when given a chance to vote for a communal model or for a more traditional capitalist one, people vote for the latter. While "incompatible" might be too strong a term, it does seem that free people making free choices do not choose the communist economic model.

Yes and no. When given a choice, people usually choose what they think is better for them (and for their descendants, hopefully), and this may not always be the same thing at all times in all places.

When saying "free people making free choices" you should also consider that "free choices" often have constraints anyway.

Some people are short-term thinkers and will value the momentary benefit more than any long-term benefit, other are long-term thinkers and would rather go for the latter rather than the former. However, some (esp. long-term) choices only really work out if there is a 'critical mass' of people thinking alike and being able to get together to make it work (in this regard, Internet is a strong part of the open source success --physically displacing yourself to another country is much more difficult), and if such critical mass cannot be reached in a certain place at a certain time, people will choose an option even when their preference would be the one needing the critical mass.

Also, often you cannot really choose what you really want, because of the vast degree of possible choices only a small discrete subset is actually offered (e.g. in politics you'll have to choose one party even though you'd rather get 60% from one, 30% from another and 10% of still another one).

MOD PARENT UP

[idonthack]

n/t
---
The only thing I hate more than a hypocrite is a person who hates hypocrites.
Generated by SlashdotRndSig via GreaseMonkey

As the author of that post

[davidwr]

When I posted I expected it to get to get to 3 - for funny and insightful. I also half expected a down-mod for redundant - a lot of people submitted basically the same thing in the time it took me to read the whole thread then compose my reply.

5 is excessive, 3 or 4 is more appropriate. But please don't kill my karma just to get it down to a 4. I've probably lost a bit recently with all the funny/overrated/funny/overrated moderations I've had lately.

ESR is not the guy

[Andy Tai]

I am amazed that sometimes ESR really succeeds in getting people to confuse him with RMS.

Re:ESR is not the guy

[Krach42]

I never really bothered to disambiguate them in my head. I think it's the "r" in both of them. Of course, I don't confuse either with RTH (Roger Hartley, a professor at the uni that I graduated from)

So I think it's just because I've not bothered to taken the time to learn which is which. Of course, I think a good mnemonic would be that ESR is a arrogant prick, and RMS is trying to do some good.

Hmmm ... copyright contract?

[redelm]

Well, in theory perhaps the FSF holds copyright on all GPL versions, and anything incorporating it's clauses might be a derivative work. However, once accepted into evidence in a court case, it becomes public domain.

L == I mod XLIX

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it is.

It could be even worse

[quentin_quayle]

Suppose FSF were taken over by, say, Microsoft, and they made GPL version 3.5 say that the author promises support and a warranty. Then anyone who took a copy under an earlier GPL - with the "or later version" clause - could invoke the new obligations.

Re:It could be even worse

[ToreTS]

Suppose FSF were taken over by, say, Microsoft, and they made GPL version 3.5 say that the author promises support and a warranty. Then anyone who took a copy under an earlier GPL - with the "or later version" clause - could invoke the new obligations.

But the "this version or later" clause only has to do with which licence anyone making a derivative work of your program has to use. The program you wrote is still only licenced through the version of the GPL you released it under. However, in your hypothetical case, anyone making a derivative work of your GPL'd program could choose to distribute it under the new GPL, obligating them to provide support and a warranty. Since you licenced your work under the old GPL, you would not suddenly be obligated to follow a new GPL that you never used.

FSF is a charity

[tepples]

Suppose FSF were taken over by, say, Microsoft

FSF is a tax-exempt charity. Can charities be taken over by for-profit corporations?

Re:FSF is a charity

[Rogerborg]

Very, very interesting question. From their web site:

The Free Software Foundation (FSF) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization based in Boston, MA, USA.

