Guidelines for GPLv3 Process Released

Justin Baugh writes "The Free Software Foundation and the Software Freedom Law Center have released a document detailing the guidelines and the process that will be used for revising the GNU GPL, and have launched a new website related to the V3 process. It was announced in a press release this morning that the FSF will be releasing the first discussion draft of the new license for comments at the International Public Conference for GPLv3 at MIT on January 16 and 17, 2006."

Comments

Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

Rule 1: Never post a picture of RMS on the front page. EVER! Some of us read Slashdot over breakfast

New Clause

[Anonymous Coward]

Little-discussed new clause in GPLv3:

"Every program licensed under this license must contain the phrase 'Micro$oft sux0rs!!!1' somewhere in the source code and/or documentation."

Re:New Clause

[maxwell demon]

If you consider the license text to be part of the documentation, that requirement would at the same time be its own fulfillment :-)

Still a bit wary of one element of the GPL

[GauteL]

.. namely the one in which you grant permission for your software to be distributed according to any future version of the GPL. I do know you are not required to include this clause, but both decisions can have consequences.

Without it, it can be hard for the licensing to adapt to new requirements if not all the copyright owners can be found.

With it, you are at the mercy of the Free Software Foundation, when it comes to new versions of the GPL. I trust the FSF completely not to have any hidden motives, but it still might be that a future version of the GPL does not suit you.

A clause of "NAME OF FOUNDER OF PROJECT is free to upgrade this license to any future version of the GPL at his/her discretion" might be a better idea. This way, you CAN switch to new versions of the GPL even though you have thousands of contributors each with individual copyright on bits of the code, but you can also refuse to license the software under a future version of the GPL if it is not in your interest.

Re:Still a bit wary of one element of the GPL

[Ckwop]

A clause of "NAME OF FOUNDER OF PROJECT is free to upgrade this license to any future version of the GPL at his/her discretion" might be a better idea. This way, you CAN switch to new versions of the GPL even though you have thousands of contributors each with individual copyright on bits of the code, but you can also refuse to license the software under a future version of the GPL if it is not in your interest.

This doesn't work. Suppose I fork your project. Now I am the project leader for my fork. Should I be allowed to relicense everyone elses under any GPL version because I forked?

This is actually worse than the existing clause because that means I can relicense your code to any GPL version instead of just later versions.

I actually question why we need a GPL V3 in the first place. The current GPL works perfectly well and I don't see any reason to bother using the new license at all.

Simon

Re:Still a bit wary of one element of the GPL

[Rakshasa Taisab]

Some people seem to think that clause allows the FSF to release a license that subverts the original ideal behind the GPL. But the new license must be similar in spirit to the current version according to section 9 of the license.

Re:Still a bit wary of one element of the GPL

[Tim C]

While I don't doubt what you say, and don't suppose for a moment that the FSF would ever go rogue, here's a little thought experiment - would it be possible to slightly alter section 9, perhaps over a number of revisions of the GPL, such that eventually the wording allowed for wholesale changes to the licence? As long as each revision is itself similar in spirit, they should be okay, and of course with each passing revision the amount of similarity required would drop.

Not saying they'd ever do this, just wondering if it would be possible.

Re:Still a bit wary of one element of the GPL

[Kjella]

A clause of "NAME OF FOUNDER OF PROJECT is free to upgrade this license to any future version of the GPL at his/her discretion" might be a better idea. This way, you CAN switch to new versions of the GPL even though you have thousands of contributors each with individual copyright on bits of the code, but you can also refuse to license the software under a future version of the GPL if it is not in your interest.

Not to get overly philsophical, but did my patch join your program, or did your program join my patch? Copyright considers it a derivative work of both, and the concept of a "founder" doesn't exist in the legal sense. Every time you took a piece of code from another project, you would have to ask them to relicense it to acknowledge you as the founder. In many cases it makes no sense at all, because an application and a library wouldn't have any reason to recognize each other as founders. You would have to end up with an LGPLish upgrade clause in the GPL, which would be a total mess. Also, one of the fundamental freedoms of the GPL is to fork the code, and the initial founder may not at all represent the current developers of the code. If you want that kind of control, make it one of the requirements for contributing. Basicly, instead of assigning copyright, just assign a limited right to release under future GPL versions (which you could also do today with GPLv2, but I don't know of anyone that does). I think that the same people who distrust FSF the will also distrust your project, and retain all relicensing rights for their own judgement so I don't think it would work if you tried.

Re:Still a bit wary of one element of the GPL

[SComps]

How about the GPL be a template for a license and you actually put a copy of the license with the code. I know it's sounds crazy and all, but I don't want to wonder what will happen to some code 2 yrs or 10 yrs down the road because of a dynamic license on the internet.

If you release your code with GPL V2 or whatever, that particular release goes with the text of GPL V2 and that's it. Maybe your next release of code can go with V3 and if I like the changes maybe I'll adopt it. If I don't, I'll stick with what I've got. At least it's something that I can lay my hands on in the distribution archive, rather than checking at FSF's websites for this years potential liabilities.

Personally, I'm not comfortable with the GPL's of any flavor and avoid it. Yes that means that I do not use any GPL code in any of my code projects. It's a choice I've made, one I stick to and one I'm proud of. It's also a personal choice and your mileage may vary considerably.

Re:Still a bit wary of one element of the GPL

[DimGeo]

Mod parent up: Creative thinking.

Re:Still a bit wary of one element of the GPL

[GauteL]

Eh.. NAME OF FOUNDER OF PROJECT was meant to be replaced by a specific name. That is why I emphasised it.

If the Linux kernel had been released with the clause "Linus Torvalds is free to upgrade this license to any future version of the GPL at his/her discretion" it would NOT allow any forks to upgrade the license.

Re:Still a bit wary of one element of the GPL

[Bootvis]

Or some sort of Intelligent Design by the FSF

Re:Still a bit wary of one element of the GPL

[yohanes]

You can always state a specific version of GPL license to your code. And if GPL v3 ever comes out, you can change the license on your next version (you can even rerelease your current software version with another license). Remember, even dual licensing is OK.

Re:Still a bit wary of one element of the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

But what happens when someone combines code from two GPL projects, one with the license upgrade rights held by Linus Torvalds, another with the same rights held by Steve Ballmer? What if you have code with 172 different license upgraders, each with rights to some parts of the code? Maybe everyone is still using GPL v2 when you start, but years later one guy upgrades all his code to GPL v3, and another to GPL v4. Now you've got a mix of GPL versions 2, 3 and 4, and maybe they aren't all quite compatible...

Re:Still a bit wary of one element of the GPL

[CaptainFork]

I trust the FSF completely not to have any hidden motives

Really? Why?

Re:Still a bit wary of one element of the GPL

[Kjella]

Like everything else, it depends on what you can get away with. I sure as hell wouldn't want to try a lawsuit against the FSF for "violation of spirit" should they eat funny mushrooms. If they came out and said "we don't want software to be free, but really free so we're releasing it to the public domain" I think you'd have a hard time winning. If they tried an "all your code are belongs to us" and gave themselves all rights to relicense and sell closed source versions, it wouldn't fly.

Re:Still a bit wary of one element of the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Um - what do you do when Linus dies then?... Are we going to take help from mediums etc to talk with him on the other side? :)

Re:Still a bit wary of one element of the GPL

[T-Ranger]

While interesting, you would have to have a bunch of clauses in how that right can (and eventually, in the case of death, must) be transfered to a different individual, or orginaztion.

