Free Software Foundation Begins Rewriting the GPL

Robert writes "The first update to the GNU General Public License in 15 years has begun. Details about the process and guidelines by which it will be updated by the Free Software Foundation, and the free/open source community at large, are now available. The FSF has announced plans to release the first draft of the new license for comment at a conference to be held at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in mid-January 2006." From the article: "This is the first time the GPL has been open to a public development process. Stallman created version 1 himself in 1985 and introduced version 2 in 1991 after taking legal advice and collecting developer opinion. The rapid adoption of Linux and hundred of other software products licensed under the GPL makes the development of GPLv3 a significant event, and one that is now likely to involve some of the biggest vendors in the industry, with Hewlett-Packard, Novell, and Red Hat already having declared their intention to participate."

Comments

The largest amendment to this new draft...

[slughead]

... are the words "no, seriously."

Re:The largest amendment to this new draft...

[krgallagher]

"The largest amendment to this new draft..."

The requirement that all free software be called GNU/Software.

Re:The largest amendment to this new draft...

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll amend it with a declaration saying that if your software is not licensed under GPL it is not free software (and, in small type, that the streets must run red with the blood of unbelievers).

Re:The largest amendment to this new draft...

[IAmTheDave]

... are the words "no, seriously." Rarely is a comment both side-splittingly funny and profoundly insightful at the same time. Bravo.

My First Question

[Ckwop]

Why? The GPL2 does everything I want it to.

Simon.

Re:My First Question

[SComps]

If they don't rewrite it, they'll be forgotten and therefore have no purpose or publicity.

Here in my office we call it busy work.

Re:My First Question

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the big thing that wasn't in v2 is language regarding patent stuff. I believe all the relatively recent patent hoopla is the main reason why they decided they need a v3 GPL.

Re:My First Question

[zx75]

Then stick with using GPL v2. But just because it is adequate for your needs, doesn't mean that it neccisarily addresses the concerns of everyone who chooses to use it. Hence the rewrite.

Re:My First Question

[Ulrich Hobelmann]

One issue is that some companies use GPLed software and modify and extend it, but don't release it (the GPL only requires you to publish your modifications if you release the software). But these companies run the modified software on their webservers, so it is in use.

Now that more and more applications run simply over the web, with no publishing involved, some people (like RMS) are interested to extend the concept of Free Software to web apps.

Re:My First Question

[LiquidCoooled]

Doesn't this dilute the skills pot though.

If I see some GPL code, I cannot just use it. I will have to check if its the correct version of GPL before I can bring it in.

This will end in tears.

Re:My First Question

[The Cydonian]

The Fine article doesnt go into depth, but the way I remember it, I believe it's to do with web-apps, web-services and such. Currently, under ver2, it is possible for you to download an OSS project such as, say, Slash, make modifications to the code, and host it publically without needing to release the source code to your modifications. I believe the ver3 effort will primarily address situations such as this.

Now, it's a different matter to discuss whether such a situation is, indeed, in need of a remedy, but all the same, I believe the discussions are mainly to do with distributed applications.

Re:My First Question

[SwiftOne]

There are a few issues that the GPLv2 doesn't cover, or is a bit too vague on. As I understand the desired improvements, some big points are:

* Language that is happier with different jurisdictions. (some legal terms have very different meanings in different countries)
* Patents. Patents Icky. Dealing with Patents Icky.
* Wrapping binaries. I think some parties want some more clear language here to prevent violations of the spirit of the GPL.
* with GPLv2, if you expose the service of the software but not the binary, you don't have to distribute changes. So I could take slash code (if it's GPL, which I don't recall), hack some changes, and sell access to the website using those changes, and never have to share my code, which violates the spirit of the GPL.

I don't think the idea is to toss the GPLv2, but instead to keep doing the same thing...only more so.

Re:My First Question

[mrchaotica]

You've gotta do that now anyway, since some code could be GPLv1, BSD, Artistic, etc. This is no different; if you want to use GPLv2-only code in your GPLv2+ or GPLv3 project, you'll just have to include a note saying that that particular code will just have to stay GPLv2 (but it won't stop the rest of the code from being GPLv3).

Re:My First Question

[vertinox]

Why? The GPL2 does everything I want it to.

Yeah! Windows 2000 did everything I wanted it to do as well, but damn Microsoft had to go make Windows XP! Bastages!

Re:My First Question

[Peter La Casse]

Not only that, but if it becomes compatible with the Apache License, GPLv3 would actually decrease the license incompatibilities of the libre-verse.

Re:My First Question

[Bogtha]

Now that more and more applications run simply over the web, with no publishing involved, some people (like RMS) are interested to extend the concept of Free Software to web apps.

The big problem is that this changes the GPL into a EULA. Right now, the GPL doesn't attempt to restrict anything, it merely grants privileges that would not usually be in effect. That's why it's such a strong license.

To change the GPL to include restrictions on how you use the software would seem to run counter to the ideals of Free Software; namely that you are free to use the software as you please. It's also vulnerable to the same criticisms of other EULAs. Basically, the only thing that allows copyright holders to bind you to terms is the fact that you are copying. But copying for the purpose of using the software (e.g. installation) is explicitly not copyright infringement under USA law. That means that if you are merely using the software, the copyright holder has no leverage to bind you to their terms.

Re:My First Question

[fuzzy12345]

[S]ome companies use GPLed software and modify ... it, but don't release it ... But these companies run the modified software on their webservers ... [S]ome people (like RMS) are interested to extend the concept of Free Software to web apps.

Man, this just goes too far. I get the feeling that if Stallman had been around at the invention of the typewriter, I'd still be writing longhand for fear of donating all my copyright.

Re:My First Question

[cortana]

It doesn't have to turn into an EULA.

The kind of clauses being speculated about are those such as, (very broadly) you may not remove the software's ability to provide a link to the source code to the end user.

Copyright law reserves the rights of distribution and modification to the copyright holder. So the copyright holder may grant you the right to distribute and modify the software as long as you don't remove the source code distribution functionality.

Re:My First Question

[Fujisawa Sensei]

First off the auther said GPLm not BSD, Artistic, or WTFPL.

Secondly it does matter, because there is no requirement for source-code download linking in GPL

If that clause does make it into GPL V3+ it will make a big honking difference.

Re:My First Question

[tylers]

>* with GPLv2, if you expose the service of the software but not the binary, you don't have to distribute changes. So I
>could take slash code (if it's GPL, which I don't recall), hack some changes, and sell access to the website using
>those changes, and never have to share my code, which violates the spirit of the GPL.

I can say right now that were a clause such as this included, I would not use any software on my website which was licensed as GPLv3. Why? I don't want to deal with the hassle of providing it on the website, especially when I just installed it via apt-get. Also, how far does that go? Do I have to provide the source to:

a. Only public-facing web software, such as gallery
b. All software which interacts with the public, which would include postfix, apache, php, courier, etc...
c. All software involved with delivering public content, which would basically be everything installed on the system

Can you see the problems it might create? As a system administrator, I shudder to think of the implications.

Re:My First Question

[Just Some Guy]

So I could take slash code (if it's GPL, which I don't recall), hack some changes, and sell access to the website using those changes, and never have to share my code, which violates the spirit of the GPL.

I could also maintain an internal version of the Linux kernel with better network throughput. Would I legally owe a copy of my changes to visitors to my sites? How about patches to Gnucash, since my customers are "using" the invoices that it generates?

Those examples might be dumb, but the point is that you can take the concept of "user" with regards to the GPL arbitrarily far, and I really don't think it's a good idea for the FSF to go down that road. Of course, I realize that this is pretty much just what RMS wants - he hasn't exactly tried to hide it - but that's a far more radical mindset than most GPL supporters (particular companies) are willing to adopt.

Re:My First Question

[MobyDisk]

You are incorrect.

Copyright law reserves the rights of distribution and modification to the copyright holder.

Copyright does not reserve the right of modification, only distribution. A modification is called a "derived work" but copyright does not prevent you from creating derived works. It only prevents distributing them. And that brings us back to the original problem, which is that if you run your own server then you aren't distributing them.

Re:My First Question

[BeBoxer]

I understand the sentiment, but I think the community needs to be very, very careful when considering this type of change. Because in many ways it is a massive structural change in the very nature of GPL software. Currently, as a user, I don't really have to worry much about the GPL. It doesn't really impose anything at all for most people. And even though technically I have to accept the GPL to modify the code, that's currently trivial if I don't distribute the code.

But if the GPL is changed so that somehow modification without distribution is restricted then suddenly I have a whole new host of worries with GPL software. I think this is basically cutting off your nose to spite your face. I don't think anybody can actually point to a real example of the problem this solution is trying to solve. But I can guarantee that adding this type of restriction is going to be seen as a big negative for companies wanting to deploy GPL software. Note I'm not talking about companies who want to distribute the software, but those that just want to use it.

Re:My First Question

[Cecil]

Congratulations, you're ridiculous and have completely missed the point.

You can write code in RMS's editor, Emacs, without having to put it under the GPL.

He's not interested in "restricting your freedom" (if that's what you choose to feel like the GPL does) to do whatever the hell you want with your own code. He's interested in restricting your freedom" to do whatever the hell you want with HIS CODE.

If you don't want the GPL to 'infect' your application, then DON'T USE GPL'D CODE. Write it yourself, you lazy ass.

Re:My First Question

[FrangoAssado]

Exactly.

Notice that the version 2 of GPL already contains a clause (2 c) in a similar line: it doesn't allow you to remove messages printed at startup by an interactive program "that reads commands". It it largely dated, because not so many programs today "read commands" interactively.

So, in effect, it looks like what people are trying to do is to bring the original intentions of the GPL to the era of web applications.

Re:My First Question

[SwiftOne]

Those examples might be dumb, but the point is that you can take the concept of "user" with regards to the GPL arbitrarily far, and I really don't think it's a good idea for the FSF to go down that road.

Not dumb at all, for the reasons you specify. However, in a better example above, I pointed out making an Office version that was web-based and build on OpenOffice code, and selling accounts. This is not appreciably different than distributing binaries, except that it is legally different. GPLv3 wants to consider these topics.

If you think the GPLv3 should allow these things, well, that's a good reason to participate. No one is presenting the changes as a final package yet...they're getting feedback and input. Go to it!

Re:My First Question

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're happy with GPL 2, then stick with it.

However, Stallman thinks there are several reasons for an update. I'm not sure that I agree with all of the reasons, but 20 years ago I didn't foresee the abuses of software copyright and patents like he did, so I'm willing to very seriously consider his opinion.

There are a number of questions about new uses of free software. Three of the ones that occur to me right now are:

1) More companies are selling services rather than software, so they can skirt the GPL by never shipping the actual software. The deprives me of my freedom to study the changes a company makes to my code.

2) Some hardware requires device drivers to be signed, so a GPLed device driver still can't be modified. The deprives me of the freedom to modify the code, but may be necessary for some applications (e.g. limiting frequency ranges for wireless network cards)

3) There are clever ways to make a simple interface to a GPLed program to allow someone to extend the program without revealing the real changes. The also deprives me of my freedom to study the changes a company makes to my code.

Re:My First Question

[mark-t]

So the copyright holder may grant you the right to distribute and modify the software as long as you don't remove the source code distribution functionality

Close.

The copyright holder has no say at all on whether or not I may modify my own copy of the software.

More interestingly, however...

Even if I modify my own copy of the software for use on a public server, as long as I do not actually in any way distribute the program to anyone else, that is, make any copies that are not covered by the "personal/private use" exemption (and the sole metric for determining personal/private use is whether or not copies of the work were ever offered for distribution to others, regardless of whether or not pay is involved), I cannot be seen as violating copyright.

Re:My First Question

[Ekevu]

It's not like you're the one who's going to write its new version, and, most importantly, it's not like you're going to have to use it. Thank them for caring.

Re:My First Question

[Kjella]

Copyright does not reserve the right of modification, only distribution. A modification is called a "derived work" but copyright does not prevent you from creating derived works. It only prevents distributing them.

The exact quote of the copyright holder's right is "(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;" If you look at the definitions, "prepare" is not defined specificly but it used in the definition of "create":

"A work is 'created' when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time; where a work is prepared over a period of time, the portion of it that has been fixed at any particular time constitutes the work as of that time, and where the work has been prepared in different versions, each version constitutes a separate work."

You may replace "prepared over a period of time" with "created over a period of time", "prepared in different versions" with "created in different versions" and the meaning remains the same, so I take those as equivalent. Now normally, I would say this falls under fair use but you are using the whole work, permanently and (possibly) commercially, which puts three out of the four factors of the fair use test against you. It is certainly going to be an interesting case.

Re:My First Question

[xiaomonkey]

The big problem is that this changes the GPL into a EULA. Right now, the GPL doesn't attempt to restrict anything, it merely grants privileges that would not usually be in effect. That's why it's such a strong license.

Even under what might be in the proposed new license, your use of a licensed program is not restricted at all. Rather, you just might have a new obligation to distribute GPL'ed code that you use in a publicly exhibited application. If you don't want to distribute the code, then don't publicly exhibit stuff based on other people's GPL'ed works.

This is really not much different than the current stipulation that if you distribute the program you have to also distribute the code, especially since exhibition has been considered a form of distribution for years regarding other copywritten works (e.g. play, songs, etc.)

Re:My First Question

[Ulrich Hobelmann]

You can still use GPL software, but if you extend it, and then either release it or deploy it on a (public?) server, you have to publish the extensions as well.

I'm not a big GPL fan, but it has its uses and users, and it's probably good to have the choice.

Re:My First Question

[Ulrich Hobelmann]

I don't think it's that bad. If you want to publish the changed software and have it used by the public over the web, you publish your changes.

If you simply adapt some program and use it for your private work, maybe in a shell script, you don't have to publish it.

Anyway, the point of the GPL is that if you use GPLed stuff, you are encouraged or forced to publish your changes to it. If you don't like that, don't used GPLed code. You may still use programs covered by the GPL for anything you like, as long as you don't modify them.