The Free Software Foundation is directed by:

* Richard M. Stallman, President
* Peter T. Brown, Executive Director

The Free Software Foundation has six people on its board of directors. They are:

* Geoffrey Knauth, Senior Software Engineer at SFA, Inc.
* Lawrence Lessig, Professor of Law at Stanford University
* Eben Moglen, Professor of Law and Legal History at Columbia University
* Henri Poole, Founder of CivicActions, a grassroots campaign technology consulting firm
* Richard M. Stallman, Founder of FSF and the GNU Project and author of the GNU GPL
* Gerald J. Sussman, Professor of Computer Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

They also have 'associate members', but the status of the entity that we know as the Free Software Foundation is unclear. There's no mention of a constitution, and they don't appear to be incorporated. It looks, on the face of it, like a private members' club.

It would be very interesting to see the FSF's constitution, particularly the terms that cover what exactly it is (private club? limited company? corporation?), who exactly controls it and what control they have, and the process for getting onto the board.

So what is copyresponsibility?

[tepples]

Rights do not come free of charge, they come with responsibility.

Then what is the responsibility that comes with the exclusive rights under copyright?

Re:So what is copyresponsibility?

[PhreakOfTime]

and this is why this process isnt a democracy...

When you finally figure out where rights 'come from'... please get back to the rest of the human race, we will be patiently waiting.

Heres a hint to hurry you along... rights only come from, and get taken away by, one thing. thats all you need to figure out. Heres another hint, look in a mirror!

For example, using your 'copyright' question. Since YOU agreed to the terms of the copyright, then YOU accepted the rights, and lack thereof. Dont like it, dont accept it. What you accept as 'rights' is your choice to make, and to try to 'blame' somebody for 'restricting rights' just tries to shift the responsibility away from where it belongs. And that is on You.

In a world of give and take, my rights are proably much different than yours. But only because you have been so willing to 'give them up', in which case they werent that important to you in the first place. Thus, you want no responsibility but all the rights. Therefore, you define your rights by your willingness to live under someone elses rule. So, to answer your question, the responsibility is accepting whatever compromise you chose in your life.

In other words, this is a question you should be asking yourself, not me.

Its time to put away childish things...

GPL enforcement

[tepples]

We see reports of companies misusing GPL'd code a lot, and we almost never hear about a successful prosicution.

Yes we have. See the comments about MySQL AB v. Progress NuSphere and especially the netfilter/iptables case (which resulted in an injunction against a GPL violator) in Wikipedia's article about the GPL.

Closing the Web Services Loophole in the GPL

[bitspotter]

A proposal that doesn't involve enforcing features.

Capitalism, Communism, and Share Alike Software

[bitspotter]

Regardless of Stallman's personal views, I tend to think the GPL itself ended up being a functional adaptation of the software market to restore competition. The result of it's effects wasn't to socialize software, but to restore what benefits competitive capitalism actually offers.

Re:Capitalism, Communism, and Share Alike Software

[petrus4]

Regardless of Stallman's personal views, I tend to think the GPL itself ended up being a functional adaptation of the software market to restore competition. The result of it's effects wasn't to socialize software, but to restore what benefits competitive capitalism actually offers.

This would be true if it wasn't for Stallman's army of European socialist attack bots, many of whom are to be found on this site. Said attack bots begin foaming at the mouth and experiencing violent seizures when they hear about even the remote suggestion that someone might be doing something commercial with Linux. They begin screeching like banshees about the all-pervading importance of "giving back to the community", (which is itself basically a euphemism for saying, "if we're not earning money for this, you'd better make damn sure that you're not." Never mind that the coding work itself is a contribution to their precious "community." If anyone starts up with the above phrase, you can rest assured that what they're really saying is that they resent the idea of somebody *else* making money from Linux) when most of them aren't even part of said "community" (a term which Stallman and his followers have managed to render a hated swearword in my vocabulary) in a development sense...They're basically just armchair FSF groupies.

Democracy or Anarchy?

[Phronesis]

It costs me about 10 cents in syrup, ice, and equipment depreciation. I decide to charge 25 cents for a snow cone. Is that OK in your communist democracy? Is that pricing and production level completely my choice as a free individual?