This would complicate the GPL, potentialy making it no longer international in nature. At the very least it would make it more difficult to understand for "normal people" which is, I think, a quality of the current revision(s).

It is more-or-less this scenario that explains why some projects (usualy those sponsored by a commercial entity which also makes a closed version (Hula/Novell comes to mind)), requires transfer of copyright to that project, rather then just submsion of code under the GPL. In other words this problem can be (and frequently is) solved outside of the GPL proper.

Re:Still a bit wary of one element of the GPL

[GauteL]

A very good point that I have no answer to.

Re:Still a bit wary of one element of the GPL

[Verteiron]

I actually question why we need a GPL V3 in the first place. The current GPL works perfectly well and I don't see any reason to bother using the new license at all.

Fortunately, a newer GPL can't automatically invalidate an old one. If you like the current one, by all means keep using it. I suspect you won't be alone in doing so.

Re:Still a bit wary of one element of the GPL

[Profane MuthaFucka]

It'd be totally redundant. There is already law written on how to transfer copyright. There's no need to put that into the GPL. Since the GPL rests solidly on current copyright law, there is no need to state who has the right to change the license. Obviously the copyright holder has the right.

If you want to be the copyright holder, then get everyone in your project to assign the copyright to you. If they don't play along, then you have the option of refusing their patches.

Re:Still a bit wary of one element of the GPL

[Ed Avis]

You're not at the mercy of the FSF. Your code will still be licensed under GPL v2 or later. So if people think the GPL3 terms are too onerous, they can keep using GPL2 as before. The only downside is if the new version is *too liberal* and lets people do things with your code that you'd rather not allow.

Re:Still a bit wary of one element of the GPL

[arose]

You can sleep tight then, it's not part of the GPL.

Re:Still a bit wary of one element of the GPL

[m50d]

Basicly, instead of assigning copyright, just assign a limited right to release under future GPL versions (which you could also do today with GPLv2, but I don't know of anyone that does).

I think there are projects which require you to give them a BSD-style license to it rather than complete copyright assignment.

Re:Still a bit wary of one element of the GPL

[ediron2]

Agreed that you can just stick to GPLv2. However, 'I don't see a need' both ignores Eben M's prior editorials on why GPL3 is needed and presumes you're better-versed in international IP law than he is.

A few threads arguing for clarifying ambiguities, delving into specifics geared toward their own pet concern, and language changes also need to temper their remarks with the thought that FSF is writing general-purpose legalese applicable to a few thousand projects in ~200 countries. I don't mean 'shut up and be grateful'... our job is to think of specifics and speak up, and try to give clearcut examples when arguing a concern.

And as for being very specific (clarify the nonexistent nonlinking clause, a clause to automatically upgrade gpl2 to gpl3, or whatever), remember the contract lawyer's favorite subordinate clause. It's easy: every time you see a call for very specific language, add the words '...so we can find loopholes!'

Contract details are like razor blades: whether they're useful or lethally hazardous depends on how expertly and carefully you handle them.

Re:Still a bit wary of one element of the GPL

[Wesley Felter]

If you think the current GPL works perfectly well, just ask the Nexenta folks.

Re:Still a bit wary of one element of the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

We'll hold an Open Seance

Re:Still a bit wary of one element of the GPL

[HiThere]

Arguments like that are one reason why many people refuse to include the optional "or any later version" in their copy of the GPL. There's no good way to answer them, because the danger is real. We've seen similar things happen in the past.

Re:Still a bit wary of one element of the GPL

[Knuckles]

How about (...) you actually put a copy of the license with the code. (...) I don't want to wonder what will happen to some code 2 yrs or 10 yrs down the road because of a dynamic license on the internet.

The FSF recommends that a GPL'ed program incudes this language

You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA

and virtually every software I know does so in the README.

Re:Still a bit wary of one element of the GPL

[cpuffer_hammer]

While I trust the FSF.

Reading up on what happend to the Cult Awareness Network is an eye opener to what can happen to non-profit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_Awareness_Networ k

Re:Still a bit wary of one element of the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Similarity, of course, is not transitive. And so yes it would be possible to have a chain of such modifications, no link of which violates the letter, or even spirit, of the GPL.

Re:Still a bit wary of one element of the GPL

[Arandir]

The current GPL works perfectly well and I don't see any reason to bother using the new license at all.

The GPL is in a curious situation. It is the license most associated with free software, yet it itself is very restrictive in relation to all other free software licenses. It's very near the encumbered boundary.

The result of this has been to skew people's perceptions of Free Software away from freedom. It's still free, of course, but the idea that the GPL represents a median for acceptable encumbrance is wrong. In short, the GPL has moved the definition of Free Software over towards encumbered and restricted softwware.

Thus, there's this strange idea floating about that the GPL is too free, that it isn't restrictive enough. If various "loopholes" aren't closed then someone might come along and "steal" the software or otherwise use it in a manner someone else might not like.

Re:Still a bit wary of one element of the GPL

[burndive]

If I add to your GPL'd code to improve the product, and release my modifications back to your branch of the product, I still own the copyright to what I wrote. You can't change the lisence for my code because you aren't the copyright holder, even if it has very little meaning outside the context of your project.

That's what this whole discussion is about: the best way to implement an upgradable lisence structure without requiring every single contributor's involvment.

If the lisence to the code states that it can be released under any future GPL, then you don't need my further consent to update the lisence, but that requires quite a bit of faith in whoever controls the GPL in the future.

Re:Still a bit wary of one element of the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Precisely. As a developer, you have to decide whether the benefit it worth the risk. Many developers seem to think it is.

Re:Still a bit wary of one element of the GPL

[Profane MuthaFucka]

I am pointing out that the GPL rests solidly on copyright law. If you want to create some mechanism that conflicts with the solid foundation of copyright upon which the GPL rests, then you weaken the GPL too. Any implementation of an upgradable license structure that does not require copyright assignment would directly contradict the foundation that the GPL rests on.

The way to go about these things is to require copyright assignment if you want to be able to change the license in the future. There doesn't seem to be any way around this.

Re:Still a bit wary of one element of the GPL

[burndive]

Well put.

Re:Still a bit wary of one element of the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

When a new version of the GNU GPL is released, software released under previous versions do not automatically update to the new license. The user can choose to use the new license.

Any new version of the GNU GPL is legally incabable of interfering with the terms of a previous version. It is used alongside the original terms.

A text editor, for example, released under v2 of the GNU GPL and allowing use under future versions is still a v2 licensed program even if v3 of the GNU GPL exists. The clause allowing users to choose to use the text editor under any future version of the GNU GPL is only legal when the future version does not conflict with the version the text editor came with.

The text editor and it's (original) code will always be licensed under v2 of the GNU GPL unless the original developers re-license thier code. When that happens, only that developers code would be licensed under v3 GPL. If a developer/user decides to add code to the editor, they can license the additions under a future version of the GNU GPL only. The original code still retains the v2 license, the new code would be v3 only, if the user chose to release under v3.

The GNU GPL v2 is the hack of the century, we all see that. Part of that hack is to allow people to use v2 software under future versions. That way, we can benefit from the terms of the new version while retaining the old. The software is still v2 licensed but allows the use of v3 terms when needed.