Re:My First Question

[Dominic Burns]

Your most recent blog post talks of indecent images on someone's computer and you make images like this public?

http://www.ckwop.me.uk/ViewPicture.asp?FolderName= Creamfields2005&img=tn_IMG_0054.jpg

You sick pervert.

Re:My First Question

[Arandir]

The problem with the webapp clause is that it radically changes the underlying philosophy of the GPL. Previously, the GPL (as with most Free Software licenses) only granted permissions to the user. But with this clause it will start taking away rights. It change will encumber the license. No longer will the license be about keeping the software free, now it will be about explicitly regulating the behavior of the users. This proposed addition evicerates Clause 0 of version two.

The philosophy moves to one more akin to the Microsoft EULA: "This software is mine and you may only use it at my sufferance."

Re:My First Question

[BeBoxer]

I don't think it's that bad. If you want to publish the changed software and have it used by the public over the web, you publish your changes.

But what does that really mean? You can't say "publish" because that is not what's happening. What does "used by the public" mean? If I make a local modification to Apache do I have to publish that modification? What about if I make a change to Sendmail (or some other MTA)? I mean really, the way the public interacts with my web server is logically very much like they interact with my mail server. What about if I make a local change to GCC and distribute the binaries? What if I make a local modification to OpenOffice or Gnumeric and then use those versions to exchange documents with customers? What if I make local modifications to MySQL and use that to keep my customer database in? Where exactly to you draw the line for where software is being "used by the public"?

What this type of change will boil down to is that the GPL taints the output of GPL licensed programs. And I can absolutely guarantee that closed-source vendors will hammer on that point mercilessly. And it's going to be a very hard accusation to counter because it will be accurate. If you want to kill adoption of GPL software, this is a great way to do it. As I said, it's cutting off your nose to spite your face. I don't see any problem with the current license that requires this kind of drastic change.

Re:My First Question

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent is completely inaccurate... Why is it modded up +5?!

Patents are the issue, not web applications.

Re:My First Question

[Arandir]

o I could take slash code (if it's GPL, which I don't recall), hack some changes, and sell access to the website using those changes, and never have to share my code, which violates the spirit of the GPL.

The "spirit" of the GPL is clearly stated within the GPL itself. Look at Clause 0. It's quite explicit. Regulating the services a software may provide may follow the wishes and whims of Slashdot readers, but it is clearly AGAINST the spirit of the GPL itself!

Re:My First Question

[Arandir]

Providing a service is NOT the same thing as a public performance.

p.s. It's clearly against the spirit of Free Software to be scouring copryight law for loopholes which would allow you to impose additional restrictions on the user. Next thing you know people will be arguing that the DMCA should be used to enforce the FSF's wishes. Stop it.

Re:My First Question

[Arandir]

This is not appreciably different than distributing binaries

It's a huge massive difference! In the former bits of the software get passed back and forth, in the latter only the data it manipulates does! They're as different as a hammer and a nail are different!

Re:My First Question

[jbolden]

It could go the other way though. The license could argue that copyright protections beyond the GPL will not apply to any derived work (even if never distributed). Thus if some employee of web company X decides to "steal the code" and distribute on his own the web company might have trouble arguing they have any standing to sue him (i.e. what did he take, and what he took doesn't belong to the web company...).

Re:My First Question

[Ulrich Hobelmann]

Oops, make that "if you want to publish OR have it used...".

Your sendmail and Apache examples would qualify for that, yes, if they were GPL3 (if they really are going to change the GPL in this way).

I think something like MySQL that isn't directly linked with the rest of your app wouldn't count, but I don't know the specifics. Maybe they'll also change "linking" to something else.

Re:My First Question

[Ulrich Hobelmann]

Why don't you say something more specific instead of just saying "completely inaccurate" as AC?

Patents might be one issue, but a couple of months ago I read something about GPL3 and they said they wanted to adapt it to this sort of web-app-usage, where people don't bother to publish their modified code.

Re:My First Question

[Ulrich Hobelmann]

Sorry for replying to myself. It was covered here on /. :
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/30/062723 4&tid=117&tid=185&tid=95

Re:My First Question

[Red Alastor]

And the minor reason is that they want to be sure the license works worldwide.

Re:My First Question

[Breakfast Pants]

And the clause won't even help. You can just wrap webservices within another webservice that pipes out all of its output and pipes in all the input--except for requests for the source. So, it will be a big hassle for legitimate users and it will be easily bypassed by those who don't want to offer it, but still technically comply with the license.

Re:My First Question

[IntlHarvester]

So, in effect, it looks like what people are trying to do is to bring the original intentions of the GPL to the era of web applications.

The GPL was originally developed in the Host-Terminal days, where software was used in a very similar manner to web applications today. Nobody ever though that the GPL needed to be extended to solve the "telnet problem", so this "problem" of web applications has nothing to do with Original Intent and everything to do with limiting Section 0 and moving away from the "copy-left" ideal.

Re:My First Question

[IntlHarvester]

> If you don't want to distribute the code, then don't publicly exhibit stuff based on other people's GPL'ed works.

There's nothing in case law to support this interpretation, so this is an academic debating point at best, and not a concept that any sane person would build a licence on.

Re:My First Question

[Minna Kirai]

It it largely dated, because not so many programs today "read commands" interactively.

Many (most?) programs still do this. Anything with a "Splash Screen", for example. The facts that the commands are read via mouse clicks instead of text syntax is irrelevant to the requirement.

Note that users are allowed to disable the splash screen, so long as the screen is on by default.

Re:My First Question

[Minna Kirai]

The "spirit" of the GPL is clearly stated within the GPL itself. Look at Clause 0. It's quite explicit.

Indeed, it is explicit: the goal is that USERS of software have access to the CODE of that software.

To uphold that spirit, software executed as a web-service would have to be offer to anyone who has access rights to operate that service.

If you disagree with that, then try to convince someone that you're not a Slashdot USER.

Re:My First Question

[Minna Kirai]

Why? I don't want to deal with the hassle of providing it on the website, especially when I just installed it via apt-get.

The Debian project scrupulously upholds software licensing requirements, and is majorly pro-GPL. If they placed software with that (hypothetical) GPLv3 license in an apt repository, it would automatically make a source link available, as part of its default behavior.

Why does Linux make this important?

[N3Roaster]

I keep reading about this, and I can never figure why the rapid adoption of Linux makes GPLv3 important. Sure, there are a lot of projects that use the GPL that allow distribution under the current or any future version of the GPL, but Linux isn't one of them. From /usr/src/linux/COPYING

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

So what's the Linux connection here?

Re:Why does Linux make this important?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ehm, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't many if not the majority of the projects you mention that will be affected run on linux?

Couldn't it be that the success of linux (the kernel) is somehow influenced by the success of open source and free sofware in general and that the GPL plays a major role in this success, or failure?

Couldn't it be that people simply refer to linux not just meaning the kernel, but the whole OS + applications?

Re:Why does Linux make this important?

[cortana]

When the article meantioned "Linux" it meant "GNU/Linux" as opposed to Linux-the-kernel. A log of GNU/Linux software uses the GPL with the upgrade clause--hence it is important.

Re:Why does Linux make this important?

[tdvaughan]

There's no direct connection to Linux itself - just that Linux serves as a good example of a popular, important GPL project. The summary makes that clear by mentioning that there are many other projects using software that is under the GPL.

Re:Why does Linux make this important?

[Matt Perry]

That's a great example of why RMD wants people to refer to Linux systems as GNU/Linux.

rm gnu-lunux-jokes -rf

Stallman's GPLv3 mailing list

[ubiquitin]

Anyone subscribe to Stallman's new mailing list?
http://www.gplv3.fsf.org/index05

I hesitated because it didn't just say "subscribe".
The submit button says "I want to participate." which is hard to do without knowing exactly what you're participating in first.

Re:Stallman's GPLv3 mailing list

[j00bar]

The mailing list info-gplv3 is how rms is going to announce developments in the process (e.g. draft releases). Additionally, there will be opportunities for volunteers to contribute to the drafting process beyond offering your two-cents, which will also be solicited via the info-gplv3 mailing list. The "I want to participate" basically translates to: "Keep me informed on what's going on so that I can make informed choices about my own involvement." Except that would have been a wee-bit wordy for a web form button. :-)

-jag, a.k.a. jag@fsf.org

My vote..

[hackdot]

My vote would be to change the requirement of including to just making sources publicly available. Geez. This has got to be my biggest complaint about Linux distros. They balloon to incredibly huge sizes and a good portion of that is because they have to include the sources. Am I the only one that remembers the old days of a 50MB, usable OS install?

Re:My vote..

[mlk]

:huh:
As I understand it, it is currently "has to be available (at cost) to people you give your product to".
I know my applications don't included source by default.

Re:My vote..

[mlk]

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it , that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.

Re:My vote..

[panthro]

Part of the problem with that is that someone could then distribute binaries, presumably for profit of some kind, and make the sources publicly available but hard to obtain. How would you stop someone from, say, obscuring the location of the sources, requiring free registration (read: handing over of e-mail address to spammers) to the site to obtain them, or some other such nonsense? Requiring them to be distributed with the binaries means that the sources are guaranteed to be as easy to obtain as the binaries.

Re:My vote..

[iggymanz]

The common distros put the source on seperate CD(s), you don't need to download or carry them around. But I still agree with you, in this day I think it is sufficient that source be put on web, put the burden of physical storage and obtaining the source on the person who wants it

Re:My vote..

[golden_spray]

I think the current wording of the GPL requires that you provide the source code to anyone that requests it. So in general it is far more convient to just bundle them together. Consider the case of someone who acquires the binaries but does not have internet access. To provide the source code you will need to physically send them a copy. If you distribute binaries, simply posting the source online is not necessary good enough (according to GPLv2).

This wording was created pre-internet boom, so it is not clear if that could be changed or not. From a purests point of view, why should someone unable to access the "public place" be denied access to the source code?

Re:My vote..

[gowen]

This has got to be my biggest complaint about Linux distros.

I can't think of a single distro besides Gentoo that distributes sources by default. Sure, they're available, but none of the standard install CDs for Fedora or Debian contain source code.

You, sir, are an idiot.

Re:My vote..

[chunews]

What a waste of silicon, to have a 50MB install image loaded on a CD (or DVD) when that media can hold so much more! I think it is cheaper to have the sources located on the same media than provide and fund a website to download the same resources. It's also easier, this way, to keep the sources in sync with the actual binaries loaded on the install kit.

Add to this everyone else's comments that geeze, nobody needs the source - it already is available separately in a completely optional downloadable format.

My take is - hey, the sources occupy so much little space (when compressed), that maybe we should only distribute the sources and people can compile it themselves. Oh, but I guess that would disuade the script kiddies from running linux...

Re:My vote..

[TheRaven64]

My vote would be to change the requirement of including to just making sources publicly available.

Someone hasn't read the GPL - that's exactly what it does say. It offers three different ways of making the source available.

Geez. This has got to be my biggest complaint about Linux distros. They balloon to incredibly huge sizes and a good portion of that is because they have to include the sources.

They don't have to include the sources - they do because enough people find them useful. At the very least most of them put them on the last CD or two of the distribution set.

Am I the only one that remembers the old days of a 50MB, usable OS install?

No, I remember it. It was last week when I installed OpenBSD 3.8.

Re:My vote..

[Richard_at_work]

Actually the GPL only requires that the source be made available to those you distribute the binaries to (or in one case, whoever has your written offer of source code). Theres no requirement to make the source publicly available. And this is how it should stay, why should someone have to put up with the expenditure of thousands upon thousands of people downloading the source from them when they only distributed the binaries to one person and gave them the source at the same time?

Re:My vote..

[Anonymous Coward]

Every Official Distribution Set comes with Source CD's SuSe, Redhat, even Debian. Just because you only download the binary install iso's doesn't mean source cd's are available. If you download all the isos as part of the available set, source cd's are included.

Re:My vote..

[Kjella]

My vote would be to change the requirement of including to just making sources publicly available. Geez. This has got to be my biggest complaint about Linux distros. They balloon to incredibly huge sizes and a good portion of that is because they have to include the sources. Am I the only one that remembers the old days of a 50MB, usable OS install?

You're aware that most (all?) distros don't include source in their releases? They are typically released on separate source discs which you'd have to go out of your way to download, so they already do what you want. And they have the option to provide a written offer valid for three years instead as well. The distros have "ballooned" to full CDs because they are complete OS and application suites with multiple choices of software? I think the smallest you can get to have a booting system is a Debian business card or there abouts, with a few light apps on top you have a usable install in 50MB. But there's no way you can provide a full KDE or Gnome desktop complete with all major server apps in 50MB, and I don't see the point of trying.

If anything, I think they should remove section b) and c) entirely. If you distribute online, you can offer a separate source download. If you prepackage and distribute it like a box install, you need to include source (a few cents on a CD). The "written offer" is being abused to obscure source code by providing the binaries for easy download, and only deliver source on CD-ROMs after processing time using the manhour cost of burning CDs to discourage people from doing it, like with the Linksys router software.

Re:My vote..

[Taladar]

Actually if you think you can speak for all distros and don't even know more than one source-based distro you, sir, are an idiot. :)

Re:My vote..

[tepples]

But there's no way you can provide a full KDE or Gnome desktop complete with all major server apps in 50MB

Then why did, say, Windows 3.1 fit on six discs?

Re:My vote..

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Microsoft realized that at the time, few people needed "major server apps". Even Windows for Workgroups didn't have major server apps.

Re:My vote..

[Shakrai]

I think it is cheaper to have the sources located on the same media than provide and fund a website to download the same resources.

Hehe, you wouldn't think that if you still lived in dialup land and had to download one of the newer distros.

I remember when Slackware's A and N disk sets were still floppy sized and you could install off them. I think it required about nine or ten floppies to get going -- 14 megs -- about a 70 minute download on 28.8 dialup. Those sets contained everything you needed to get a console going and on a network -- you could download the rest at your lesiure -- including source if desired.