It's a democracy. The People would vote on what you could charge. In a democracy, you have to do what a majority of the people vote for, whether you personally like it or not.

The system you seem to like is called anarchy, where everyone gets to make his own choice as a free individual.

Re:Democracy or Anarchy?

[Hal_Porter]

That's kind of like asking the readership of slashdot to vote on what the RIAA should be allowed to charge for CDs.

You're wrong too btw, the best existing version of a communist democracy would be India just after independance in the 1950's. The economy was centrally planned - the Congress party was elected, but the planning was done by experts they appointed. No one voted on the price of anything, or even on the experts that would set prices.

It's interesting actually - the UK tried to build a similar system to India - the Labour Party and Congress were very close intellectually. In the UK, the Labour party was able to keep wartime central planning, and extend it somewhat by nationalising the commanding heights of economy. Neither country got to the point of nationalising snow cone manufacture though, and that's probably impossible in a democracy.

It's also worth pointing out that much of the UK's economic decline post war coincided with these sort of policies. They were gradually abandoned in the 1980s, and by the time the Bank of England became independant the economy started to grow again.

And India only really started to grow after these sorts of controls were abandoned.

I think it's a bandwidth problem myself - there is no way that a distant, unelected official can set the price of anything more efficiently than the free market, which has access to all sorts of information. Look at the subtlety of futures markets for example - the price of something can fluctuate chaotically depending on all sorts of inputs.

Re:Democracy or Anarchy?

[Phronesis]

No one voted on the price of anything, or even on the experts that would set prices.

Thanks for the fascinating historical account. I don't know anything about Indian economic history and it's great of you to present this tidbit to whet my appetite for reading up on the subject.

I would only quibble that strictly speaking, this sort of arrangement is closer to a technocracy (government by experts) than a democracy. At best, India is a republic, in the sense of the word introduced in the early days of the United States, or a representative democracy (Mill's term). The distinction is very important because of questions of accountability when the exercise of power is delegated.

The problem, as I see it is more than bandwidth: it really is about accountability. When the power to set prices is delegated, the motives of the agent to whom the power is delegated may differ from those of the principal who delegates them. This gives rise to so-called non-market failures in bureaucratic institutions, which policy analysts call "shirking."

Bandwidth considerations (or bounded rationality, if you will) prohibit direct democratic economic planning and delegating the planning to technocrats, whether elected or appointed, introduces serious problems with accountability. The accountability problems may not be insuperable, but they are real as any historical study of centrally planned economies will demonstrate.

Re:Democracy or Anarchy?

[Hal_Porter]

Have you seen this

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/m initextlo/tr_show01.html#10

?

As to the technocracy argument, I can't see how you can have a centrally planned economy without that. In fact it reminds me of the "Road to Serfdom" - one of the themes of that is that planning is essentially poisonous to free societies. I'm not sure I'd go that far - none of the democratic socialist countries ended up as tyrannies, but they all seemed to have fairly lacklustre economic performance compared to the US and its imitators.

I can accept they shirking argument though - one trip on British Rail is enough to convince you of that its a real danger.

Re:Democracy or Anarchy?

[Phronesis]

As to the technocracy argument, I can't see how you can have a centrally planned economy without that.

Exactly. I argue that centrally planning and democracy are fundamentally opposed. Marx said nothing about central planning, but Lenin and Stalin loved it because they did not want a democracy: once they had the power to themselves they didn't want to share it.

There's no fundamental reason you couldn't have a democratically controlled economy, as opposed to a centrally planned one, but it doesn't seem feasible. On the other hand, it's also important to note that many champions of the free market, such as Ayn Rand, prefer anarchy to democracy because democracy restricts individual freedom of choice. Consider, for instance, the democratic support for Jim Crow laws in the American South. Less rabid than Rand are Hamilton, Jay, and Madison; particularly Federalist X, which warns that too much democracy can lead to tyrrany by the majority and rule by faction.