Linux (the kernel) does not allow the use of it's code under future versions. Only version 2 of the GPL is recognised. This is the developers decision. In the future, version 2 of the license may be made invalid/illegal due to unforseen threats/laws. The FSF will try to respond by creating a new version of the GPL to counter that threat, to protect the freedoms given by previous versions. Linux (the kernel) is at a disadvantage. It's users will not have the ability to use the code under the new GPL, they will be unable to run, or perhaps hold copies, of Linux as they will have an legally invalid license.

GPL v2 software which allows use under future versions does not have this problem. It's users and developers are free to take advantage of the new GPL's terms. Life for them will continue as normal. They will need to replace Linux (the kernel) with the HURD, or use one of the BSD's?

Remember that the GNU GPL is a Free Software license. It is designed to stop people from trampling on other peoples freedoms. This means that adding the following statement:

"NAME OF FOUNDER OF PROJECT is free to upgrade this license to any future version of the GPL at his/her discretion"

would be against everything the FSF stands for. It would be totally unethical. It would put the user at the mercy of the developer. The developer could replace v2 with v3 automatically. For some users that may be strategically bad. They will be victimised like RMS was with the famous laser printer. The whole reason why we have GNU/Linux, the GPL and the idea of freedom for computer users is to prevent this sort of thing!

Ethics are everything here, as the GNU GPL is a Free Software license, not a 'Open Source' license. Software released under the GNU GPL is Free Software, not 'Open Source'. If you ignore the ethics and the reason that this license and operating system exists, then you may become paranoid as people do things with your GPL'ed software, and you don't understand why they should be allowed to do it.

Re:Still a bit wary of one element of the GPL

[swiftstream]

This reminds me of Nomic.

First found in Peter Suber's book "The Paradox of Self-Amendment" or something of the sort.

Re:Still a bit wary of one element of the GPL

[sumdumass]

What if somethign like the purposed you cannot use GPL software and sue someone for patten infringment rule that was talked about earlier this year?

I mean, if i have some new device that actualy is pattenable wich contains code that only runs on that device and i decide to release a good portion of it to the GPL comunity so plug ins and other extended functions can be made for it, do i now give up that code or right to use it when i gop after microsoft or sony for stealing my invention and code associated with it? This wouldn't have happened under older versions but was sugested to be included inot the v3 GPL.

Simular in spirit could acutaly leave you less free in some cases. simular in spirit to the current version just means it might take a little longer to change the spirit. The disguise of different reasonings is how they get you accept minor changes and before long the word free can mean free if you pay me first or don't use product X.

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

G-G-G GPL-Unit

Who would of thought

[Anonymous Coward]

that giving away software for free would be a complex world full of politics and self-appointed American rule makers squabbling over who writes the best rules and who can make a simple task as complex as possible

Re:Who would of thought

[LiquidCoooled]

The GPL is not giving your code away for free.

The GPL is a license to ensure that your code and other code built using it remains open and usable by others.

Just giving the code away for free would allow an evil company to take somebodies hard work and lock it up in an exe shell with a squad of lawyers protecting the source.

Public Domain is noble but not wise.

Re:Who would of thought

[smittyoneeach]

Law is the programming language of society.
Cruft happens.

Re:Who would of thought

[Arandir]

Just giving the code away for free would allow an evil company to take somebodies hard work and lock it up in an exe shell with a squad of lawyers protecting the source.

People keep saying this, but no one yet has bothered to explain the mechanism by which this would be possible. How can Microsoft (for an example of an "evil" possessing squads of lawyers) lock up the the public domain software residing on my harddrive? They can do whatever they want with their copy, but my copy is fully intact. Software can be perfectly copied infinitely at zero cost, so it doesn't matter one whit what someone does with their copies because your copies are wholly unaffected.

Your argument would make sense if software were a finite resource, but it is not. It makes sense that someone should remain in control of the village commons, because there's only one commons per village and you can only fit so many sheep in it. But when everyone can have as many copies of the software as they desire, there's no need for authoritarian controls over it.

Re:Who would of thought

[Speare]

The GPL is a license to ensure that your code and other code built using it remains open and usable by others who agree with your sharing philosophy. It is for those control freaks who don't share with people of other philosophies.

This is why I don't assign GPL. If I publish my source code and someone wants to take their own copy of that code private and sell it as a value-added alternative, they don't "steal" anything from me. They don't make my copy unavailable. They don't make anyone else's copy unavailable. I say, light your taper at mine, friend. I don't see why user's rights should trump developer's rights. They're both to be honored.

I don't see why user's rights should trump the developer's rights. BSD license, Perl Artistic license, or at the very most, LGPL to isolate the annoying share-but-only-if nonsense.

Do no harm?

[guysmilee]

Can some one explain the "Do no harm" bit? I am hoping it means GPL'd software can't be used in a weapon ... but i admit i just skim read ...

Re:Do no harm?

[Mr2cents]

Just make your software 3 laws safe. Problem solved.

Re:Do no harm?

[FuzzyDaddy]

No, it doesn't mean GPL'd software can't be used in a weapon. It means avoiding unintended consequences that might stifle the freedom of free software development. You'd still be free to make a Linux controlled guided missile.

Re:Do no harm?

[digitaldc]

It means it can only be used for making free word puzzle games and innocuous digitally-animated films about everyday things that take on anthropormorphic qualities.

If it is found to be used for weapons guidance systems, stock market trading, hacking, or spam emailing, it will automatically erase itself from the operating system and go home.

Re:Do no harm?

[Arimus]

I think (hope) it refers to an objective for the GPL 3 revamp not an actual clause in the new GPL: IE the changes to GPL should do no harm to existing GPL'd projects.

Re:Do no harm?

[tchiwam]

Does that mean you need to provide the source code to the target ?

Re:Do no harm?

[Tim C]

No, it means that you need to provide the source code to the possesor of the weapon. I don't get the source to Linux just because the website I visit is running on a machine runing a Linux distro...

Re:Do no harm?

[Red Alastor]

The GPL3 will probably permit the author to include in a software a way to get the source and will force forks to keep that functionality. For instance, if there is a link to the full source code of your PHP app, it must work in all forks. This means that theorically, if the original authors wanted, you could be required to drop the license on the targets before the missiles. This could change however, since it was just a draft idea.

Re:Do no harm?

[Anonymous Coward]

So before the missle explodes we have to bomb them with lines of code first?

for(i = 0; i < enemies; i++)
{
    launch(target(i));
 
...

Re:Do no harm?

[arose]

Only if does not explode.

Re:Do no harm?

[Fujisawa Sensei]

How about just bundeling the source with the missile? :-)

Re:Do no harm?

[Red Alastor]

It would get destructed before they could read it and they wouldn't have agreed to give the same freedoms if they wish to spread the code of the missile, duh ! :-P

Re:Do no harm?

[Fujisawa Sensei]

But the binaries would be destroyed with the source holding to the letter of the GPL! :-P

Re:hrm

[know1]

oops oh yes there is, i just automatically didn't read to the end when i realised it was a sign up page....hrm still shouldn't be on the main page though

oooops...

[hummassa]

1. There is no clause obligating GPL licensers to license a work under the GPL version X "or any subsequent versions". As a matter of fact, most of the Linux kernel is licensed under the GPL v2 ONLY; arguably, as most of linux is a derivative work of the initial GPL v2 ONLY Torvalds job, they have to abide to the terms of the GPL v2.

2. It's a matter of trusting the FSF (which I don't (*)) or trusting [INSERT PERSON HERE]; my proposal is simpler: Trust the LAW. It's the only thing that (much like a computer) will do exactly as told to (and, much like a computer, you may be saying different from what you mean).

