Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Dog is my co-pilot.
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?
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.
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.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
we have to tear down the zealots speaking on our behalf.
The problem is the zealots are writing the GPL.
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
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.
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.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
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.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
No, actually I do. I also understand the difference between commaon usage and dictionary definitions. It's a fucking joke, not an intellectual treatise.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
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.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
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.
And the brethren went away edified.
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
Program Intellivision!
> 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.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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.
AccountKiller
(...) 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
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
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.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
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.
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.
I am unamerican, and proud of it!
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.
--
make install -not war
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."
---
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.
> 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:
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.
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.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
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!
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