Just food for thought. It's no doubt less important then it used to be -- but I still have some nostalgia for those days.

Re:My vote..

[panza]

I guess the requirement is to prevent the following situation (with apologies to Douglas Adams): "But Mr. Dent, the source has been available in the local planning office for the last nine months. Oh yes, well, as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything. But the source was on display... On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find it. That's the display department. With a flashlight. Ah, well, the lights had probably gone. So had the stairs. But look, you found the source, didn't you? Yes, said Arthur, yes I did. It was on display on the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard."

Re:My vote..

[Anonymous Coward]

too bad OpenBDS isn't GPL'd, eh?

Re:My vote..

[be-fan]

Because Windows 3.1 didn't have a fraction of the features of KDE or GNOME? It didn't come with huge true-color icons? It didn't include any applications either?

Re:My vote..

[Minna Kirai]

Part of the problem with that is that someone could then distribute binaries

That is not a concern with the current v2 GPL revision. It is specific that the code must be as easily to access as the binaries.

That fear is no more rational than "What if I buy something on ebay, and he doesn't really send it to me?" That is a risk, but there are standard legal ways to fight back if it happens.

Re:Three Laws of Robotics

[panthro]

Because the GPL has, you know, so much to do with robots and everything...

Reasons for a rewrite ?

[johnhennessy]

Are there issues with the current GPL that need to be fixed ? Or even some parts that need to be clarified ?

If there are actual issues with the license, then a rewrite is a good thing - all I'm concerned about is that people don't waste time developing a new license when one isn't needed. In the end, its adoption will be decided by the various projects - on a case by case basis, so just because there is a version 3, doesn't guarantee adoption, unless it brings benefits. ... And hopefully it doesn't spawn pro- and anti- GPLv3 wars in every GPLv2 project ! While licensing is important, it shouldn't create huge overheads that distract developers from doing what they do best.

Re:Reasons for a rewrite ?

[rkcallaghan]

Are there issues with the current GPL that need to be fixed ?

The GPLv2 doesn't properly deal with patent issues, only copyright. Thus, with some legal smoke and mirrors, it is possible to comply with the letter of the GPLv2, gaining free use of other GPLv2 code in the process, while shipping your code/product under patent restrictions, preventing it from being redistrobutable or adjustable freely.

~Rebecca

Re:Reasons for a rewrite ?

[kebes]

Some people want the GPL to be rewritten so that you are forced to release the source code for a modified/derivative product, even if you don't distribute the resulting program/binary.

For instance, some people are somewhat annoyed that Google has a huge number of linux boxes running, and that they have tweaked and customized the linux code to get their own special version of linux. They clearly benefit from the open-source nature of linux, but do not release the changes they make. This is allowed under the GPL because they are not distributing the resultant program. They are only using it internally. Yet, they are distributing information/data/effects derived from the program (the return of search results comes from a linux system... even though they don't distribute the program itself to the end-user).

It's a grey zone, and worthy of some careful debate. If a company modifies GPL code and uses it only internally, should they be forced to publish the source code? What about the military? They want to use GPL code in their projects, but are not likely to accept releasing changes they make (for a whole variety of reasons!). Maybe a middle-ground is required: you need to distribute source/changes if you distribute the program/binaries AND if you distribute data resulting from this program (i.e.: even if the customer interacts with the program indirectly, and never has the binary on their system, they are still a "user" and need access to the source).

That's just one example of something that the original GPL didn't consider, and may be worthy of consideration now.

Re:Reasons for a rewrite ?

[TheRaven64]

Someone else hasn't read the GPL. From section 7:

...if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

In effect, you must either license the patent royalty-free for derived works of the GPL'd code, or you must not use the GPL. Or, as the preamble puts it:

Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.

Re:Reasons for a rewrite ?

[j00bar]

There are most definitely reasons for a rewrite, and most of them have to with developments that have taken our industry by storm since 1991 and which will continue to impact us in the near future. The GPLv2 does not successfully account for many of these.

Some questions which will likely be considered in the GPLv3 drafting process:

1) Back in 1991, the GPL was written centered on specifics to United States Copyright Law. With the diversification of international copyright law since the Berne convention -- some countries have implemented various manifestations of DMCA like laws, others have not -- how does a license that must govern international transactions of copyright account for these discrepancies?

2) How can software patents encumber free software? For example, let's say I write a word processor that is licensed under the GPLv2 and I submit and receive a patent for my word processor document format. If you write a derivative work of my word processor, are you infringing on my patent? Does that violate the principles of software freedom?

3) How does Trusted Computing encumber free software? For example, let's say I write the software for a DVR that uses GPL software and is licensed under the GPL. But let's further say that my DVR used TPM, and it won't run the DVR software if it is not signed with my private key. You can modify the source, and you may even be able to load a modified binary back onto the DVR, but without me signing your binary, it won't run. Does that violate the principles of software freedom?

I don't know the answers. They haven't been decided yet. These may not be all the questions -- they may not be among the questions. But that these questions are out there are symbolic of the need for a community-driven effort to reassess the future of software freedom.

The GPLv3 process will be a discussion of the free software community on how we can best ensure that the essential freedoms the GPL tries to protect are in fact protectable. And though rms is the final arbiter of what GPLv3 will actually be, these are questions that we the free software community as a whole need to discuss.

-jag, a.k.a. jag@fsf.org

Re:Reasons for a rewrite ?

[cortana]

That doesn't go far enough for some. They want the license to terminate as soon as the other party brings action against the copyright holder for any patent infringements whatsoever.

Of course, even this can't defend against patent hoarding thinktank companies.

Re:Reasons for a rewrite ?

[ninjaz]

Here are a couple of interesting snippets from the GPLv3 process pdf that I didn't see in the other responses:

While the GPL is the most popular Free Software License, followed by the LGPL, a significant set of free software is licensed under other terms which are not compatible with version 2 of the GPL. Version 3 of the GPL will provide compatibility with more non-GPL free licenses.

. . .

Version 3 of the GPL should reduce the difficulties of internationalization. Version 3 should more fully approximate the otherwise unsought ideal of the global copyright license.

Re:Reasons for a rewrite ?

[OverlordQ]

Your military analogy doesn't really hold up.

If the users of Google are the people who search, then the users of the Military's use of GPL code is most likely on the other end of that Tomahawk, and in a few seconds, I dont think they'll care a whole lot about getting the code that's about to blow them up.

Re:Reasons for a rewrite ?

[kebes]

Sorry I guess I wasn't clear. Clearly Google and the military are different cases. The reason I mention the military is that if you put in a clause "All derivatives of GPL code must be made available to the world" then the military cannot use GPL code. Hence why I suggested a middle-ground solution would be "All GPL-derived code must be made available to users of the resultant program, even if the binary is not explicitly delivered to them." This would force Google to provide source code to users, but would allow the military to keep their changes to GPL code secret. Similarly, a large company that develops an in-house application based on GPL code can keep changes internal (so that their competitors don't get the code), as long as the in-house application never interacts with customers outside the organization.

I was NOT suggesting that the military uses of GPL code were an analogy to what Google does. There is a distinct difference.

Re:Reasons for a rewrite ?

[nuggz]

Termination of the licence to use doesn't matter.

However by distributing a patent license with the work you do have a very good defence.
From sec 7 it is quite clear that unless a patent license is granted you can not distribute this code.

Two wrongs don't make a right, however they would have to argue against knowingly violating copyright, while you could argue that you had a reason to believe they granted you a patent license.

For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

Re:Reasons for a rewrite ?

[OverlordQ]

i know I just felt the urge to post a comment about blowing somebody up with GPL code.

Re:Reasons for a rewrite ?

[rkcallaghan]

Someone else hasn't read the GPL. From section 7:

...if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

In effect, you must either license the patent royalty-free for derived works of the GPL'd code, or you must not use the GPL. Or, as the preamble puts it:

Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.

Just because the GPLv2 / GPL FAQ / etc says the only way to do it is X, doesn't make it true. Here's a couple of ideas:

* Abuse of international boundaries to "comply", without complying in any signifigant portion of the world. Or in short, complying in Elbonia, while having patent tricks you can then "blame" on the United States.

* Abuse of United States interpretation of patent law which seperates the ability to see/read the code from the ability to do anything with it. In fact, this issue often makes it worse -- a programmer can become "tainted".

And my friend, if it were as cut and simple as you claim, patent problems would not be the #1 issue involved in the GPLv3. Crooked lawyers and bought precedent have created an issue where there "shouldn't" have been one. The folks at the FSF are taking it in stride and adjusting to deal with it. Law is constantly changing, and they knew someday they'd need to "get with the times" -- that's why the "or any later version" clause was put in in the first place.

Perhaps you would do well to do more than "read the GPL" and go through this thread accusing others (this isn't your only post with that claim) of not reading it. Try reading discussions on the topic, particularly anything involving actual lawyers and authors.

~Rebecca

Re:Reasons for a rewrite ?

[crulx]

I disagree that thinking about "service use GPL" has any worth at all. The GPL protects me by ensuring that I can modify any software I run on a machine I own. It doesn't, and shouldn't, protect me when those conditions have not been met. The developers have protection because if a service GPL gives the binary to anyone, they have to provide the source and the receiver can modify and distribute the code. If I want to take GPLed code, and modify it myself, and run it on my own machines, who the hell are you to say that I need to give it to someone because I have allowed "access" to my own stuff.

The GPL allows developers to ensure that their code can never become a for-profit, binary distribution only object. My GPLed code will never become part of the crappy pay-for-binaries economic model. But the pay-for-service model seems like a valid economic model that reflects the nature of computation, namely that it takes energy. Why would any GPL developer care if their software gets used to help develop that? Even IF I don't ever get to see the changes, my software still has not become part of that horrible system and thus the GPL has done its job.

The GPL needs updating to deal with patents, DMCA style laws and Trusted Computing. I certainly hope Stallman keeps a level head and ignores this sort of nonsense. Maybe you should recognize that your position comes from a deep want for the GPL to rain free stuff down from the sky. The GPL was meant to kill the "you-are-not-allowed-to-help-your-neighbor" style of software distribution. Stallman never intended to create a "you-have-to-help-your-neighbor-or-freaking-else" system that you seem to want.

Go make your own license and see what gets used more. No offense man, but do you see where I'm coming from on this?

Re:Reasons for a rewrite ?

[cfulmer]

Here are a few:

1. Let's say that you modify GPL'd code and distribute the code w/o a binary. Can you cure this by: (a) stopping the distribution and/or (b) doing some sort of recall, or do you have to (c) distribute your source code now? What if you can't find everybody who you gave the original to? What if the violation is discovered in a product which you no longer distribute?

2. Actually, can you ever cure, or are you liable for copyright infringement even if you do start distributing source code? (assuming you do so once somebody sues you.)

3. Who owns the copyright to modifications?

4. Choice of law/Choice of Venue -- if you're in California and violate the GPL on software written by somebody in Florida, do they have to sue you in California? Which state's law is used to interpret the GPL? What if you're in different countries?

A big problem with the GPL is that it talks a lot about rights, but seems to have given little thought to how those rights are enforced.

Re:Reasons for a rewrite ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux is under GPLv2 and does not include the "any later version" clause. The GPLv3 will not make a difference here.

Re:Reasons for a rewrite ?

[kebes]

Go make your own license and see what gets used more. No offense man, but do you see where I'm coming from on this?

With all due respect, you didn't read my post very carefully. I do see where you're coming from. In fact I agree with you. If you read my post, I was very careful to write:

Some people want the GPL to be rewritten...

I didn't say "I" for a reason. Remember, I was responding to the question "why is there a need for a rewrite?" I was providing an example of what some people are worried about (that doesn't mean I agree with their arguments, just because I can describe them). Nevertheless, I maintain what I said in my previous post:

It's a grey zone, and worthy of some careful debate.

I understand their concern. We don't want to leave a loophole in the GPL whereby people will end up using software without access to the source code. What if some insidious company starts "leasing" computers with GPL-derived code on them. Then they claim that the user is merely being given access to "program output" but that the user does not own the computer the code is running on and is not entitled to the binary. (Does it make a difference if the computer you are using, but don't own, is in the same room as you or far way in some company's server room? Maybe, maybe not...).

Again, my point in saying all this is not to advance a particular GPL-rewrite agenda. Currently, I'm of the opinion that there is no problem (in that regard) with the GPL. It works great, and I see no reason to force companies to expose their code unless the end binary is being distributed. That having been said, I'm very much in favour of some insightful debate on the subject, to make sure that we're not forgetting something subtle that will be used as a loophole later on.

Largely irrelivant

[LiquidCoooled]

Isn't most of Linux and other projects licensed under v2?

I thought you had to contact all the developers who submitted code under that license to confirm they are OK with changing the terms of that agreement?

Re:Largely irrelivant

[N3Roaster]

Linux (the kernel) is licensed under v2, there are some other projects that are also licensed under a specific version of the GPL, but a lot of projects are licensed under some version of the GPL or any later version (the FSF recommends this), in which case the developers would not have to be contacted and the developers would have to do something about it only if they did not like what GPL3 turns out to be.

Re:Largely irrelivant

[panthro]

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

I think this (along with, of course, other parts of the license) is fair warning to developers that their code is not only subject to the particular version of the license under which they submitted it, but to any later version. If the developer didn't want their code to fall under GPLv3, they shouldn't have licensed it under GPLv2. Personally, I trust the motives and integrity of the FSF enough to license my code under GPLv2 in the belief that GPLv3 will work for me as well. Remember, though: if something is licensed under GPLv2, then GPLv3 comes into effect, other people can act as if it is licensed under either version.

Re:Largely irrelivant

[mrchaotica]

Not true! Many projects, including the Linux kernel, delete that clause and instead state that the source is licensed under GPLv2 only (not v1, not v2.2, not v3).

Re:Largely irrelivant

[panthro]

Yes, I realize that. I figured that the question in the parent post would pretty much be moot for cases like the Linux kernel itself, so I responded referring to the general case where the clause is present.