Personally, I prefer democracy even with all its warts.

choice of licenses

[bitspotter]

There's already a considerable freedom in choosing between versions of the license. When the FSF could publish multiple licenses to suit different tastes (stay with 2? use 3? your choice), I don't really see the need for "democracy". It's your software; you can write any license terms you want. GEE! developers often do! amazing!

So many licenses... why another one?

[Cinquero]

"The current version of the licence, which was written in 1991 and is now 14 years old, has become central to the activities and operation of a large part of all companies and governments and is now in need of review."

Why?

Re:So many licenses... why another one?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why?

Emergence of software patents.

Moglen is right

[cow-orker]

Whatever the FSF decides, some people will not like it and use another license. This is a Good Thing (though there are already enough almost identical Open Source Certified licences).

If on the other hand the GPL-3 is constructed by popular vote, it will be subtly broken, and it will include so many compromises that nobody will like it and so everybody will use a different license.

Did you forget to take your pills this morning?

[cow-orker]

I predict it will be draconian, specifying that people who merely interoperate with GPL3 SW will have to publish source code.

This isn't even legally possible. Sure, Moglen could write such crap into the license, but it wouldn't stand up in court anymore than SCO's "All your Unix are belong to us" claim.

Re:Did you forget to take your pills this morning?

[Anonymous Coward]

You have been trolled.

Re:Did you forget to take your pills this morning?

[Doc Ruby]

You forgot not to be an asshole this morning. Moglen has specifically said he wanted to do what I said he would do. And of course he could do so, and it could stand up in court - it's a license. What kind of freak are you, that you insult me, and talk shit about the law without a clue, juet because you don't like the prospect of the next GPL? Which I don't either? Jerk.

Re:Did you forget to take your pills this morning?

[gnuLNX]

Actaully I don't think this would hold up either. You can't say that just because something makes use of an application that the program using it must be open source. People who write open source apps already have open API's so I guess I don't understand what it is you really want out of this.

Re:Did you forget to take your pills this morning?

[Doc Ruby]

Why not? It's not just something Moglen says. It's a license to use the software - a voluntary contract. If people accept the license before they use the software, they have to comply with its terms. Unless there's a law or strong precedent that contraverts it. Which I do not think exists.

People who write apps that call APIs in open source programs get the source and APIs to the OSS they're using. But they're not obligated to publish their own APIs. I want to see them do so - I want all APIs open, and see little force of argument against requiring that of apps that so use open source. Which is a lot less demanding than requiring those calling apps to publish all their source, and usually nearly as valuable.

Re:Did you forget to take your pills this morning?

[gnuLNX]

"People who write apps that call APIs in open source programs get the source and APIs to the OSS they're using. "

Yeah...and if you link to these API's you have to open your code as well. I still don't understand. Perhaps you are suggesting the if the user does somehting like:

system("./run_gpl_program_here");

then that persons program should be open sourced as well? I don't think this will fly. In fact if a major project like Linux took this route then it would mean that every application that runs on linux would have to be open source. While there are quite a few people who would like to see this, there are tons more of us who think it is ok for open and closed source to peacfully co-exsist. I think what you are suggesting would make linux non-viable for business users.

Re:Did you forget to take your pills this morning?

[Doc Ruby]

If you link, sure you're under GPL. And just running a program, even calling its commandline arguments, seems like you shouldn't have obligations, although that's not really absolutely clear. But what about other IPC, like calling a Java servlet? Remember, I'm explicitly saying that the source should not be compelled to be opened in those cases, just the APIs. If a program does call an API, its own API should be callable on the same basis. So even your system(() example would just mean that the calling program would have to publish something like a man page that says what the program does when called. That seems perfectly reasonable to require. And a lot more reasonable than requiring the entire source be opened, which is the kind of thing that Moglen's GPL3 will likely require.

Re:Did you forget to take your pills this morning?