So, my suggestions will be (I'm signing in right now):

1. keep all rights given by the GPLv2, so GPLv3 will be compatible;
2. eliminate the "nonexistent linking clause", by:
    2.1. stating what is NOT TO BE CONSIDERED a derivative work;
    2.2. leaving all other definitions to the law.
3. don't try to mess with patents or trademarks because this would be incompatible with #1.
4. don't try to mess with choice of law or choice or venue because this would be incompatible with #1 AND non-free.
5. change the language so it's more comprehensible and leave no ambiguity behind.

Re:oooops...

[Misch]

Are you going to explain the asterisk in your statement It's a matter of trusting the FSF (which I don't (*)), or are you going to be like a certain credit card company that I've dealt with... (changing terms from "90 Days Same As Cash" to "90 Days Same As Cash*")

Yes, but...

[seguso]

> Guidelines for GPLv3 Process Released Yes, but under what license are they?

Re:Yes, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, according to the PDF, they're confidential, duh.

Re:Yes, but...

[HiThere]

Does that mean that only members of the FOSS community are allowed to see them?

Re:GPL vs CDDL, MPL, BSD

[grumbel]

CDDL, MPL, BSD, etc. are not variations of the GPL, some of them are libraries which have more or less the same sprit, but they are still completly different licenses.

Stupid question...

[tomtefar]

Stallman explicitly states that he things that open source should be sold for money. What would stop me from purchasing a copy of the software for sale, change a byte or two, call it derivate work, and sell it for a lower price? Sorry forr n00bness here, but I've never seen a good answer for this one.

Re:Stupid question...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing would.
Changing the source and giving the program away (or selling it, if that's what you want to do) are essentially the freedoms the GPL tries to defend.

Re:Stupid question...

[tomtefar]

So where is the incentive for anyone to sell an open source product at all in order to recoup development costs?

It seems like you will sell very few copies before the (minimal) derivate work shows up for free.

Re:Stupid question...

[edbosanquet]

If it is licensed under the GPL then you don't even have to change a byte. You have complete rights to resell or give away the software. Although any derative works have to be sold under the GPL so anyone you give it do can resell or give it away.

Re:Stupid question...

[n0dalus]

What would stop me from purchasing a copy of the software for sale, change a byte or two, call it derivate work, and sell it for a lower price? Sorry forr n00bness here, but I've never seen a good answer for this one.

Maybe you haven't seen a good answer because you haven't read the GPL FAQ?

• If I distribute GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge?
  No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public.

Re:Stupid question...

[squiggleslash]

Stallman explicitly states that he things that open source should be sold for money.

Well, two nit-picks. One is that RMS probably wouldn't use the word "should". ie there's no obligation to sell free software, he just believes people should have the right, legally and morally, to do so.

The second is that RMS doesn't use the term "open source" to describe "free software". Both are, in practice, loaded terms. Free Software is associated with an ideology RMS himself identifies (and is identified) with strongly. It has baggage in terms of being associated with the right to modify and/or redistribute software you've been given. By comparison, Open Source has baggage too - it's generally associated with the superiority of a development model where anyone can contribute, and the movement to sell this development model to businesses and other professional software developers in the hope it'll encourage the creation of free software. You may feel (and a lot of people would agree with you) that this is a trivial distinction when both, ultimately, refer to software that can be freely modified and redistributed, but RMS is as interested in the baggage as he is the destination, and as such he would distance himself from any comment implying any view of "open source" and what it should be.

What would stop me from purchasing a copy of the software for sale, change a byte or two, call it derivate work, and sell it for a lower price?

Nothing. In fact, you wouldn't even need to modify it. And some people actually fund the development of their Free Software projects by selling copies of their programs with licenses even more liberal than RMS proposes, and do so successfully. OpenBSD uses CD sales as one of a range of funding sources, with grants and gifts from concerned parties who want OpenBSD to provide them with the features they need to be developed. This is actually something the Free Software Foundation used to do with GNU, they'd sell tapes for several hundred dollars containing the latest versions. With the Internet, that became less useful (and not worth several hundred dollars to most people), but for a time it was a good source of funding.

Re:Stupid question...

[LWATCDR]

Simple... NOTHING
This is one of the flaws of the GPL. For some projects it makes sense. If a Big Company wants an application to track the service life of widgets and they will pay for all the development costs then GPL is fine. They get the source and all is happy. If you have a project that lots of people will contribute time and resources to then it is also a good solution.
What GPL does do is let you create a product and spread the development cost over large number of users.
A video game is a prime example. It takes a long time to write a good game but you can only sell it for $35-$50. You could make the game engine open source and still be blessed by RMS. RMS for some reason things that it is fine for the "content" of a video game not be open source. I have no idea why he feels that way. You could claim that programing is math and logic and it is not "creative" but frankly art work is just as derivative of nature as programing is of math. I mean every game I have ever seen draws on nature, history, myth, or literature.
My company is developing some software that we will release as OSS. I doubt that we will use GPLv.3. I think it goes too far. And I don't like that the FSF can change it anytime in the future. Anyone want to try and defend "spirit of" and "do no harm" in court?

Re:Stupid question...

[meringuoid]

A video game is a prime example. It takes a long time to write a good game but you can only sell it for $35-$50. You could make the game engine open source and still be blessed by RMS. RMS for some reason things that it is fine for the "content" of a video game not be open source. I have no idea why he feels that way.

RMS is a hacker. RMS thinks the innovative 3D engine in Quake is really cool, and wants to be able to play around with it to see what else he can make it do. He wants to create new things based on Quake: I recall, once the source was released, there was a mod that made Quake into a flight sim, another that gave you a warped fish-eye view, there was ttyQuake which was just deeply wrong, there were ports of Quake to every machine that would sit still long enough...

But RMS doesn't give a damn about the levels iD happened to provide along with Quake - why should he? To a hacker, they're irrelevant. Suppose Microsoft were to say 'right, you can have the code to the Windows kernel, NTFS, SMB, the Word and Excel file formats, all under GPL. But the fonts, sound effects and wallpapers, those we're keeping.' Well, who cares? We can create our own fonts and wallpapers, dammit...

Re:Stupid question...

[trollable]

My company is developing some software that we will release as OSS. I doubt that we will use GPLv.3.

Depends if you can wait 'til Spring 2007 ;)

I think it goes too far.

How far? There is not even a public draft. Do you mean GPLv2?

And I don't like that the FSF can change it anytime in the future.

They can't. Once the text is out, it is definitive.

Re:Stupid question...

[tomstdenis]

As an OSS author [though I don't use the GPL] I'd say there is a decent amount of money [as someone else pointed out] simply for being the author of the tool.

I every so often get support contracts which don't make me rich but do pay for a computer upgrade or rent here or there. My current job with SSC was all because I had the ability to develop software the way I do.

The problem many have is they don't realize the model has changed. You no longer sell commodity software [there are cases where software can be sold, e.g. speciality firmware for instance] like compilers, shells or even OS kernels.

What you can sell [e.g. what has value] is your experise in using it, maintaining it and supporting customer needs.

For instance, a customer may pay me to simply help them build one of my libraries (you'd be surprised how many software shops don't know how to use makefiles with MSVC...). Another may pay me to add a new feature to my library (which I eventually put in the public domain library). Others may pay me to debug their code. And once in a while I'll get people who just give me money because the libraries did exactly what they wanted and they feel like rewarding my work.