Re:Largely irrelivant

[ACNiel]

This type of wording in any contract should be illegal. A contract has to offer something to both parties. If one party reserves the right to change what he is offering, with not stipulation, then what is to stop that party from taking your money, and not giving you anything? Nothing.

Large corporations use this tactic to handle Unions, and contract negotiations. They offer health benefits to the retirees until death, with the "subject to change" clause, the unions vote the contract in, the companies get back to production, and change what they give the retirees. It has happened all the time.

I don't know how this type of language has ever stood the test of a good contract attorney attacking it.

Re:Largely irrelivant

[panthro]

Why should it be illegal? If I am a developer, the license is a contract between me and each user of my software. I am offering them this option of my own free will, knowing full well that the license could potentially change to something I don't agree with.

So, it becomes an issue of trust in the body that governs the license; in the case of the GPL, the FSF. If they go in a direction I don't like, I can release a new version of my software under a different license or strictly under the old license, but the previous version(s) will always be bound to comply with the changes I didn't like, at the end user's option. I'm quite aware of this possibility, yet I continue to release software under the GPL.

Laws shouldn't exist to protect people against their own stupidity. If you don't understand what you're getting yourself into before you agree to a contract, you have no business being party to the contract.

Re:Largely irrelivant

[Anonymous Coward]

The point of my post was that no one can understand what they are getting into when language similar to "subject to change" is used. I appreciate that we have little to fear from the GPL changes, but other such contracts don't have slow moving governing bodies behind them.

But contracts that give one side the ability to change core parts, or the material goods of a contract with no recourse to the second party should be illegal, or at least non-binding.

It was more of a general rant, with a specific example of the GPL.

Re:Largely irrelivant

[panthro]

The point of my post was that no one can understand what they are getting into when language similar to "subject to change" is used.

Anyone can understand just fine what they are getting into. If it says on the contract, "this contract can be changed at any time by Party A in any way that suits Party A's fancy, regardless of Party B," then I see no reason why it is not clear to Party B that they are essentially signing a blank check, and therefore, except in very specific circumstances, Party B should simply not agree to the contract.

You claim that these kinds of contracts are used to screw unions all the time; I work for a major auto manufacturer in the union capital of Canada (and a stone's throw from Detroit), and I have never heard of this happening. I find it hard to believe that any reasonably sized union, no doubt employing lawyers, would be duped into signing a contract that was so clearly open-ended on the employer's end.

Dear God in Heaven...

[Volatile_Memory]

Let the Great Flame War and endless stream of ./ articles begin...

v.m

Re:Dear God in Heaven...

[Volatile_Memory]

...and the endless jabs about my stupid "./" typo.

v.m

Re:Dear God in Heaven...

[Ostien]

Flamewar?

so whats new?

Re:Dear God in Heaven...

[Risen888]

Let the Great Flame War and endless stream of ./ articles begin...

Funny. I tried www.dotslash.com and didn't come up with anything.

Re:Dear God in Heaven...

[Anonymous Coward]

Let the Great Flame War and endless stream of ./ articles begin...

Funny. I tried www.dotslash.com and didn't come up with anything.

And here I was thinking he was talking about the articles in my current working directory!

$100 says this is to address software patents...

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

$100 says this new version is being created largely to address software patents. I'd be surprised if there aren't several new sections of the license that attempt to address this area.

Why was this categorized as Linux?

[carlos92]

This is relevant to free software in general, and is not restricted to Linux!

Re:Why was this categorized as Linux?

[panthro]

What a punch in the nuts for GNU, too... the FSF starts drafting a new GPL, and it's categorized as "Linux" (not even "GNU/Linux") on Slashdot.

Re:Why was this categorized as Linux?

[TheRaven64]

A lot of people use the word Linux to refer to a lot of things that are not Linux. Sadly, this kind of thing is behaviour seems to be common on even on a supposedly technically competent site like Slashdot.

Re:Why was this categorized as Linux?

[IntergalacticWalrus]

Tell me about it. About 90% of all linux.slashdot.org articles aren't about Linux, just FOSS in general. sigh...

Re:Why was this categorized as Linux?

[91degrees]

A lot of people use the word Linux to refer to a lot of things that are not Linux. Slashdot should not be one of them. They should rename the section "Open Source" or "Free software" considering the stuff that turns up in that section.

Re:$100 says this is to address software patents..

[Ulrich Hobelmann]

In what way and why?

You can't patent GPLed code, because it's prior art.
If you have patents on something, the GPL isn't a valid license, because then the code isn't free of restrictions (as the GPL requires for publishing).

Ok, thanks for that...

[p3d0]

Now, would you care to answer the question?

Re:Three Laws of Robotics

[Anonymous Coward]

Because eventually you'd have to include a zeroth law
That's where things get messy, as if they weren't messy enough already.

Besides, I thought Asimov wrote the three laws and then a series of short stories that showed how the laws were inadequate.

But that's not an option.

[CyricZ]

Observe that the notice used by much GPL software contains the following:

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

Anyone using the GPL v2 is potentially forced into having their software licensed under the GPL v3, and the GPL v4, and the GPL v5, or any other future version of the GPL.

Even if that particular user wants his program released under only the terms of the GPL v2, if such a notice is included in his software then it may very well be that future versions of the license are applicable.

Re:But that's not an option.

[Tony Hoyle]

This isn't a surprise though - savvy authors have been deleting the 'or any later version' clause from their copies for a long time.

I believe linux itself is a v2 only license.

Re:But that's not an option.

[cortana]

"potentially forced"? Please. The only people "forced" into using this clause are those who don't read the license before releasing their software under it. They are forced, only by their own stupidity.

Re:But that's not an option.

[mindstrm]

They are not forced into anything whatseover, ever.

When you download my code, licended under, say, GPLv2, and it says this.. it means that you may distribute deriviations of my code under the GPLv2 if you wish, or a later version, if you wish. How you want to apply this is up to you; I force you to do nothing.
If you wish to include the same clause, allowing future versions to be used, that was completely your choice.

Nobody is forced into anything at all.. the rightsholders deliberately gave you the right to pick a later version of the GPL becaues they trust the FSF.

Simple, right?

Re:But that's not an option.

[Anonymous Coward]

Obeserve that the notice used by much GPL software contains the following:

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

Funny how picking three different words to bold gives your quote a whole new meaning.

"Forced" indeed.

Re:But that's not an option.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well then obviously that author should not have included "or any later version" when licensing his work under GPL2 !

Is that hard to figure out?

Re:But that's not an option.

[Rekolitus]

That's referring to the forker's option, not the original developer' option.

Re:But that's not an option.

[John Hurliman]

Well, for people who release their software under GPLv2 without reading the fine print, it means that they may agree with releasing their software under how the GPL is written now, but GPLv3 or 4 could potentially destroy the ideals of the license and allow your code to be used in proprietary software. It's a tin-foil hat angle, but I think that was the point of the grandparent post.

Software Patents...

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the introduction of the GPL2 Software Patents have reared their ugly head and need to be addressed.

Re:Software Patents...

[maxwell demon]

Well, it's fairly easy to address them. Just use the address of the Patent Office.

Re:Software Patents...

[SComps]

If I'm not mistaken, patents have been around much longer than GPL anything.

Re:Software Patents...

[BrainInAJar]

Software patents?

I disagree

[p3d0]

So I could take slash code (if it's GPL, which I don't recall), hack some changes, and sell access to the website using those changes, and never have to share my code, which violates the spirit of the GPL.

How does this violate the spirit of the GPL? We'd have to ask Mr. Stallman for an official answer, but in my opinion, the GPL was intended to maximize people's freedom with regards to the software they use, and I don't see how forcing web sites to publish their server code enhances anyone's freedom.

Re:I disagree

[doconnor]

You say, "software they use". The question is are the users the web site administrator or the web site visitors. I think the argument could be made the users are the web site visitors, so they should have access to the code. They are operating the program, just that they are using a longer wire then your keyboard wire.

The problem with making this change it that it would change the GPL from a copyright licence, to an End-User Lincence which may have serious problems with enforcement.

It might be worth doing anyway, because even if it fails as an End-User Lincence, we won't be any worse off then we where before.

Re:I disagree

[Syberghost]

The question is are the users the web site administrator or the web site visitors. I think the argument could be made the users are the web site visitors, so they should have access to the code. They are operating the program, just that they are using a longer wire then your keyboard wire.

This is about like saying that if you come over to visit me in my house, you have the right to paint it.

Re:I disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

This is about like saying that if you come over to visit me in my house, you have the right to paint it.

So don't open source your house :-)

Re:I disagree

[Taladar]

No, this is like saying if you come over to my house you can ask me for the blueprints and build a house just like mine which you can paint any color you like (and modify it in other ways).

Re:I disagree

[SwiftOne]

How does this violate the spirit of the GPL?

Perhaps I used a poor example. The concern comes when services become all server-based.

If MS made a version of Word that worked like Writely for example, and used OpenOffice.org as its code base, they could put the bookmark on very Windows PC and sell accounts for 1 Gajillion dollars, but never distribute a _binary_, and thus never have to redistribute their code changes.

Where is the line between an application being server-based (and thus not "distrubted") and being client based? With the GPLv2, that line is all on one side. GPLv3 wants to debate that topic and possibly move that line.

Re:I disagree

[Syberghost]

No, this is like saying if you come over to my house you can ask me for the blueprints and build a house just like mine which you can paint any color you like (and modify it in other ways).

No, it's like saying that the guy who built my house for me can force me to give you those blueprints, and the blueprints of any rooms I added myself, under penalty of civil action.

You can ASK me all you want; I don't have to say yes.

Re:I disagree

[Rezen8r]

This is about like saying that if you come over to visit me in my house, you have the right to paint it.

My house need painting, so I'll say it explicitly. If you come over to visit me in my house, you have the right to paint it. :-)

Re:I disagree

[rob_squared]

I think it's more along the lines of, if you come to my house, see my paint color and just want to take a picture and get the same color for your hours.

Re:I disagree

[ProfFalcon]

I never DID like that off-white room in your house. I'll be over at 8:00. Oh, by the way, I'm bringing a couple gallons of a very nice blue paint.

Re:I disagree

[optimus2861]

"Where is the line between an application being server-based (and thus not "distrubted") and being client based? With the GPLv2, that line is all on one side. GPLv3 wants to debate that topic and possibly move that line."

Is this line something that the FSF has the power to move, though? Consider: "distribution" in the GPL has effectively the same meaning as "distribution" in copyright law, which is a big reason the GPL has the teeth that it does. When I give you, or you acquire from me, whether by CD, FTP, HTTP, an installable/runnable copy of a GPL program, there's no question that that action is governed by copyright law, and thus the GPL. It's distribution.

Is a webserver running a program and exposing its interface to users through a web page "distribution" of that program? The FSF might, with GPLv3, say "Yes". I can easily see some developer/corporation out there saying, "No", and taking it to court to find out. I don't think it's clear-cut one way or the other.

I think the stronger argument would be stay away from distribution, and focus on the fact that, whether "distributed" or not, the modified code is a derived work. Making derived works, whether they are distributed or not, is governed by copyright law. Write into GPLv3 that making a derived work based on the GPL code, and offering it as a web service, requires the modified code to be made available to the users of that web service. Now you've got something much more solidly based in copyright law, much less likely to even be tested in court.

Re:I disagree

[dustman]

How does this violate the spirit of the GPL? We'd have to ask Mr. Stallman for an official answer, but in my opinion, the GPL was intended to maximize people's freedom with regards to the software they use, and I don't see how forcing web sites to publish their server code enhances anyone's freedom.

How much a website would be violating the spirit of the GLP depends on the website.

Say you run a 'site' where anyone can VNC or use Xwindows to connect to a desktop session, and use some GPL derived software that you have written. Now, they are "using" this software, but since you haven't distributed a binary to them, you are not bound by the source disclosure clause of the GPL. (Say you provide a webpage with the Java VNC client, so that it's still technically a "website").
This is clearly a violation of the spirit of the GPL, in my opinion. Does anyone disagree?

Other websites are doing things like running a modified version of some forum software. I personally don't feel that these are a violation of the spirit of the GPL.

Websites which are more like "web applications" fall in between the two of these, but they are closer to the first than the second. I use Gmail all the time. If Gmail were GPL'd, then competitors could run their own, enhanced versions, without "giving anything back".

FreeChess.org is the home of FICS, the "Free Internet Chess Server". I have played there for many years. FICS was originally GPL'd, and anyone could download the source code. But then, some people took a copy of it and opened up a pay-to-play chess site. (I'm not sure which of the sites it is). Because FICS was GPL'd, and this competitor was not distributing a binary, they were not violating the terms of the GPL, although this is another violation of the spirit. Now, FICS is closed source, because of this incident.

As bandwidth improves, and especially if we really do see 10Mbit/sec wireless available everywhere, "service software". With 10Mbit/sec wireless, you will leave your "computer" at home, or rent service from an entity like Google or Sun, and just carry around a portable "thin client".

Pay-by-the-month software could become the norm. (And, I really don't think this is a bad thing, as long as it's cheap enough. I wouldn't mind paying $5 a month for most of the software packages I use).

But, if this sort of "remote access" model of software becomes popular, then the GPL would have a huge loophole in it.

The GPL needs to address this issue.

Re:I disagree

[gothfox]

The question is whether web site usage equals program distribution. Under GPL2 if you download some program, you should have access to the source code. If you use website - you don't. This is what grandparent was talking about.

The spirit of GPL regarding ability to use (not distribute!) software is not changed - you are perfectly free to use your modified GPL software or allow access to sites based on GPL code in-house without releasing any code.

Re:I disagree

[p3d0]

Good points. Thanks!

Re:$100 says this is to address software patents..

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think GPL3 has anything to do with patents, however it is possible to write licenses that are "patent-aware" (for good or evil). For instance, you say "you can use this code however you want, but not in conjunction with any other software that implements patented algorithms." That would prevent people from interoperating with your code if they use software patents. In some cases, I guess this would discourage software patents.