[gnuLNX]

Ok Now I think I am on the same page. Sure that seems reasonable...for most softwares. I doubt however that you would convince Nvidia to realse the API for their drivers...well I guess a lot of that API is just the openGL API any way.

As long as you don't require everyone to release the source...just the API. This would actually be good for those companies who had people using their API's.

Re:Did you forget to take your pills this morning?

[cow-orker]

APIs cannot be copyrighted. You don't need a license to call a published API. Using an API does not (usually) make your program a derived work, and that is decided by copyright law, not by the FSF.

You do need a license to #include copyrighted headers or compile copyrighted .idl files or whatever. Even that could be considered mere use (for which you never need an explicit license!), which probably depends on the exact nature of the program/library in question and the mood of the judge.

BTW, I quite like the idea of the new GPL, and the FSF should do everything they can to make it have the most impact. And you should get a clue, nuthead.

Re:Did you forget to take your pills this morning?

[cow-orker]

It's a license to use the software

No, it's not. You do not need an explicit license just to use software. Software is made to be used, therefore you can expect that you are allowed to use software you bought or were allowed to download, therefore you are allowed to use it. Although software vendors keep telling you that you aren't buying software, merely licensing it for use, it still looks like an ordinary sale. If it looks like a sale, it is a sale, therefore you bought it, therefore you can use it.

Full stop. Read that again: Yo do not need a license to use legally acquired software. Now read the GPL-2, check what they tell you about whether you need to accept it to use the software. See? And the GPL-3 cannot change one iota about that, because it's the law. You only need to accept an explicit license to distribute software.

Now please try reading up more and predicting less on this subject.

Re:Did you forget to take your pills this morning?

[Doc Ruby]

Software does not need to reply on copyright to control its use by others. Of course "mere use" can require an explicit license, which can require anything mutually agreed that doesn't violate a law. Take a break from orking cows and shut the fuck up.

Re:Did you forget to take your pills this morning?

[Doc Ruby]

Your inane insistence that software use cannot be controlled by a license, only distribution, isn't worth reading. I predict you will say another stupid assertion with no basis, just because you like the new Moglen GPL3.

Re:Did you forget to take your pills this morning?

[cow-orker]

Well, you get an implicit license to use when you buy software or legally download it. If simple use is enough, you don't need anything explicit. BTW, now would be a good time to actually read the GPL (any version you like).

Re:Did you forget to take your pills this morning?

[cow-orker]

Nonono, that's not what I said. If you give someone your software, you also give him permission to use it. What else would be the point? Give someone software to fill his harddrive so his other useless software doesn't feel lonely? Even your stupid American lawmakers who gave you the DMCA can see that.

If you want to control who uses your software, simply keep it. Don't provide a download, don't sell it. Oh, ans Microsoft can cry as much as they want, their EULA which forbids you to write office application with your bought copy of their devstudio, is simply void. They sold it, you can use it for whatever you like.

I predict, you will again refuse to read the GPL, and I predict that you will predict something even more retarded, too. Your turn.

Free markets...

[jakuaii]

Then, a big chain decides to take over the ice cone market. It sells them 9 cents apiece; they can do that because they get the material for 5 cents only, as they buy the supplies in large quantities. The 25 and 15 cent vendors go out of business.

When the chain has the monopoly on ice cream cones, it gradually rises the price to 50 cents. The consumers moan, but they want ice cream, so they pay. Profit!

The free market is a double-edged sword. When healthy, it fosters competition and increase of production efficiency. When perverted, it creates monoculture.

That said, the commie system of "the state is your mother and your father; it does everything for you" doesn't work either. It leads to stagnation, when people don't really have incentive to take action on their own. That is why we Old Europeans are so crazy about the "social market economy" thing.

Democratic != Free

[ghjm]

In a purely democratic society with no other guiding principles, your neighbors, customers, suppliers, etc., would vote on the price you should charge. You would then be obliged to follow that decision, regardless of whether you agree with it.