If I tried to sell my software I likely wouldn't get much for it. Mostly for marketing reasons mostly because I've been giving it away for free for the last four years :-) But that's ok because I realize it's commodity (there are many other libraries in the same genre as mine out there).

That said I've never really agreed to put the GPL on my software. I agree to use GPL software but only because it's accessible, non-intrusive and usually works well for the end user. For developers it's another story. If I want to give out my software for free I'll just slap a public domain notice on it and be done with. That's truly free. :-)

Tom

Re:Stupid question...

[110010001000]

If anything, your experience should turn off potential developers from using the GPL or releasing software into the PD. As you have said "I every so often get support contracts which don't make me rich but do pay for a computer upgrade or rent here or there."

Well for most people that isn't a good situation. Most people want to make enough money off of their labors to put food on the table and support their family. Software isn't a commodity. Why you want to devalue it is beyond me.

Re:Stupid question...

[tomstdenis]

I hold a job where I draw a salary. I meant my contract work is few and far between. Mostly because I'm not cold calling everyone in the world. If I didn't have my job [which I got because my employer was impressed with the libraries and wanted to use them in their products] I'd probably sell my services harder.

As for the commodity, it's a sad fact of life. If I can give out for free what RSA or Certicom would charge hundreds of thousands of dollars for, what exactly is their value proposition? In their cases it isn't "quality software" it's the horde of developers and scientists they have [that I don't] that can help integrate, update and fix the software to suit the customers needs. Why do you think you don't see price tags on their websites? They're not really in the "selling software" market anymore.

On the flipside, being PD has helped me quite a bit. When I started writing the projects [I'm not mentioning their names to keep the trolls off my back] I wasn't super great at development and I made a lot of newbie mistakes. It was because the projects had potential that some groups decided to get involved and helped me along. Teaching me how to improve the build scripts, releases cycles, contributing code, etc. And because of their help I'm not in a position to do support work with my libraries.

Had I made the libraries commercial from the getgo nobody would have used them and I wouldn't have learned what I have. I think those lessons are far more valuable than a couple years of solid pay.

Tom

Re:Stupid question...

[vertinox]

What would stop me from purchasing a copy of the software for sale, change a byte or two, call it derivate work, and sell it for a lower price? Sorry forr n00bness here, but I've never seen a good answer for this one.

Support packages.

You know when you buy a Red Had server and something breaks... Who are you going to call if that Red Hat software broke on your server and you bought it from a company who didn't sell you a support package? Well you better hope you've got a good IT on hand...

Re:Stupid question...

[cronius]

One thought comes to mind. From an engineering point of view, knowledge (in general and about engineering) should be free (as in speech). It's good for the society and the common man if everyone has access to the worlds knowledge and can use that as he/she sees fit to expand and create new knowledge, thus making the world progress.

Artistic creations (one might call code artistic, but it's more technical than artistic) don't need to be "free" in the same sense. Artistic creations aren't hard facts knowledge, they're made out of creativity, not engineering. This would explain why RMS has that view as you described (but I'm only guessing here).

Re:Stupid question...

[LWATCDR]

"Artistic creations aren't hard facts knowledge, they're made out of creativity, not engineering. "
That is just not so. Art is basied on science also. Everything from perspective to color. People learn to be an artist. They learn what looks good and how to compose an image. Why do you think that you can get a degree in art. Programing is much the same yes you need a talent but you learn how to be a good programmer or an artists.

Re:GPL vs CDDL, MPL, BSD

[TheRaven64]

As the other poster pointed out, the CDDL, MPL and BSDL are not GPL derivatives (although I believe the CDDL is an MPL derivative). Last time I checked, the FSF retained the copyright on the GPL and did not permit derived works (somewhat ironically, I felt).

The BSD license has undergone a similar change - one clause was dropped. Some people refer to the MIT license as the 2-clause BSD license, which adds some more confusion to the topic.

Re:GPL vs CDDL, MPL, BSD

[Kjella]

Also, in the spirit of freedom, efficiency and 'less government' shouldn't the main goal of editing the GPL be reducing the word count and removing all lawyer speek (if there was any)?

RTFL before you speak of things you do not know. The GPL is extremely brief, and extremely free of legal mumbo-jumbo. Believe it or not, a bit on the skimpy side at times. Not to mention it's a license you can read once, and know what it says a thousand times. Try comparing it to any commercial license, and I don't mean just the infamous MS EULAs. I mean to every license ever touched by a company lawyer. And if you had read the other licenses as well, you'd see they are quite different both from each other and from the GPL...

Re:Increasingly Irrelevant

[frankm_slashdot]

its a world of choice - if you have that much of a problem with gpl then dont use it. just because you dont like it doesnt mean others shouldnt be freely allowed to use it if they like. natural selection will sort it all out in the end - who are you to play god?

the future isnt about narrowing down our choices to only one style of license - its about broadening them. to some companies, real - money driven - licenses make sense. others it doesnt. you'll be ok. i promise.

turn it about.

[dominux]

where is the incentive for someone to buy the product from the original developers vs someone else. personally I develop bespoke applications for big companies. Generally it is wierd stuff that nobody else would want. I provide my services at a respectable daily rate and the software I produce is licensed under the GPL (mostly, there are exceptions.) You can buy Redhat Linux from Redhat, you can get an identical product for free from Centos which isn't called "Redhat Linux" because "Redhat Linux" is a trademark. Some people get Centos, other people buy Redhat Linux. People still buy from Redhat because they want to do so. Companies do understand the concept of recouping development costs, and will purchase at a reasonable price from the developers to support future development.

Re:turn it about.

[tomtefar]

Ah. Tnx.

Basically, companies such as RH rely on their branding to give them an edge in the sell vs. gratis decision.

How does your client feel that the code is GPLed?

Do they consider the risk of you letting their competitors download the code for free from your website? In effect, your client's competitors will have their development paid for by your client.

Just trying to sync(2) up the commercial world with the open source one.

Re:turn it about.

[dominux]

I don't put up much code for download on my website. I do put some stuff there packaged up in a non client specific way if I should do something of general interest. The GPL does not require that the source is posted on a website. It does not require me to distribute program and source to anyone who asks for it. It does require me to distribute the source to anyone who has obtained a copy of the program and asks for the source. I can charge a reasonable amount for production of the source. Basically in my context GPL doesn't make a heap of difference. It just gives the client more freedoms than they would otherwise have. Read the GPL and the FAQ, you will be glad you did.

Tell me why oh why?

[mu22le]

What's wrong with version 2?
Why do we need v3?
Expecially since a lot of people seem scared by what could come out this time.

Re:Tell me why oh why?

[Antique Geekmeister]

We need version 3 because a lot of commercial developers are wary of the version 2 license: cleaning up some of the language and making very clear what it means for the future, along with some minor concessions for wary developers, can encourage them to use the software and participate in its development.

We see this now with Novell and their evolution client, and we've seen copyright vagaries with X-windows, SSH, Kerberos, and other technologies in the past. Good clear language with weird exceptions addressed carefully is the hallmark of OSS.

Re:Tell me why oh why?

[trollable]

The main problem is the importance of software patents in the US. The GPLv2 doesn't deal with patents. More recent licenses do (ASL2, EPL, ...). A GPLv3 is needed to take the new situation in consideration. It would be also nice if ASL2, EPL, ... become compatible.