Again, I emphasize I am not advocating such a system, nor do I think that GPL 3 will have anything of the sort in it. I'm just saying that it's possible to write a license that is affected, or affects, patents.

Re:$100 says this is to address software patents..

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

"In what way and why?"

Because for the last few years one of the knocks against GPL'ed applications has been that they MAY be infringing on patents held by commercial applications. You can call it simple FUD, but I'm just following the money here. This initiative is partially being funded by a couple of commercial entities who depend on GPL software and would very much like the patent vs. GPL license FUD to go away. The intent of this initiative is to revise the license. Therefore, I'm suggesting that the result of the initiative will likely be a new GPL license that explicitly addresses the patent issue.

We don't need Microsoft to create "FUD"

[CyricZ]

Having talked to various developers, these recent licensing shenanigans have not been particularly good for the open source community.

Many developers wish to make use of open source software, but are getting to the point where they're not sure what exactly they're allowed to do with some particular piece of software.

These developers are not lawyers, and do not want to waste their time trying to figure out fairly complex licenses. Individual consultants and smaller development firms can't necessarily afford to hire a lawyer to verify that they're complying with the terms of all the licenses their project may be subjected to.

I know many professional developers who won't even touch LGPL'ed libraries. They stick with software released under the BSD license, for instance, because it has very clear and concise terms. They know what they can do with such software, and thus can focus on developing solutions, rather than getting bogged down in legal nonsense.

While the GPL v3 may offer some degree of protection with respect to patents, any such benefits may be mitigated by the fact that many developers out there are not interested in becoming lawyers. They don't want to get bogged down trying to interpret relatively complex licenses.

Re:We don't need Microsoft to create "FUD"

[Shawn is an Asshole]

Yes, it's so much easier to try and understand the license when every singe application and library has it's own license such as on Windows. Who in their right mind would think a choice between ten or so licenses that are clearly explained here and here is easier to understand?

Re:We don't need Microsoft to create "FUD"

[Microlith]

What might be good is if they write a "GPLv3 for Developers" guide.

The GPLv3 text itself would serve as the legal document, and the guide would be a non-legally-binding text that would explain the terms of the GPLv3 in more familiar language.

Half of what makes licenses like the GPL hard to read is all the legalese they have to play with to close holes and leave little room for legal maneuvering. But if they could explain their terms outside the context of a legally binding document, that would probably make life easier.

Re:We don't need Microsoft to create "FUD"

[real gumby]

That's cool. For some software I use a 3P license and pay a cash royalty; I generally use the compiler-included helper libraries (arithmetic conversions and startup code end the like) without worrying about it, and most of the time of use free code of various stripes. In all of those cases I check the license -- sometimes it's quite enlightening even in the case where you think you paid the developer $25K for a royalty-free buy-out! To me these are all just special cases of the same thing. The fact is that _regardless_ of where the code came from you have to do this checking. If you optimize by finding one or two that happen to work for you, great. The mere existence of someone who chose BSD as the one to standardize on doesn't especially distinguish it -- I can easily point to companies who only use code they pay for, for whatever reason.

By the way I wrote the original (?13 years ago?) draft that became the 1.0 LGPL you mention. John Gilmore suggested to me what turned out to be the most important clause: that you could dynamically link to such a library without having any licensing impact at all. Those terms are more liberal than any cash-royalty license I've ever seen (and don't even include the announcement clause of the BSD license), and made Linux's userland possible.

Yay for communism!

[Anonymous Coward]

How about focusing less on communism and more on protecting the rights of individual programmers? Some of us have no problem giving back to the community (corporate or otherwise) so long as our rights are protected; this does not necessarily imply we should be trampeling all over commercial use or that "corporations are evil". Just my 2 cents.

Re:Yay for communism!

[John Nowak]

Just keep your two cents to yourself -- The Party will take it later when they need it anyway.

Re:Yay for communism!

[Aim Here]

What are you gibbering about, fool? The GPL doesn't care what you do with your own code, except that you put it in a binary with someone else's GPLed code, you have to license the whole thing under the GPL.

It even explicitly says you can charge what you want for GPLed code (as long as it's not in the form of a license fee charged for permission to use that software). And there are plenty of corporations that put out GPLed code. Are you accusing IBM, RedHat, Cygnus, Novell, Trolltech, SGI, ID software and dozens of other corporations of thinking that 'corporations are evil' or of being communists?

Trollish retard! Begone!

GPLv3 should bing a provision on fork limitation .

[Anonymous Coward]

something like, forking is allowed if a patch is refused by the "current running team".

I am not sure how this should be setup, but the idea is that if we manage to limit the forks numbers without compromising the opensource goals, then the might be the killer thing.

The reason for me is that it is always easier to fork than to advocate to an existing team for some change. But the overall benefit for the community of this is less than if the change was integrated into the mainstream development....

Re:$100 says this is to address software patents..

[mrchaotica]

It's true that that's what it's supposed to mean, but legally speaking, it's not what it actually says. There's apparently a flaw in the wording that creates a loophole whereby patent holders can (validly) release GPLv2 code without also licensing their patent, such that the code is useless and they can effectively take without giving back. One of the two main reasons for making the GPLv3 is to fix this flaw and close the loophole by explicitly stating that GPLv3 code cannot contain patent licensing restrictions.

GPL v3.1

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll wait for GPL v3.11, License for Workgroups.

"savvy authors"?

[H4x0r Jim Duggan]

Other than Linus Torvalds, practically zero people's projects have deleted the "or later version" bit. ...and I don't think it was one of Linus's better thought out moves.

Re:"savvy authors"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, he should've licensed it under the WTFPL license.

Re:Just use CDDL then

[Anonymous Coward]

CDDL was written to address patents. Why bother writing yet-another-license?

Abuse of the moderation system

[Anonymous Coward]

The only moderation on the parent comment is "-1, Overrated".

Something like "-1, Offtopic" could have been (barely) understandable, but using "-1, Overrated" is just a way to abuse the moderation system and avoid being meta-moderated as unfair.

And by the way, that comment should have been moderated "+1, Informative" or "+1, Insightful".

Big IF

[hummassa]

You've gotta do that now anyway, since some code could be GPLv1, BSD, Artistic, etc. This is no different; if you want to use GPLv2-only code in your GPLv2+ or GPLv3 project, you'll just have to include a note saying that that particular code will just have to stay GPLv2 (but it won't stop the rest of the code from being GPLv3). IF the GPLv3 is compatible with the GPLv2. Now, if the GPLv3 adds some kind of patents clauses, or tries to make strongly explicit the "inexistent linking clause", or even adds choice-of-{venue,law} clauses, that could be construed as "additional restrictions" and the distribution of the combination of the GPLv3 modules with GPLv2 modules is forbidden to anyone but the original (common) copyright holder of both.

Re:Big IF

[dgatwood]

I'm not worried about any of those, really. I refuse to write libraries under the (non-L) GPL as a matter of principle, so spelled out or not, it makes no difference. Ditto for the rest of that.

What I'm worried about is that they'll do something idiotic like they suggested a while back, in which they define deployment to be distribution for the purposes of making the source code available, and in which they could potentially define the distribution requirements to include a link from any page generated by the GPLed code. That would essentially render GPLed software unusable by almost any corporate entity with the slightest bit of class, and is the reason that all the software I write no longer includes the phrase "or any later version".

What I'd like to see is some (sane) clarification about deployment, such that deployment is explicitly NOT considered distribution, and in which distribution of modified versions within a company is explicitly stated to convey source rights only to people who receive the binary (i.e. within the company). This is what the GPL effectively says now, and IMHO, it is the correct policy when it comes to ensuring the freedom of the end user of the software. However, much of that is implied, not stated explicitly.

This is de facto IP law reform

[fuzzy12345]

I don't necessarily agree with all of the goals of the GPL (I favour MIT style, or the quaint "public domain"). But I do think that the current IP system is dysfunctional as applied to biology and software. I sit hoping RIM would just disable all US Blackberry users Monday morning and let the government solve it by Wednesday, incidentally sparking wide ranging discussion about reform.

THAT won't happen, so I suppose I can watch the tinkering with the GPL while I wait.

It was a choice of the licensor, no force involved

[jbn-o]

There's no force involved. The licensor chose whether to allow the program to be distributed under a future GNU GPL.

How does GPL work in practive?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I'm not asking what it means. I'm asking how the GPL notice works in the case of a derived work based on GPL'd code. I couldn't find any examples of this anywhere. I asked someone at a FSF booth at a computer expo once and they had no clue.

I use the historical license on my FOSS stuff because, and this may come as a shock to the FSF weenies, the historical license actually has clear and explicit instructions on how it is applied to a derived work (basically you have to keep and not modify the original notice, you can only add stuff). Now why would I want to use a license from someone who is so inarticulate they can't even give instructions on how to apply their license?

I'm sure there's no shortage of opinions on how GPL notices actually work but I doubt anyone will be able to cite any authoritative references. You know, the IANAL bit.

Re:How does GPL work in practive?

[Hatta]

No, I'm not asking what it means. I'm asking how the GPL notice works in the case of a derived work based on GPL'd code. I couldn't find any examples of this anywhere

it's not that hard. You make some derived work. You put the GPL in a file named LICENSE. You tar the whole thing and put it on a website. Voila.

Re:How does GPL work in practive?

[Anonymous Coward]

So I can take a GPL'd work that you're the original author of, delete your copyright, copyright it to myself with included GPL license, and pass myself off as the original author with no credit to you? Cool! I could become one of the most prolific FOSS authors around with almost no effort.

NYTimes' take...

[veg_all]

Here's a New York Times article from yesterday. Fun quote:

In Mr. Stallman's view, proprietary software is an unwarranted restriction on the freedom of information. The revision of the G.P.L., he said, is "part of something bigger - part of the long-term effort to liberate cyberspace." Software patents, he said, are "utterly insane."

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

Yet in his way, Mr. Stallman is also quite pragmatic. Proprietary software applications can run on Linux without restrictions, which is important for the survival of Linux as a viable alternative to commercial operating systems.

Re:$100 says this is to address software patents..

[Anonymous Coward]

In that case even the current GPL is void due to section 7.

This isn't against you personally but it seems to me that there is a lot of misunderstandings concerning the GPL like the idea that if you merge your code with GPL code it automatically becomes GPLed (it doesn't, of course if you distribute it, you're violating copyright law because you are not within the bounds of the GPL but that doesn't make your own code GPL just open you up for litigation), the previously mentioned suggestions that you have to provide the source code together with the binaries (some people even think that you have to force the source code on the person you are giving the binary in order to obey the license), etc.
I know some of that stuff is hard to grasp but then, the GPL has been there for more than a decade and it's not too hard a read.

Well I *do* ...

[hummassa]

think it was one of Linus's better thought out moves.
Would you sign a contract to rent a place that said "the landlord's nephew can at anytime change the terms of this contract at will"?

Re:Well I *do* ...

[maxwell demon]

Isn't that a quite common clause for web service licenses?

Re:Well I *do* ...

[Risen888]

*looking over lease*
Hey, wait a goddamned minute here!

Re:Well I *do* ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure you understand what "or later" means, then. Which license you accept is up to the LICENSEE, not the licensor.

That means that the person *accepting* the license can choose either GPL 2, GPL 3, etc.

It also means that any further GPL revision cannot add more restrictions--they can always choose to accept it under the older license, which did not contain those restrictions.

Besides, you accept such provisions on most website EULAs you sign up for anything with, anyhow. They all reserve the right to change their rules at any time, and I can't name a one that's ever informed me of new rules, offhand. Even though they put all manner of crap in there :)

http://www.ostg.com/terms.htm

Re:Well I *do* ...

[david.gilbert]

Would you sign a contract to rent a place that said "the landlord's nephew can at anytime change the terms of this contract at will"?

Not the worst analogy ever, but close.

Re:Well I *do* ...

[Hugonz]

Funny, most EULAs, bank account contacts, and public utility contracts, and hell, many other contracts do include this clause.

Re:Well I *do* ...

[demars]

I'm not sure you understand what "or later" means, then. Which license you accept is up to the LICENSEE, not the licensor. That means that the person *accepting* the license can choose either GPL 2, GPL 3, etc. It also means that any further GPL revision cannot add more restrictions--they can always choose to accept it under the older license, which did not contain those restrictions.

Yes, but what if a future version of GPL actually had less restrictions than the former versions? By telling the licensee they can choose at will a later version, you can't tell what they will be able to do with the code. The point isn't what will happen to the rights of the licensee; the point is that the licensor has yielded all control over the code because future versions of the GPL may lift some restrictions that the licensor may have desired simply because they included the clause "or later versions" and they can't really anticipate what the later versions may or may not allow.

- Dennis D.

Sorta misses the point

[SPYvSPY]

I see what you're saying, but I think the real issue is whether "use" is tantamount to "distribution" in the context of a hosted application. I would argue that there is no functional difference between: (a) shipping an installer CD for an application to be deployed on Generic Company's servers for its internal use, and (b) providing that same application's functionality for Generic Company's internal use via a hosted application service. Don't you agree that there's some overlap worth exploring there?

Also, consider the reason for the GPL's requirement that the source be distributed with the executable code. Isn't the policy essentially to allow your users to become co-developers in order to improve the quality/functionality that the distributed code offers? I would say it is, at least in part. Consequently, why should the hosted application model be exempt from the same policy? It seems logical to me that hosted applications should be treated as a distribution under the right circumstances.

BTW, how is the GPL *not* an EULA? Doesn't it impose conditions on the use of software as a condition of use? Don't forget that modifying source code is a form of "use", as is distribution. And, finally, to the extent that the copyright laws ensure certain rights for authors, the GPL *is* a restrictive license.

Re:Sorta misses the point

[grumbel]

### BTW, how is the GPL *not* an EULA? Doesn't it impose conditions on the use of software as a condition of use?

GPL doesn't limit how you use the software, neither does it require that you publish modifications, the GPL only kicks in when you distribute your software, as long as you don't distribute it you can do whatever you want. And distribution isn't 'use' since copyright laws says otherwise, has nothing todo with the GPL itself.