In a purely capitalist society with no other guiding principles, you would be free to decide on any price you want, assuming you could actually make snow cones, which you couldn't, because the long-established snow cone cartel has restricted the supply of snow cone makers as a barrier to entry to preserve their monopoly.

In a purely communist society with no other guiding principles, you would be assigned a snow cone maker and a production quota. Citizens would exchange food tokens for snow cones; no money would change hands.

In a purely authoritarian society with no other guiding principles, you would steal a snow cone maker and set up for business, charging ruinous prices; however, you would give snow cones for free to members of the junta, so that (a) your theft of the snow cone maker would go uninvestigated, and (b) they would hopefully choose not to shoot you today.

None of these situations are acceptable - certainly you would not describe any of these as "free." For a society to be free, there must be rule of law, and the laws must be set up in such a way as to prevent any of these extreme outcomes.

-Graham

There is another reason as well

[brunes69]

Even among those who believe in communism in theory, almost every accepted model of a successful communist system has a transition period of hardship before prosperity. A society can't become successfully communist overnight. Therefore, if this country was a democracy, the masses would likely just vote to go back to the old ways rather than stick it through the tough times.

Re:There is another reason as well

[Herkules]

"almost every accepted model of a successful communist system has a transition period of hardship before prosperity"

Hardship would not mean less stuf.. It means all people around the world with 1000+ times more than the avrage man will have a strong intrest in paying mersenarys to attack them. An example is that Bill Gates would really really not like it if say france tryed communisum, it would really fuck with his income coming from france. Plus what if it works!!!! It would mean that maybe the US is next so that would mean no more crazy amounts of money for Billy.

"among those who believe in communism in theory" its belived that the people must have be highly educated and have a high production rate before any atempt to communisum could suksed.

PS. I cant fucking spell!

Economic Democracy

[Morosoph]

Simply fails. Centralisation of power to a point, even if the locus of that point is democratically determined immediately destroys freedom, and not just for the rich.

Decentralisation can improve matters somewhat, but you have lost your ability to decide what you will do, moment to moment. Because of the nature of economic decision-making, arbitary decisions will be made moment-to-moment, and since there is no competition in the labour market, you cannot change jobs to deal with it.

There is however a sense that decentralisation makes things worse: although the decisions (made by other people) will be more relevant to the participants, they are more relevant by virture of micromanagement. Economic democracy would destroy freedom more surely than competition between heirachies. At least decisions that cover a larger population, by virtue of having to be more general, approximate more closely "the rule of law", so that you know in advance what you are and aren't allowed to do.

Democracy is already insufficiently sensitive to the needs of minorities (and by this term I am referring to all groups with lesser numbers, not merely those groups that are normally called minorities, although such groups are certainly included); to instill democracy into every moment of people's working lives cannot help but be oppressive. This ignores the fact that often there is no meaningful consensus, so that it is the largest minority that get their way, and the majority is oppressed.

Competition may not be perfect, and it is certainly worth making large-scale market corrections, such as a system of health-care insurance, provision of education, taxes to induce correction of economic externalities, minimum wages, minimum safety precautions... But none of these are about day-to-day economic decision making. Where they do impinge upon day-to-day decision making, the law is known in advance, and one is not faced with arbitary rule.

Dictatorship of the Proletariat

[Morosoph]

"dictatorship of the proletariat" doesn't use the word "dictatorship" in the same way that those of us who know 20th century history are used to.

By intention, no, but in practice is does by necessity. Here are some reasons why central ownership must oppress. But I haven't even approached the issue of enforcement: because trade between two people is such an easy and natural thing to do, to prevent it so that the benefit of people's efforts can be directed by democratic, rather than invididual will requires extremely high degrees of enforcement.

Using the same meaning, the USA or the UK (for example) are examples of a "dictatorship of the bourgeois," because the bourgeois class is the group of people who control most of the wealth and command most of the power.