Re:Tell me why oh why?

[GigsVT]

Version 2 leaves significant ambiguity with regard to applications used over a network. If I install fooForums that is GPL, and I modify it then put it on my website, am I distributing a modified GPL work? I'm sure distributing parts of it (the HTML etc). Right now it's not clear if the person modifying the app has any obligation to distribute source.

One of the possibilities for GPLv3 is a clause that would allow authors of network based server side applications to include links in the app to download source, that could not be removed legally under the GPL.

Re:Tell me why oh why?

[Arandir]

Actually, there's no ambiguity there at all. Using an application over a network is not distribution. The reason people want this new restriction in the GPL is so that they can control the behavior of other people.

Re:Tell me why oh why?

[GigsVT]

A network application (especially web based ones) copies parts of itself verbatim out over the network.

Unless you are asserting that the HTML and CSS files are not copyrighted and owned by the author of the application. Look at the Bison problem, it's similar. These applications copy large chunks of their source to the output. This is distribution under copyright law.

Re:Tell me why oh why?

[Arandir]

HTML and CSS are not the (perceived) problem. Just slap a GPL on those files and you're fine. There is a slight problem with runtime linkage to java applets and similar, but these items are still covered by the GPL since they are indeed being distributed. Where one (small) concern in this area is one party linking to a runtime component distributed by another party. But the FSF and RMS do not consider this a problem, and in fact consider such a requirement to be quite onerous. Why should you be required to distribute the source code for a component you yourself did not distribute? Also, copyright law (US at least) allows copying for the purpose of execution.

These things are minor. The REAL impetus behind a new network clause are network appliations. Specifically, the back end of network applications that never get distributed. People are bitching about the "unfairness" of the GPL not regulating usage. If distribution covered this situation they wouldn't be calling it a "loophole". I

Here's an example. Imagine someone took GIMP (which is under the GPL), stuck it on their server, then dished out an HTML front end to let people fiddle with their images online. GIMP itself is not being distributed in any form, only an HTML file and the finished images are. Should the server owner be required to distribute the GIMP source code? Is it "unfair" if he doesn't?

Personally I side with freedom and fewer restrictions. It's no one's business what I do on my own server.

Look at the Bison problem, it's similar.

Bison has an explicit exception to allow this. This is also known as the Macro Problem. While it may be interesting to argue whether Fair Use gives a pass to macros and boilerplate, it's a completely separate topic from network apps.

Re:Tell me why oh why?

[GigsVT]

HTML and CSS are not the (perceived) problem. Just slap a GPL on those files and you're fine

A separate license for just the HTML and CSS? If you are implying the original author of the GPL app should slap a GPL on it, that implies even more strongly that someone who used a modified GPL server-side app would be bound to distribute source, even if it's only running on their server.

Here's an example. Imagine someone took GIMP (which is under the GPL), stuck it on their server, then dished out an HTML front end to let people fiddle with their images online. GIMP itself is not being distributed in any form, only an HTML file and the finished images are. Should the server owner be required to distribute the GIMP source code? Is it "unfair" if he doesn't?

The GPL could never apply in a situation like that (assuming the output doesn't contain large parts of the program itself), because the GPL only regulates activities not allowed already under copyright law. It would not be copyright infringement to put up an interface to a proprietary application, that simply feeds it input and output, even if that input and output are from the network. This is true even if the app were "All Rights Reserved", they can't claim to own your input or output under copyright law.

You may trust the FSF...

[everphilski]

I trust the FSF completely not to have any hidden motives

You may trust the FSF but it seems there is reason not to trust RMS

-everphilski-

Re:You may trust the FSF...

[afidel]

Why? Because he seems to favor a BSD style license to the GPL? I would look on that as a disagreement among mature adults, not a reason to fear or distrust him.

Re:You may trust the FSF...

[Misch]

Re: The link

Wow... a bad analogy on so many levels...

An analogy for the GPL would be the farmer who receives the gift of a GPL cow from a neighbour.

The farmer is thoroughly welcome to not accept the cow into its herd.

The cow is completely free, but all of the milk from the cow must be given away for free,

Since the milk is content created by a process of running the GPL cow, it's not a derivitave work of the GPL cow, it's a completley separate creation. Otherwise, it'd be like Microsoft claiming copyright over the content of a file created by Microsoft Word.

and all of the cow's calves, and the calves' calves, yea, even unto the thousandth generation, shall be given away for free.

You're more than welcome to sell the cow. It's just that if you do sell the cow, you have to give the receiver the DNA of the cow... you can't prevent the receiver of the cow from "breeding" the cow. [In fact, companies supplying genetically engineered animals typically make it a violation of the contract to breed the animal or plant without paying for a license.]

Now what kind of use is such a cow? Even if the bulls are non-GPL bulls, all of their offspring by GPL cows are controlled by the GPL licence.

It's generally not a good idea to cross breed a non-GPL cow and a GPL cow. It's a derivitave work of the GPL cow. You're more than welcome to not breed the GPL cow.

If you have a cow breeding programme and you develop a really excellent breed of cow, you must give the new breed of cows away for free if just one of the many ancestors of the superior cow was a GPL cow. The GPL cow is even more dangerous than patented GM crop seeds.

At least if I get one of these superior GPL cows, I can legally breed it, and there's nothing you can legally do to stop me.

The world envisioned by the GPL seems to be a perfect communism where all developers are like subsistence farmers; they must give away everything excess to their own immediate requirements for free to the community.

I'm still more than welcome to sell the software. I just odn't have the right to prevent you from turning around and giving it away.

Why no summary?

[lightweave]

I know that most slashdot articles are usually not more then just "X exists go there [weblink]". I would expect from an article that it would at least gives a summary of what has been changed instad just a bunch of pointers and you have to compare them for yourself. Needles to say that not everybody is an expert english speaker and might have troubles to actually determine what has been changed and what it means for the enduser. I don't really expect a full juristical treatise on this, but it would have been nice to include a LITTLE bit more than just this.

Re:Why no summary?

[trollable]

Nothing has changed yet in the GPL. This is just an announce for the process that will lead to the GPL v3. So you can involve yourself in the discussion.

sorry gentoo users

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel bad for the gentoo users who'll have to recompile everything to emerge the latest in license technology...

RTA please :-)

[macavity1977]

Nothing has changed yet.. this is a work-draft. Even with carefull wording like "the not-yet-implemented proposals for change include foo, bar and bas" will materialize in the brain of the usual slashdot troll as "foo, bar and bas changed for good, and now we can never go back"...
In delicate political and social matters like this one, I can only tip my hat to the notion that the good authors of slashdot stay *well* out of what has even a remote chance of getting flamed up.

Just my .02

~Macavity

You actually gave a terrible example

[hummassa]

The OpenBSD CD, as a collective work, is licensed under a non-liberal license (not even remotely free).

Re:You actually gave a terrible example

[squiggleslash]

Well, technically you're refering to the lack of a license, not a "non-liberal" license.

In any case, only the layout is unlicensed. Ripping the CD as an ISO and reburning it is something you're not given permission to do, so you can't do it. However, copying the files, which are all licensed under Free Software and Open Source compliant licenses, is perfectly legal.

And even if this wasn't true, and once receiving the CD you aren't allowed to redistribute the content, which you are, because Theo doesn't have any say in the matter (he wouldn't be able to distribute any of the copylefted content if that were the case), you can obtain the same software from the same source anyway in Free Software form.