Re:Sorta misses the point

[dgatwood]

Also, consider the reason for the GPL's requirement that the source be distributed with the executable code. Isn't the policy essentially to allow your users to become co-developers in order to improve the quality/functionality that the distributed code offers? I would say it is, at least in part. Consequently, why should the hosted application model be exempt from the same policy? It seems logical to me that hosted applications should be treated as a distribution under the right circumstances.

Ah, but the fallacy of that argument is that it assumes the end user has some control over the server running the hosted application. There is no benefit to an end user from being able to download a hosted application and modify it. It is only of benefit to other administrators who want to see how somebody else implemented something.

I see what you're saying, but I think the real issue is whether "use" is tantamount to "distribution" in the context of a hosted application. I would argue that there is no functional difference between: (a) shipping an installer CD for an application to be deployed on Generic Company's servers for its internal use, and (b) providing that same application's functionality for Generic Company's internal use via a hosted application service. Don't you agree that there's some overlap worth exploring there?

Not really. It is the right of the company to decide whether or not their employees should be allowed to come up with changes for their infrastructure during their work hours. It is the right of the company to decide whether to allow employees to do work for the company on their own time. Therefore, it is the company's right to make it impossible for an employee to do anything useful with that source code once they get it. It is, therefore, an utterly uninteresting question when it comes to internal-only web applications.

The slightly more interesting question is the case of a public-facing web service. Much like internal services, here, too, however, the vast majority of changes a company is likely to make involve integrating the software with their own internal systems. There's no way that a company should have to make that information public, nor would the community WANT that information even if they could get it. It would serve no useful purpose outside of that environment.

The GPL's wording on deployment should be to encourage contribution of internally-made changes that might be generally useful. It should in no way require it. Otherwise, it will A. dramatically reduce the usefulness of GPLed software in the corporate world, and B. dramatically increase the number of pure noise forks of GPLed software and/or the submission of dramatically more useless patches.

For software that is being distributed publicly (outside a corporate organization) as a binary, clearly the change is generally useful. For software deployed internally, the change is probably useful to the people inside the company, and should be made available to those people. For software that is being deployed on a web server, only the person making the changes can reasonably determine whether the changes are generally useful.

You can't try to come up with a fuzzy line for this. Changes for integration could significantly affect the operation, so if you tried to say "anything that significantly changes operation of the software must be disclosed," you're going to turn it into a messy grey area where lawyers have to get involved before a business can use GPLed software. That's the best way to drive businesses in droves back to commercial software solutions for their problems.

No, deployment of a web-facing service absolutely should not require distribution of the source code changes. It should encourage it, but it should not require it. That's a place that no GPL software author should want to go, as it ultimately leads only to the diminution of the GPL as a viable license for software that provides web-facing services.

Re:Sorta misses the point

[monkeydo]

BTW, how is the GPL *not* an EULA?

Because EULAs are bad and the GPL is good. In the same way that copyright infringement isn't stealing, until someone infringes on GPL's code, the thieving bastards!

Duh.

Re:Sorta misses the point

[argel]

BTW, how is the GPL *not* an EULA? Doesn't it impose conditions on the use of software as a condition of use? Don't forget that modifying source code is a form of "use", as is distribution. And, finally, to the extent that the copyright laws ensure certain rights for authors, the GPL *is* a restrictive license.

The GPL is based on copyright law while EULAs are not (maybe contract law instead?). The GPL also gives the recipent more rights than she would normally have under copyright law while EULAs take away rights. One of the reasons it has not really been challenged in court is the strong underpinning that copyright law provides.

Re:Sorta misses the point

[andymadigan]

Take a look at the top of the GPL, you don't need to agree to the software to use it (says so right there).

Re:Sorta misses the point

[Tim C]

Doesn't it impose conditions on the use of software as a condition of use?

No, no, a thousand times no. It specifically and explicitly disclaims and disavows any such restrictions; you are free to use the software in any way you see fit, including modifying it.

It is only distribution of the software which is covered. The GPL only comes into force when you give someone else a copy of the software. Until that time, it has no power over you whatsoever.

Don't forget that modifying source code is a form of "use"

Yes it is, and it's one that's specifically not covered by the GPL. No restrictions are imposed on you for modifying the code - you don't have to give the modifications to anyone.

as is distribution

Conceptually yes, legally no. Legally, distribution and use are two very distinct things; of the two, copyright law only covers distribution.

Re:Sorta misses the point

[SPYvSPY]

Not true. You need a license to use software any time you aren't the original author. The GPL grants you a license on conditions that are imposed when distribution happens.

My pragmatic approach

[ChaoticCoyote]

I don't agree with some things RMS says and does, but the GPL is a common industry standard, and most people have at least a vague sense of what it means and implies. When I used the Artistic and ZLIB/LIBPNG livcense, it caused no end of confusion; using GPL cuts down on questions.

I've successfully gone the dual-licensing route, GPL for open source clients, and a "non-free" (as in beer) license that can (depending on the customer's needs) spell out specific rights, included the ability to include my code in closed-source applications. I am selling licenses, so the model appears to be working (at least for me).

Most people who want a paid-for non-GPL license (not all of whom are closed source, mind you) tend to be Windows developers. Perhaps they have been scared by Mr. Ballmer's idiocy, or (more likely) there is more closed-source development in the Windows world.

I wish the FSF well in its quest to create the perfect balance between freedom and the protection of creators' rights.

Re:My pragmatic approach

[vga_init]

I wish the FSF well in its quest to create the perfect balance between freedom and the protection of creators' rights.

The GPL is designed around the idea that "what's good for the community is good for the individual." Because of this reasoning, the GPL seeks to defend the public first by making the developer/contributor give up certain luxuries, such as that of closing the source or not releasing it (this in turn helps your FOSS project not to be hijacked and closed by a private enterprise). It allows you to sell it, but not the luxury of telling others that they can't share it.

They used to tell us in school in the United States that "liberty is not freedom to do what we want, but freedom to do what we ought." Freedom can be used to do antisocial things, and things like proprietary softare are fundamentally antisocial. That doesn't mean they aren't good pieces of software, it's just that their goal is not to maximize the benefit to the community but rather to maximize the profit of the author by denying access to classes of people. While you're sacrificing a little bit of freedom to do something antisocial, you're in turn creating a vast amount of freedom for everyone else.

I'm not sure what "rights" the creator has that the GPL doesn't protect...I'd like to know more about what you're thinking just to be sure.

As far as I'm concerned, the GPL is the best license for "Free" software in the purest sense of the word. I think it embodies the ideals and goals of our movement. Not all software is Free software, so of course you need other licenses to fit what it is that you'd like to do with your particular project, but I think all of the complaints against the GPL are unwarranted in the sense that they attack it for not being something it was never supposed to be in the first place.

Re:your sig (OT)

[Hosiah]

6D617672696E616340676D61696C2E636F6D

OK, I'll bite. Is it your public encryption key? An MD5 checksum? A really big number in hexadecimal? A highly compressed core dump?

GPL bah!

[mschramel]

I think the BSD license is still far superior to the GPL anyday.

Matthew

Re:GPL bah!

[IntergalacticWalrus]

"I think the BSD license is still far superior to the GPL anyday."

Sigh... The BSD and GPL are two different licences that cover different needs and are appropriate for different situations. Anyone who claims one is "superior" to the other is either misinformed, trolling, or just stupid.

Re:GPL bah!

[mschramel]

Well, I'm not trolling, I dont think I'm stupid.
I just feel that you either need to a) Sell the product and license it accordingly
or B) Give the thing away.
GPL Just makes things cumbersome.


Matthew

Re:GPL bah!

[CaptainFork]

Sorry, that was too pragmatic for slashdot. Submission rejected.

The GPLv3 will be internet-ready

[trollable]

The GPLv3 will (or won't) be the internet-ready version of the GPL. At least I hope. It will allow users the four rights (Free Software) that are circumvented/denied by online apps (webapps and al). Sooner is better.

Re:GPLv3 should bing a provision on fork limitatio

[nuggz]

Why do people think forks are bad?

When two people have two different goals why should we try and force them to work together?

Re:$100 says this is to address software patents..

[nuggz]

When you distribute a GPL work you are granting others the right to modify and further distribute that work.
By agreeing that others have the right to distribute your patent you are implying they now have a valid licence to do so.

Re:GPLv3 should bing a provision on fork limitatio

[Just Some Guy]

I am not sure how this should be setup, but the idea is that if we manage to limit the forks numbers without compromising the opensource goals, then the might be the killer thing.

Killer, as in deal breaker. If you maintain a local patchset of a Free Software program, then you've created a fork. Make that illegal - assuming that were even possible - and you've truly killed the program.

But the overall benefit for the community of this is less than if the change was integrated into the mainstream development....

You say that as if most of us write software for the community's benefit. We don't. We write software for our benefit, then release those changes for a myriad of reasons.

Those who undermine Open Source MUST be excluded

[Anonymous Coward]

Those who (companies and individuals) undermine Open Source MUST be excluded from using GPLed software.

Criteria should be those who advertise on news papers and other media undermining Open Source (especially Microsoft) and those who sue open source projects on unreasonable grounds (including in the past) MUST be excluded from using GPLed software.

Re:It was a choice of the licensor, no force invol

[Pxtl]

Yep. Really, the only risk is that a future version of the GPL could be BSD-style. After all, a more-restrictive GPL license or a license with absurd clauses would simply not be used. The worst that can happen is that someone can re-close their derivation of your code if RMS ever loses his mind.

Not nice, but hardly catastrophic.

GPL v2 only ? was it a good move

[nuggz]

I think it is a good move to restrict to the v2, particularly since it seems that people have different views of what the GPL means.

Not forcing distribution of source code when access is permitted yet no distibution of the binary has taken is one of the contested issues being discussed for the GPL v3.

One group claims this is the intended behaviour and within the spirit of the GPL. One group claims this is a loophole and is against the spirit of the GPL.

Depending what is decided the GPLv3 may have one group or the other complain about how that isn't what they meant when they selected the GPL. And this is a relatively minor issue. The only defence is specifying a particular license and revision.

GPLv2 GPLv3 compatibility

[nuggz]

If there are any changes to the GPL it could cause v2 only and v3+ to be incompatible.

For example if they make the GPL an EULA.

no it isn't

[Anonymous Coward]

quit being a retard

Simple really

[Anonymous Coward]

All your code are belong us

concluding the GPL House analogy...

[frankie]

Well guess what, your house wasn't built under a GPL license.

But if there WERE such things, then visitors should be allowed to copy the blueprints.

Re:concluding the GPL House analogy...

[Syberghost]

But if there WERE such things, then visitors should be allowed to copy the blueprints.

There is a stretch between "should be" and "...or they can sue me".

Maybe one of my modifications is hiding a gun safe, and I don't WANT to tell you where it is. Maybe one is installing mirrors in the ceiling of my bedroom, a stripper pole, handcuff rings on the wall, and a cubbyhole for storing a RealDoll, and I don't WANT to tell you all that.

Who says you have the right to pry into my personal modifications to my personal house just because I used a GPL blueprint to build it for my own personal use and not distribution?

Re:concluding the GPL House analogy...

[frankie]

I don't WANT to tell you all that

...then don't build a GPL house. Likewise, no one is forcing you to build web services with GPL code.

This is exactly the debate. Should a host be considered a distributor? Should a visitor be considered a user? If so, the GPL entitles them to source access. I would say yes, you would say no. It isn't specified in GPL v2, but it will be in GPL v3, one way or the other.

Re:concluding the GPL House analogy...

[Anonymous Coward]

...or build the house, but don't invite anyone else in.

Re:concluding the GPL House analogy...

[crulx]

I disagree that thinking about "service use GPL" has any worth at all. The GPL protects me by ensuring that I can modify any software I run on a machine I own. It doesn't, and shouldn't, protect me when those conditions have not been met. The developers have protection because if a service GPL gives the binary to anyone, they have to provide the source and the receiver can modify and distribute the code. If I want to take GPLed code, and modify it myself, and run it on my own machines, who the hell are you to say that I need to give it to someone because I have allowed "access" to my own stuff.

The GPL allows developers to ensure that their code can never become a for-profit, binary distribution only object. My GPLed code will never become part of the crappy pay-for-binaries economic model. But the pay-for-service model seems like a valid economic model that reflects the nature of computation, namely that it takes energy. Why would any GPL developer care if their software gets used to help develop that? Even IF I don't ever get to see the changes, my software still has not become part of that horrible system and thus the GPL has done its job.

The GPL needs updating to deal with patents, DMCA style laws and Trusted Computing. I certainly hope Stallman keeps a level head and ignores this sort of nonsense. Maybe you should recognize that your position comes from a deep want for the GPL to rain free stuff down from the sky. The GPL was meant to kill the "you-are-not-allowed-to-help-your-neighbor" style of software distribution. Stallman never intended to create a "you-have-to-help-your-neighbor-or-freaking-else" system that you seem to want.

Go make your own license and see what gets used more. No offense man, but do you see where I'm coming from on this?

Re:concluding the GPL House analogy...

[Anonymous Coward]

You make some good points. I guess we'll wait and see which paradigm the big dogs prefer.

Re:concluding the GPL House analogy...

[Syberghost]

...then don't build a GPL house. Likewise, no one is forcing you to build web services with GPL code.

Congratulations; you have delineated succintly the approach that nearly every business in the world will be forced to take if the change we're discussing in fact occurs.

It'll be great for BSD, though.

fair enough

[Anonymous Coward]

write your own.

Cheers.

Re:fair enough

[Arandir]

"write your own."

WE ALREADY WROTE OUR OWN YOU FUCKWIT!

That's what Free Software is! We got tired of these stupid restrictions are wrote out own software. We wrote GNU, we wrote BSD, we wrote Linux, we wrote all the software running on our systems! It took us two decades, but we did it!