Except that at least you can change who you work for. Competition acts to regulate all employers, so that the exercise of class interest is naturally limited. I'm not claiming anything like perfection, but the lack of competition within the "democratic" economic model means that there is no mechanism by which oppression can be alleviated.

I haven't even touched upon the leverage that strongly socialist systems give to movements of mass hysteria. The diversity of true (not rightist, conformist propertarian) individualism serves to break up the formation of such social plaques. Economic Democracy disempowers individuals, and prejudice becomes dogma. To oppose such dogma is entirely seen in terms of one's own interests in such opposition, and never in terms of the underlying issues themselves.

You don't have to share your changes...

[The Cornishman]

I think that this freedom is already implicit. Anyone can take GPL code, change it and not make the changes public, as long as they never distribute the modified code. If this isn't true, where do I post the kernel source tree that got corrupted by my recent disk crash and inept recovery? It's sure as hell *modified*.

On Topic:

[BrokenHalo]

Am I the only one to have read to the very end of the posts on this topic, and not found one single post that is remotely related to the topic at hand, i.e. the GPL?

Some people have the attention span of a flea. :-(

FSF inc.

[tepples]

they don't appear to be incorporated.

At the bottom of this page: "Copyright © 2004, 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc."

API for API

[Doc Ruby]

Yeah, that's the idea: current GPLs require "source for source" publication. The problem has become that people make something like "derived works" by just calling runtime APIs. The GPL was already revised to account for compile-time binary APIs (linking), which required "source for APIs", though the API came with the source under GPL. Now we're talking about a new GPL covering a binary, not the source, because the new "derived work" doesn't necessarily even have a local copy of the binary. But that is so different from receiving the source of the existing GPL program that requiring the new GPL program to release its source doesn't seem compelled - different basis of compulsion than the original GPL scenario. However, APIs themselves are essential, and severely neglected. So I suggest an "API for API" compulsion.

To me, the evolution is clear. But others have had a similar confusion to yours about my proposal. I wonder how it could be better phrased. Because the underlying idea seems clear and compelling to all parties. I guess that's how Moglen really is brilliant :).

Licensing the output of a program

[Fujisawa Sensei]

With the keep the button to output the sourcecode requirement RMS and the FSF are trying to license the output of their application. Especially since the HTML put out by a web application is the output. In addition they're removing freedoms as to how applications are used, something the FSF have stated many time that they are against.

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html/

• The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
• The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
• The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

• Attempts, and suggestions to restrict the way people change and use software, expecially the prosed get source functions, violate freedom 0.

  In addition the attempt to controll the output of the application, and changed application go against the GPL FAQ on Liscensing GPL output.

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

Is there some way that I can GPL the output people get from use of my program? For example, if my program is used to develop hardware designs, can I require that these designs must be free?

In general this is legally impossible; copyright law does not give you any say in the use of the output people make from their data using your program. If the user uses your program to enter or convert his own data, the copyright on the output belongs to him, not you. More generally, when a program translates its input into some other form, the copyright status of the output inherits that of the input it was generated from.

So the only way you have a say in the use of the output is if substantial parts of the output are copied (more or less) from text in your program. For instance, part of the output of Bison (see above) would be covered by the GNU GPL, if we had not made an exception in this specific case.

You could artificially make a program copy certain text into its output even if there is no technical reason to do so. But if that copied text serves no practical purpose, the user could simply delete that text from the output and use only the rest. Then he would not have to obey the conditions on redistribution of the copied text.

Whatever the FSF decides to do with GPL-3 they need to stick to these principles.

Licensed

[bhadreshl]

How will GPL v3.0 be licensed? Will it be licensed under GPl 2.0 ?

Moglen is correct

[Shadowlore]

You couldn't be more wrong.
If people don't like the rewrite, they won't use it.

That doesn't make it an election. If that was what an election was, I'd nominate myself President and you could either follow my rules or not if you don't like them. By the same token, I'd be able to ignore w/o penalty the results of an election.

An election happens BEFORE, not AFTER.