So it's a great example. Someone's selling free software. The only aspects that are "unfree" are largely cosmetic and irrelevent to the discussion of whether you can, usefully, sell free software or not.

Much better code

[FuzzyDaddy]

while (enemies > 0) enemies--;

Let me see ...

[hummassa]

what is worth more? Your knowledge about said software or the original authors'?
And besides, the guy to which you sold your "derivative work" for less can also sell it for even less, and take away your costumers! He can even post the code on the Internet for free!
People who sell Free Software are usually selling more commodity (the CD, the paper manuals), services (support, upgrades) than the software /per/ /se/.

Vaporware- nothing to see

[nuggz]

Just present a proposal GPL v3
This constant announcement of nothing is annoying.

So they're going to talk about the GPL v3 before releasing this, big freaking deal.

Free software is pro-commercial activity.

[jbn-o]

First, Stallman doesn't explicitly state anything in terms of the open source movement. He started the free software movement over a decade before the Open Source Initiative started the open source movement and he explains why he does not agree with the philosophy behind the open source movement.

What you're talking about would be better referenced by reading what RMS actually said about distributing free software for a fee.

To answer your question, there's nothing prohibiting you from distributing free software for a fee (any fee), whether it is modified or not. RMS encourages you to do so for as much money as you can because the money you make doing so can be put right back into making and distributing more free software. But there is nothing stopping you from undercutting others by distributing it for less money than they are. You could do this regularly and thus make a business doing this. RMS distributed copies of GNU Emacs and other free software in the early years of the free software movement and that was how he made his living for a while. Today, there are consultancies that work on particular programs (like GCC, where professional GCC hackers have a waiting list of clients, Brad Kuhn told me), and consultancies that focus on hand-holding services (you'd be surprised how many people have computers and don't know how to operate them).

Sorry about that ...

[hummassa]

(*) MHO:
1. I respect RMS for his role in setting in motion the Free Software movement.
2. (corollary) I respect RMS for his role in starting GCC (which I use) and EMACS (which I don't use).
3. I respect the FSF and RMS for their roles in furthering the cause of Free software.
4. I don't trust the FSF and RMS to know that sometimes even well-intentioned people do things contrary to their own beliefs.
5. (corollary) The GFDL is non-free and sucks. Freedom should be equally applicable to all kinds of software: programs, libraries and other content types.
6. (corollary) The whole "GPL forbids (dyn)linking with GPL-incompatible works" party line is an outrageous lie, and it sucks. And, even if it seems to boost the FS movement (GPL'd Qt! Hey!) I think it does more harm than good.

Re:Sorry about that ...

[7-Vodka]

So basically you don't trust them because you don't agree with them.
Regardless, they made their position clear before you came around, they're still transparent and their position hasn't changed.

Re:Sorry about that ...

[Arandir]

I don't trust them because they're human beings. Moreover, I trust them even less because they're human beings on a moral crusade.

Re:Read the message, not the wrapping

[Pxtl]

Because he's the public front of the Free Software movement. He's the one who does the talking. I don't doubt his intellect, but his job also involves interacting with normal people.

[OT] SFLC taking control of FSF ?

[dolphinbit]

If you search for FSF's board history, you'll find that the only true technical person remaining is RMS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Foundat ion#Board_of_Directors

In particular as a free software developer, I wouldn't feel comfortable with a lawyer taking leadership ... Would you?

I'm not kidding. Just dig about Eben Mongler & SFLC penetration into FSF and take your conclusions.

Re:[OT] SFLC taking control of FSF ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Senior Software Engineer and Professor of Computer Science aren't technical people?

Oh...kay...

Re:[OT] SFLC taking control of FSF ?

[istewart]

Considering that Eben Moglen founded the Software Freedom Law Center in February 2005; and that he himself, "expects -- in fact, plans for -- a large turnover in the staff. After five years, he anticipates 20 to 30 lawyers will have passed through the Center," I doubt that he's leading some evil cabal of lawyers which seek to subvert the FSF.

To implement new things that aren't in GPLv2.

[jbn-o]

We need new language (ostensibly, language that would appear in version 3) to address what RMS has called "some kind of patent retaliation clause", "something to deal with this case of public use on a server the public connects to", and something that is "designed to prohibit putting the software into something that won't let the user, that refuses to run a modified version if the user installs one". RMS has said that the library exception has been "reworked".

But generally, the GPL will stay the same: "So I hope this shows you that it's all a matter of details here or there. It would be completely wrong to change the major outline of the GPL. And we're not going to.".

All quotes come from RMS' 7 April 2005 talk about the free software movement (approximately 1h40m into the recording).

There's no reason to be scared by what comes out of this process. If GPLv3 isn't to your liking, you can continue to license your programs under GPLv2.

Re:To implement new things that aren't in GPLv2.

[mu22le]

and something that is "designed to prohibit putting the software into something that won't let the user, that refuses to run a modified version if the user installs one".

??? what? Could you elaborate on this :) ?

There's no reason to be scared by what comes out of this process. If GPLv3 isn't to your liking, you can continue to license your programs under GPLv2.

I'll tell what scares me: if people start using it but, say, Debian finds it does not suit the social contranct... kiss goodbay to all your nice .deb packages that "just work".

Re:To implement new things that aren't in GPLv2.

[jbn-o]

The quote is direct from an RMS talk, but I think he stopped himself and restarted part of the sentence. One could look at it this way: "[...] designed to prohibit putting the software into something [...] that refuses to run a modified version [of the program] if the user installs one".

One of RMS' beefs with Debian is that they distribute non-free software in some part of their software archive (I believe it's called the "non-free" repo, sensibly enough). If GPLv3 is deemed to be non-DFSG free, GPLv3 programs can be carried in that repo. If such an event were to occur, I think that we owe it to ourselves and the FSF to read and think through the final GPLv3 before determining whether distributing GPLv3 programs from non-free would be an odd juxtaposition, just desserts, or something else entirely.

Re:GPL vs CDDL, MPL, BSD

[warkda rrior]

The GPL is extremely brief, and extremely free of legal mumbo-jumbo.

The GPL is definitely longer than the MIT license. The MIT license is quite concise and understandable as well. Same goes for the BSD license: much shorter, easier to read than the GPL. All three are open source licenses.

If you want to have a brief, understandable license, compare the GPL with the shorter licenses, not the longer, more obfuscated ones. For any given license, you call always find a longer one.

A waste of time?

[sco08y]

Since the GPL is, effectively, a EULA, it's not legally binding? So why so much fuss?

Re:A waste of time?

[menace3society]

It is, in fact, explicitly not a EULA. It says that you are entirely free to use, install, copy for personal use, and modify The Program as a part of 'fair use'. What the GPL addresses are terms of redistribution, both of The Program and any Derived Works, which is something that is (strictly speaking) required for the redistribution of any copyrighted works, whether or not they are GPL.

It's only legally binding if you choose to redistribute it, otherwise it's irrelevant.

Re:GPL vs CDDL, MPL, BSD

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason for that should be obvious - passing off. Say I took RHEL, added a backdoor or borked it someway. I then sell this as RHEL. Cannot. I can sell it as MyLinux or similar because the GPL lets me.

In this case: MS change the GPL and then say "We are compliant with the GPL". On closer inspection, it is the normal MS EULA. They have lied.

Keeping the copyright and forbidding revisions they do not write is the way to do this legally.