This is our software, and there's no reason we should have to go write it all over again just because some anonymous coward wants to be snarky.

Free reg isn't much of a requirement

[tepples]

requiring free registration (read: handing over of e-mail address to spammers)

Web mail? Bugmenot? And if you're worried about having to answer detailed demographic questions, what's wrong with saying that my name is Pinocchio Baccigaluppo and I live in South Nogna?

Re:Free reg isn't much of a requirement

[panthro]

The point is, someone shouldn't be able to take GPL software that contributing developers worked hard on, modify it a bit, package it up, sell the binaries, and make it arbitrarily difficult (albeit not impossible) for the general public to separately obtain the source code. Abuses of that allowance -- and there would be plenty of them -- would negate most of free software's key benefits for the affected software family.

Chicken and Egg

[Ekevu]

You're creating a chicken and egg problem. If you don't participate you'll never really know what exactly you're in. Besides, "participate" isn't a binary concept. You should be aware of it.

Re:Chicken and Egg

[ubiquitin]

Not quite, I think. With mailing lists, sometimes you just want to observe, so "participate" is a bit much. The nice thing about "subscribe" is how ambiguous it is.

Re:Chicken and Egg

[js7a]

Heisenberg's principle certainly applies here: observation is participation!

Distribution vs. Use

[SPYvSPY]

The point is that the copyright laws in the US grant rights in the author to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute copies of, perform and display copyrighted works. To the extent that the GPL places a condition on the end user's ability to make copies, derivative works, and distribute software, it is the same as any other EULA.

I don't want to debate the meaning of "use", since it's both arbitrary and irrelevant (and not defined under US copyright law in the manner you purport, AFAIK).

Re:Distribution vs. Use

[grumbel]

### To the extent that the GPL places a condition on the end user's ability to make copies, derivative works, and distribute software, it is the same as any other EULA.

The major difference is that the GPL *gives* you rights (to modify and distribute), while a EULA *removes* your rights (right to use software for specific purpose, etc). The GPL doesn't restrict you, it gives you right you wouldn't have without it.

Re:Distribution vs. Use

[SPYvSPY]

That depends on who you meant by "you". As the recipient of GPL'd software, your rights are indeed probably more expansive than if you licensed commercial software under a standard EULA. On the other hand, as a developer, your authorship rights have conditions placed on them that come from the GPL and not from copyright laws. The GPL does not create new rights, actually. It merely creates a contract condition (i.e., disclosure of source code) on the licensee's ability to distribute the program. in this sense, the GPL simply transfers more of the original author's rights to the end user than classic copyright laws or most EULA terms would do.

Re:Distribution vs. Use

[bnenning]

The GPL does not create new rights, actually.

Of course it does. With the GPL, I can redistribute the software provided I fulfill certain conditions. Without the GPL, I can't redistribute the software at all. My rights with the GPL are a strict superset of my rights without it.

Re:Distribution vs. Use

[SPYvSPY]

That's not a creation of net-new rights--it's merely a transfer of existing rights from the author to the licensee. The GPL only "creates" new rights if you compare it to other less developer-friendly licenses.

Feedback from the real developer base

[ficken]

This is something that has been long overdue for sometime. I just hope they mold the new license using developer/user/company feedback and not just on what a handful of individuals 'think' may be good for the group as a whole. Hopefully the FSF actually listens to its followers and it will not just be the blind leading the blind.

GPLv3 != EULA

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

The big problem is that this changes the GPL into a EULA. Right now, the GPL doesn't attempt to restrict anything, it merely grants privileges that would not usually be in effect. That's why it's such a strong license.

To change the GPL to include restrictions on how you use the software would seem to run counter to the ideals of Free Software; namely that you are free to use the software as you please.

I would disagree with this interpretation.

The GPLv2 has never said anything nor placed restriction on how you use the software. In effect, the GPL only comes into play when you some to redistriute the software, and says that you must redistribute the source code when you distribute the binaries to others.

The GPLv3 again will not say anything or place restriction on how you, you use the software. You're still free to tinker as you please privately and keep the changes to yourself. Again on distribution you must include those changes.

However the GPLv3, in response to potential or actual shenannegans with web deployment, will specify that when you also come to offer your software as a service to users, you must also include the changes to your code, and make them and the original code visible to those users.

This makes a lot of sense. When I run a web app for users acting as thin clients, I'm effectively distributing my program to them. Albiet now the licence is for an extremely limited time, and the calculations are taking place on my machine. However, in effect, a binary of my program has been, however temporarily, placed at the disposal of that one user. They are a user after all. they are "using" the program.

In a way the GPLv3 is a lot better than GPLv2. The GPLv2 only covered the distribution of the binary of the program. GPLv3 covers the service of the program, or more succinctly, the program itself. If you offer the service of the program to someone else, directly, in whatever way, then you must show them your source code. You can see that binaries fall under this definition as well.

Of course companies will try to write wrapper programs to get around this, so that users are not directly using their app, etc, etc, etc. However, I think most won't go to the bother and will just publish their code. After all, how many trade secrets are going to be in your average php/asp page anyway.

It's all about making sure that users are empowered, and that software is both transparent and modifyable to everyone. Stallman originally argued on the grounds of modifyability, which of course is critical to the whole process. But the transparency conferred by this has benefits for the public at large which outweight even the benefits of modifyability. But you need modifyability in order for software to be free. Just having transparency would be like am autocracy having transparency in its government offices. You might be able to see what's going on, but you still can't do anything about it.

Re:GPLv3 != EULA

[Arandir]

However, in effect, a binary of my program has been, however temporarily, placed at the disposal of that one user. They are a user after all. they are "using" the program.

You are playing semantic word games. The users of the service are no more using the software than I am using the accounting software of my accountant when he does my taxes. Service is a use, and by regulating servicing, the GPLv3 will be regulating usage. Say goodbye to GPLv2 Clause 0!

This isn't merely the nose of the camel entering the tent, this is RMS putting the camel on a truck and driving it in! Are web servers covered as well? Thankfully Apache will never use the GPLv3, otherwise tens of thousands of websites out there would be liable to provide its source code to anyone who visits their sites. Hell, imagine the legal obligations if I use a v3 licensed GIMP to edit a friend's photos!

When I run a web app for users acting as thin clients, I'm effectively distributing my program to them.

No you are not! "Distribution" has a specific and well understood meaning in copyright law. Before you were playing semantic games, now you're just making up definitions.

Here is a good analogy: a roleplaying game. If give a player a copy of "Tomb of Horrors", it is distribution. If you make a copy of it and give the copy to a player, it is distribution. If you place a copy of it on the web for the player to access, it is distribution. But, if you merely run a group of players through the adventure, it is NOT distribution, even though you are providing the services of the adventure to them.

Re:GPLv3 != EULA

[AME]

I think most won't go to the bother and will just publish their code.

The is one of the great flaws in the thinking of many GPL advocates. If the license doesn't allow developers to do what they want then they will choose a solution with another license or else code a solution in-house. Making the GPL more demanding is not going to drive more developers to, reluctantly, use the GPL. After all, how many trade secrets are going to be in your average php/asp page anyway.

In my experience, a lot.

Re:GPLv3 != EULA

[d34thm0nk3y]

However, in effect, a binary of my program has been, however temporarily, placed at the disposal of that one user. They are a user after all. they are "using" the program.

You are playing semantic word games. The users of the service are no more using the software than I am using the accounting software of my accountant when he does my taxes.

Except for the fact that you are directly controlling the software yourself. Computing resources are being expended to your direct command. That sounds like "using" to me.

Re:New & Improved!

[Risen888]

Oh, don't downmod him. We all know he's talking about XP. See, it says right there, "extra viral!"

It could fall under "public display".

[Some Random Username]

You are right about software use and how copyright holders can't restrict you in that way. But running a GPL webserver for instance could be considered a public display/performance of the copyrighted work, and it could be restricted that way.

Re:GPLv3 should bing a provision on fork limitatio

[JeffTL]

Free software that can't be forked freely is no longer free. What's wrong with a fork, anyhow, especially if both forks are free anyhow?

Re:GPLv3 should bing a provision on fork limitatio

[rob_squared]

The concept of forks is great, if only a small amount of forks occur. Two people with differing ideas is great, two HUNDRED people with different ideas is a logistic nightmare at worst and a headache at best.

Re:Those who undermine Open Source MUST be exclude

[JeffTL]

Open source perhaps -- but remember that FSF is the Free Software Foundation; wouldn't it undermine the free standing of the software to not permit anyone to use it for any purpose? The source can be open, but the software isn't free if the Microsoft Corporation or anyone else is forbidden to make use of it.

Re:Impossible

[CaptainFork]

None of the comments on this thread would have been moderated down had they been about Bill Gates

ok

[larry bagina]

you know... slashdot should reconsider their sections (linux, yro, apache, etc). This story for example, is on the FSF and the GPL license. But it's placed in the "linux" category. In fact, anything to do with open source/FSF/GPL/etc are placed in the "linux" category even though they aren't linux. The YRO section is an even bigger mess. I'm not sure why the apache section exists at all, they get a story once a month. Might as well add a "geek gets laid" section. Oh wait, they did, but there aren't any articles yet.

We now return to our regularly scheduled wank fest.

Re:your sig (OT)

[Anonymous Coward]

It's his e-mail address, in ASCII. Quick python to decode:

str = "6D617672696E616340676D61696C2E636F6D"
ostr = ""
for i in range(0,len(str),2): ostr += chr(int(str[i:i+2],16))
print ostr

First4Internet

[saskboy]

Does anyone think that First4Internet Inc will be looking to make input into the new GPL? They are about to become experts at the LGPL thanks to the pending Sony lawsuits in Canada, the USA, Australia, and elsewhere.

Re:GPLv3 should bing a provision on fork limitatio

[frank_adrian314159]

Why do people think forks are bad?

I wasn't aware they did - they work much better than chopsticks for most Westerners, for instance...

GPL and device drivers

[PeterJFraser]

The part of the current GPL, at least the way I read it, has one very strange implication.

If a manufacture creates a binary device driver (not using any GPL code) and publishes its API, and then a third party implement code using that API to add that device to Linux. The third party code is obvious GPL code, and the manufactures obviously is still not GPL code.

But if the manufacture develops the code to use the device in Linux using the same published API's, then the manufactures bindary code also becomes GPL code.

Re:GPL and device drivers

[spitzak]

There is no difference between these two scenarios.

Your "manufacturer" would be free to write a binary closed-source program, and then a small GPL API program that calls it, exactly the same as the "third party". Or they are not allowed to do this, but in that case the "third party" is not allowed either. The general consensus is that neither party is allowed to do this unless an exception is added to the GPL on the code, such as the one provided with Linux for binary modules or user-space programs.

Keyword: available

[Urusai]

Availability of the source on request is all that's necessary. That request might just be an HTTP GET request, or an email, etc. However that request is received, it is a request, and forcing the requester to jump through arbitrary hoops (send in a box top with SASE, register to receive amazing offers, etc.) is not an excuse for denying a request via other, reasonable channels. Such is for a judge/jury to decide, natch.

Come on, editors!

[ccharles]

How about explaining what the GPL is? Geez... give us some background to go on...

Re:Come on, editors!

[Anonymous Coward]

The General Public Licence is the licence most of us (the public) are licenced under, it extermly viral - once you have come in contact of another person licenced under the GPL, you automaticly become too licenced under the GPL - SO WATCH OUT!!!

-nrms (NRMS is Richard Mathew Stallman)

The Biggest Problem...

[brundlefly]

The biggest problem with today's GPL is its unspoken aim towards extending the world of free software. Using GPL'ed software in a commercial package is akin to accepting that you may one day be forced to open all of your code that even touches upon the GPL'ed code, should a court decision one day come down which resolves some of the legally ambiguous wording in the GPL.

If the mission of GPL (and the even more prickly LGPL) is to extend the world of open source using a "code-tainting" model, then so be it. But this just means that for any commercial ventures, I will only use more leniently licensed code such as Apache and CC. And because of this, when I open source my own code it will also be under of these other more reasonable licenses.

Re:The Biggest Problem...

[SwashbucklingCowboy]

The GPL is not about open source software, the GPL is about FREE software...

Re:The Biggest Problem...

[spitzak]

Absolutely right about the GPL, that is exactly it's design. Although most poeple who publish under it are not trying to force software to become open-source, but instead interested in protecting their own software from becoming closed-source.

If this bothers you, then you can simply not use GPL software. Boo hoo.

And there is no reason you cannot use LGPL libraries, however.

Re:It was a choice of the licensor, no force invol

[dgatwood]

... if RMS ever loses his mind.

There is another theory which states that this has already happened....

Re:Free?

[grumbel]

The 'Free' when people talk about the GPL refers to the freedom of the user and GPL does a much better job at protecting that then public domain, with public domain everybody can just take it add whatever restrictions he wants to it and redistribute, the GPL ensures that the user always gets the same freedom. Beside from that public domain is a concept that is not available in all countries, so public domain is a bit problematic.

Re:$100 says this is to address software patents..

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm willing to bet it'll have a mutually-assured-destruction clause or two in there somewhere. Something along the lines of "Your rights to use any GPL3 software are terminated if you attempt to assert any patent restrictions over any of them".

Re:GPLv3 should bing a provision on fork limitatio

[grumbel]

Forks are good and healthy, sure sometimes its annoying, but sooner or later most forks will either collapse or merge back into the original. The strong point of the GPL is that it ensures that forks can always be merged back into the mainline.

### The reason for me is that it is always easier to fork than to advocate to an existing team for some change.

Depends, maintaining a fork can be an annoying amount of work, which is why most people will avoid it unless they have good reasons for that.

GPL should definitvly not try anything to limit forks, since that would restrict important freedoms, it should however ensure that forks can be merged back into the mainline and that is actually problematic with GPLv3, since if some piece of software is "GPLv2(or later)", gets forked and converted to GPLv3 while the mainline gets converted to GPLv2(only), the GPLv3 pieces can't be merged back unless the authors agree to all switch to the same license.