Clear English, please

[codyk]

If the FSF can't even write the process definition in clear english, how do they expect to clarify the license? From http://gplv3.fsf.org/gpl3-process.pdf :

Our cardinal principal is to make no change impeding any of the four basic freedoms for software users that the free software movement enshrined in GPL version 2: to run, study, copy, modify and redistribute software.

Wow, that sure looks like a list of FIVE 'freedoms'. Then later:

(It goes without saying that people have the freedom to run a program under the GPL.)

Oh, okay, so then 'run' isnt really one of the 'freedoms', but it 'goes without saying' that I can excercise it anyway. I don't know about you, but I'm not real excited by the prospect of a license written by people who assume that a fundamental permission 'goes without saying'.

Re:Clear English, please

[Anonymous Coward]

It "goes without saying" because running the program is outside the scope of the GPL. If you have a program on some computer-readable medium, you don't need anyone's permission to feed that program into an appropriate compiler/interpreter, any more than you need someone's permission to feed the program into a text editor.

One of the worst effects of the proliferation of EULAs, in the end perhaps the most dangerous, is the way they encourage this perception that everything you do with a program is permitted only by the grace of the copyright holder.

Re:Clear English, please

[codyk]

It "goes without saying" because running the program is outside the scope of the GPL. If you have a program on some computer-readable medium, you don't need anyone's permission to feed that program into an appropriate compiler/interpreter, any more than you need someone's permission to feed the program into a text editor.

If 'anyone' is the holder of a relevant patent, you may very well need permission to feed that program into an appropriate compiler/interpreter.

The GPL is not an EULA

[BlueGecko]

I suspect I'm feeding the trolls, but I'll answer your question anyway.

EULAs impose additional restrictions on the software beyond the restrictions that would naturally arise due to copyright. These restrictions almost always regard how the programs may be used or redistributed. The EULA for Internet Explorer, just as an example, technically forbids you from running it under WINE, even though there is no reason by copyright law that it would be illegal to do so. The EULA of server software frequently restricts how many clients may use the software at once and how many CPUs or computers the software may be placed on at once. In all of these cases, actions that would normally be acceptable under copyright law are forbidden; no freedoms are granted.

The GPL, in contrast, places no restrictions on how the program is used. It grants you additional rights beyond those that copyright law would by default permit—specifically, permission to modify and then redistribute the program without paying royalties to the copyright holder, provided that you keep those rights the same. Because these rights are greater than those afforded by copyright, you do not have permission to exercise them without accepting the GPL. This actually places the GPL on very sound legal footing compared to a click-through license agreement that places restrictions on your usage of a program.

All of that said, I am not aware of a court ruling that makes EULAs nonbinding, although certainly many people on Slashdot wish that they were not. If you are aware of such a court case, please provide a link or docket number. I'd be interested to read it.

Re:The GPL is not an EULA

[Arandir]

I EULA is an "End User License Agreement". Hence the acronym. It doesn't matter if a license adds are removes restrictions, if you have to agree to it before you receive any of its grants, privileges or permissions, it's a EULA. The GPL specifically says you must agree to it before you get any of its permissions. Thus, the GPL is a EULA.

Re:The GPL is not an EULA

[timmyf2371]

All of that said, I am not aware of a court ruling that makes EULAs nonbinding, although certainly many people on Slashdot wish that they were not. If you are aware of such a court case, please provide a link or docket number. I'd be interested to read it.

Don't have any which rules them as non-binding, however here are links to a couple of cases which show that EULAs are very legally binding.

http://www.svmedialaw.com/ecommerce-9-eula-upheld- in-dmca-hacker-case.html
http://www.kentlaw.edu/legalaspects/tony_brower.ht m

Re:The GPL is not an EULA

[Anonymous Coward]

Except the GPL doesn't say anything at all about end users. It only applies to them when they decide to become distributers.

Re:The GPL is not an EULA

[Arandir]

It only applies to them when they decide to become distributers.

There are several cases where the GPL applies to end users. The particuarly onerous case is the application developer using a GPL library. He does not distribute the library in any form, but must still agree to the license before using it (at least according to the FSF). He is indeed the end user of the library, and thus the GPL is a EULA for him. There's also the case of an end user wishing to copy the software to use on a different machine. Non-archival copying is not allowed by copyright law, thus one needs to agree to the GPL in order to do so.

If it were only the case of downloading a binary and executing it on one system, you would be correct, but that's only one case.

p.s. Don't get mad at me for calling a spade a spade. It was the FSF that decided to make the GPL a license agreement, so blame them. Personally I prefer simple permission statements, with or without warranty disclaimers, such as the BSD or MIT licenses.

(1) Not really, (2) not really, and ...

[hummassa]

(3) Not really.
1. So basically you don't trust them because you don't agree with them. -- No, actually I don't trust them because they are actively misrepresenting stuff.
2. Regardless, they made their position clear before you came around, -- No, actually I am around for approximately the same time as them, and their position was not made clear (read the conflicting "that is to say" GPL clause); and when they "clarified" their position about things, it was to _remove_ rights from people who considered (by reading their text) they had it.
3. they're still transparent -- I can't really believe in transparency when I consider things are being misrepresented.
4. and their position hasn't changed. -- granted; ie, once they "clarified" their position, it hasn't changed (even though I think they should reconsider).

New York TImes

[jefu]

The NY Times (reg req and all) has a story covering this that seems worth reading. They say RMS is a "person of emphatic views".

NY Times article

[dalutong]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/30/technology/30lic ense.html?pagewanted=print

The New York Times had an article on the impact of the revision called "Overhaul of Linux License Could Have Broad Impact."

some quotes:

"Industry analysts estimate that the value of hardware and software that use the Linux operating system is $40 billion."

"The revision process promises to be intriguing because of the man behind the G.P.L., Richard Stallman, the founder of the Free Software Foundation.

The G.P.L., according to Mr. Stallman, is an effort to use copyright law to protect what he calls the "four basic freedoms of software" - the unrestricted right to use, study, copy and modify software. The license also requires that any modifications be redistributed with the same unrestricted rights. "

"For Microsoft's part, Steven A. Ballmer, its chief executive, has called the G.P.L. a 'cancer.'"

Re:GPL vs CDDL, MPL, BSD

[TheRaven64]

You are confusing copyright and trademarks. If you take a copy of RHEL, you are free to add a backdoor and sell it - this is a copyright issue and covered in the license. What you can not do is call it RHEL, because that would be in violation of Red Hat's trademark.

The situation with respect to the GPL is quite different. At the top of the GPL you will find this notice

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.

Not only are you not allowed to modify the GPL and call it Anonymous Coward's License, you are not allowed to use a modified copy at all.

Yet another GPL3 announcement

[Elektroschock]

I wonder why the FREE software Foundation develops the GPL in a closed manner and makes such a fuss out of it. Why can't we get the draft today and fix it. Sorry, I don't understand.

I know that Richard Stallman does not like personal registration, so why do we have to register with our full name to receive news about the GPL?

Assignment

[jbolden]

That's basically an assignment clause. You can do that now if you get the contributes to assign copyright and questionably the courts may find that donating to a project obvious managed by one person is an assignment of copyright. That is they might find that people who donate to kernel.org are in fact assigning copyright in a vague sense. The assumption right now is that the individual authors retain all rights but I'm not sure the courts will agree. They might see this more like a book where the project lead is the "editor" and he has primary rights....

Anyway the tern you are looking for is assignment and many projects already require it.