Another Zonk dupe

[jifl]

Zonk's on a roll again, although unlike MS Freemont vs. Google Base, no-one's noticed straight away... This article is a dupe from just a couple of days ago.

Re:Free?

[Call Me Black Cloud]

with public domain everybody can just take it add whatever restrictions he wants to it

Someone can't put restrictions on something in the public domain. Maybe their derivative work, but the original will always be in the PD. I've never heard of a place where public domain is a foreign concept, but if that's the case just write the license to state "no restrictions".

Re:your sig (OT)

[Hosiah]

Silly me! And here I have the Firefox plug-in "leetkey" right on my right-click menu. The HEX decode works just fine, thanks, no need for the python.

Web Services and Code Distribution

[loom_weaver]

Suppose I make nifty Message Board Software that provides a service over http and I release it under the GPL.

There's nothing stopping other companies from taking that code, adjusting it, and providing a similar service for profit while not having to release their modifications.

Kinda contrary to the spirit of the GPL. The Affero Licence covers this loophole. I wonder if GPL3 will as well.

Re:Free?

[TERdON]

If it's still PD that doesn't mean it's available - e.g. it's a really obscure, but very good program that only the "middle-hand" has possibility to get. Then the program would only be available to the public with restrictions. With GPL, those additions would be illegal to make.

GPL 2 gives web app devs favorable treatment

[I'm Don Giovanni]

How would simply extending GPL to cover web apps turn it into more of a EULA than it already is?

Today, if you distribute a GPL app you must release the code. But if you make a GPL web app available for use by the general public, you don't have to release the code. This gives an unfair "advantage" to those that make web apps over local apps. Secondly, as more and more apps become web apps, the GPL's provisions lose more and more relevance since they don't apply to those apps.

Look at it this way - eventually bandwidth will be so large that one will be able to run a binary app over the web as one might run a binary app located on a LAN server today. In such day and age, Microsoft could build just one binary of Office, put it on their server, and charge people to use it over the Web. Or Google to do something similar and "charge" people to use it through ads. In either of these cases, Microsoft or Google could use all the GPL 2 code that they want and not release the code since they're not distributing the binary even though their app is used by the general public. Hell, Google is doing this today (making use of GPL for their publicly used web stuff and not releasing the code). Nobody here complains because Goolge is everyone's "darling", but just replace "Google" with "Microsoft" and see if you feel the same way.

Summary: If GPL software is made available for external use, whether it be through releasing the binary, running it as a web app on a web server, or through some other means, then the developer should have to release the code. It's "external use" that should be the determining factor of whether code must be released, not "distributing binaries". Times have changed, and GPL should change with the times.

The GPL and TCPA

[Anonymous Coward]

Can TCPA DRM be used to enforce the GPL (and therefor backfire on the people who typically both are pro-TCPA and steal OSS) ? So source code and executables or libraries are 'locked down' to one another ? This would be a great thing to stop a company like Sony/BMG/The hoards of Satan who are pro DRM and steal from OSS. It would be really nice to see an instance of DRM actually working for consumers instead of against them.

Re:GPLv3 should bing a provision on fork limitatio

[nuggz]

Nightmare for who?

Just ignore those you don't want to listen to.

Free speech and billions of different opinions seems to be working pretty well IMO.

In other news...

[scott_karana]

The GPL is slated to be completed alongside the GNU Hurd! Open source world rejoice!

Re:$100 says this is to address software patents..

[mrchaotica]

Exactly! The key word is "implying," which doesn't mean a damn thing to a lawyer. The GPLv3 is needed because giving permission to use the patent needs to be explicitly stated; "implying" gets people sued.

Re:GPLv3 should bing a provision on fork limitatio

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why most countries have hundreds of political parties, for example, or there are thousands of operating systems designed for x86 computers, or, oh, wait...

Re:Impossible

[Hal_Porter]

That's because Bill Gates is an evil, evil man.

Re:GPLv3 should bing a provision on fork limitatio

[TTK Ciar]

Why do people think forks are bad?
When two people have two different goals why should we try and force them to work together?

Hobbesian bias; division of authority and focus is considered "bad" by those who buy into Hobbesian philosophy. Hobbes posited that having everyone work in the same direction, under the same governing authority was best, and anything that detracted from that unity was bad.

Hobbesian bias is extremely popular, and explains a great many seemingly nonsensical attitudes in politics, IT, religion, et al.

Personally, though, I agree with you -- different people developing a project in slightly different directions to more-optimally satisfy significantly different needs can be desireable. Hobbesian bias in such situations is little more than obstructionism.

-- TTK

Re:Those who undermine Open Source MUST be exclude

[Yaa 101]

I agree, forbidding anybody to use your source will have the wrong effect.
The power of open is open, it hurts MS more if you let everybody use your software than if you exclude MS themselfs.

Re: code vs data

[Anonymous Coward]

> But these companies run the modified software on their webservers, so it is in use.

Question: Where do you draw the line between code and data? At some point, software logic becomes private data that the company is not obligated to disclose. I predict that the GPLv3 will just cause companies to use GPLv2 bases or refactor their code/data split so they will only have to disclose their interpreters but not the data being interpreted.

And that's not really what Stallman wants, so this will turn into an arms race that attempts to pin down the exact point that divides code from data. In the end, everybody loses: Stallman never gets the company to disclose its proprietary logic, and the company has to jump through a million hoops to hide the logic as data, so they end up charging more for their services.

Relax, it's just a mailing list.

[jbn-o]

Nobody at the FSF has the power to make you participate in some way you don't want to. You're reading too much into their words.

The focus here must be on user's software freedom.

[jbn-o]

The worst that can happen is that someone can re-close their derivation of your code if RMS ever loses his mind.

Not nice, but hardly catastrophic.

From the perspective of the FSF, that would be catastrophic. Consider that one of the reasons the GPL was written was not just to give people software freedom (the freedom to run, inspect, share, and modify covered programs) but to make sure the programs remain free as well. If any part of the GPL allowed sublicensing or somehow allowed incorporation into a proprietary program, those freedoms would be lost to users of that derivative work. Software proprietors seek to effect this change through software patents—another reason the GPL is being revised. Variants of the new BSD license allow both sublicensing and say absolutely nothing, not even in an introductory sentence or framing sense, about patents.

What matters here is not whether anyone else shares this view, but to understand the license in the context in which it was written—securing software freedom for all computer users. This focus on a user's software freedom is one of the reasons the FSF doesn't describe making proprietary derivatives as "closing" a program. The Open Source Movement focuses on a programmer's ability to help businesses (chiefly) improve their programs. As the FSF says:

Describing non-free software as "closed" clearly refers to the term "open source". In the Free Software Movement, we want to avoid being confused with the more recent Open Source Movement, so we are careful to avoid usage that would encourage people to lump us in with them. Therefore, we avoid describing non-free software as "closed". We call it "non-free" or "proprietary".

Trusted Computing Environments cannot use GPL.

[crulx]

From the GPL:
For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.

Obviously, since you cannot compile and install a full binary without the Trusted Key and scripts that sign the binary, distributed TC-system binaries cannot use GPLed code. I had an argument with Stallman about this when that company wanted to use Linux for a game console platform but wanted sign all the binaries. Stallman agreed that you could mount a successful legal argument against people who use GPLed code on a TC environment. This means that several lawsuits could be filed right now against companies using GPLed software on some of the rudimentary TC systems.

Stallman questioned the value of enforcing that clause because it locks out GPL code from TC environments. One, It doesn't matter because by the letter of the GPL, you cannot use it in TC environments. This is true regardless of Stallman's wishes. Two, given that TC systems will be the vehicle of ultimate perpetuation of pay-for-binary software, we should use the economic power of GPLed software to say "No!" to these monstrous systems.

The free software base continues to grow. In the future, it will become even more important. Even now, the global economy cannot function without GPLed software. We can shut down this entire fiasco by refusing to allow these TC environments to pollute our processing space. It won't matter how much Microsoft wants to kill off competing computing bases, two computing bases will have to exist. And the lack of TC hardware will mean that the non-TC systems will have an economic advantage over the other systems.

The GPL doesn't need a TC clause, it already has one. Let us begin to enforce it and laugh as that worthless idea falls from human consciousness.

Forking has nothing to do with it.

[jbn-o]

The copyright holder has the power to license the program as they choose. If the copyright holder chooses to license it under only GPLv2, nobody else can relicense it under GPLv3. If the copyright holder chooses to license the program under the GPLv2 and includes language that allows recipients to change the license to any subsequent version of the GNU GPL (such as the upcoming GPLv3), then others have the power to distribute their derivatives and copies under the newer GPL.

This has nothing to do with forking a program. It has to do with relicensing (and even then, working within the narrowed confines of allowable licenses set by some other person or organization). Relicensing a program is not forking it and forking a program is merely one excercising their freedom in the free software community.

But is this really due to the WWW or an extension?

[jbn-o]

I'm fairly certain that it has been RMS' contention for some time that the GPL'd program should be considered "distributed" if another user has control over the program—using it remotely as one might do in a web-based service, for instance, but in comparable ways well before the WWW. It's hard to search audio files for Q&A, particularly when there is no transcript for a lot of RMS' talks, but I think people ask about the (shall I say, "hole"?) in the GPL which effectively allows someone to control a GPL'd program without that control being popularly seen as distribution.

Hence, I'm leery to accept an interpretation which says that this has something to do with the WWW (and doesn't just happen to catch people's eye because of the WWW), or that this should be considered an extension of the GPL rather than a clarification. Like the linking debate, this largely (if not entirely) falls to the courts to interpret copyright law and what it considers to be distribution in this context.

If I happen across some documentation to substantiate this, and if the /. hasn't expired, I'll post again.

Suggested language for the new GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
      notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
      notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
      documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

This software is provided by author and contributors "as is" and
any express or implied warranties, including, but not limited to, the
implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose
are disclaimed. In no event shall author or contributors be liable.... ...even if advised of the possibility of such damage.

ADDENDUM: The authors of previous versions of this license would like to apologize for
being control freaks and pathetic wankers with nothing to do besides bore Slashdot readers
with expositions of their hopelessly loopy utopian political ideology.

Re: code vs data

[Ulrich Hobelmann]

I quite agree with your conclusions. Lots of companies will try to avoid GPL3. In some cases though that won't be necessary. I think there'll still be application servers or PHP that won't be GPL3, so that business logic can be kept secret.

I'm not sure if RMS wants everything free, but he definitely wants a whole big community free, and extend his grip ;)

I'm not a huge GPL fan, so there's still the MPL and the BSD and derivatives out there, and they're growing fans I think.

accidents of history

[bcrowell]

Now that more and more applications run simply over the web, with no publishing involved, some people (like RMS) are interested to extend the concept of Free Software to web apps.
It then becomes a question of whose freedom you're talking about -- the person who owns the server, or the person who owns the client machine. I can see how, from the point of view of the person running the client, this could seem very much like the experience of running a closed-source app. But from the point of view of the person running the server, a GPLv3 that was more restrictive would seem like a very nasty interference in their ability to modify software that they're running on their own computer.

To me, this is simply a good example of how difficult it is to make the GPL into a weapon for smiting the closed-source heathen and building a new Kingdom of David based on OSS. The GFDL suffers from a lot of the same problems, and in many people's opinions (e.g., Debian's), that's made it less free than alternatives like cc-by-sa. For instance, try reading the section of the GFDL about "transparent" formats, and see if you can understand what it means. I sure can't.

The GPL never had to exist. It's just an accident of history. If BSD hadn't been tied up in legal knots in the 90's, Linus would never have had to write Linux. We'd all be running FreeBSD on our desktops, and all our apps would have been BSD-licensed. Nothing bad would have happened. You hear people say that the GPL was good because it gave programmers the confidence to know that their contributions wouldn't be exploited by people who weren't giving back to the community. The problem with that logic is that there are too many successful examples that were released under BSD licenses (or other licenses that didn't have the viral* component): FreeBSD, Perl, CPAN, LaTeX, ...

I keep hearing Stallman's meme about how a viral* license is necessary in order to keep people from taking free information and making it unfree. Well, I don't notice that having happened to FreeBSD or Perl. Yes, it's true that Apple made a proprietary OS based on a fork of FreeBSD. So what? How does that take away any of my freedom? I still run FreeBSD on my server. As far as I can tell, this whole illogical train of throught is just another accident of history. Stallman got into some nasty legal spats having to do with Emacs, and it made him freak out. He drew this illogical moral from the story, which was that he needed a viral* license. The real problem was simply that he was sloppy about the legal aspects of the project, and misunderstandings resulted.

*Yes, I know Stallman doesn't like the term "viral," but it's very appropriate and descriptive.

The legal trap

[stock]

"Jim Gatto, intellectual property and patent attorney for the Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman law firm, says version 3 of the GPL has been a long time coming. "A number of people have raised different concerns about the GPL," Gatto says."

Well there we have it. Where the GPLv2 was and still is maybe the most brilliant example of a software license ever, I today already see it coming that GPLv3 will become the deepest pitch hole in which a Open Source project can slide into. Where in the recent past originating project authors like Harald Welte from iptables could single handed see their GPLv2 being validated in court, by use of limited efforts, i predict the death of open source, simply by the need of outrageous legal resources to defend your GPLv3 license in court.

When that happens, Free and Open Source Software using the GPL License will have died in the hands of the humble programmers, and big software corporations will use GPLv3 as a disguised License cover to simply continue their old practices, and feed their Corporations with the efforts of a new generation of open source programmer employees, who have been trained to think that their job is helping the open source community.

The GPLv3 might even derange GPL-ed Open Source into big Corporations only projects , as no ordinary hobby programmer will be able to afford the costs of such a thing.

So do not fall into this trap. The GPLv2 has never been overturned so far in court. Why introduce a expensive legal vehicle, which the GPLv3 might become, to see the GPL finally get defeated in Court, only because the defendants went out of cash?

Robert