Slashdot Mirror
GPLv3 - A Primer on Open Warfare in Open Source
savio13 writes "A BusinessWeek article about the GPLv3 starts to shed some light on where things are, and what the hold up is in getting the newest version out. They discuss the Stallman vs. Torvalds conflict, issues with DRM, the goal of 'one-stop licensing', and the ever-more-likely possibility that the newest version of the GPL just isn't relevant." From the article: "The impetus to make a profit (and its associated compromises) isn't sitting well with true believers in free software. And the resulting rifts were apparent at last week's LinuxWorld conference in San Francisco. On one side is Richard Stallman and his Free Software Foundation. When Stallman says "free" he doesn't mean price, he means freedom. He believes all software should be freely available to be modified by the public. And for him, this is nothing short of a moral fight. On the other is Linus Torvalds, the father of Linux. He and others in his open-source camp believe that freely sharing code simply produces the best software, but if other people want to hide their code, that's fine, too. Companies will just vote with their feet."
While it's pretty early in the process still, it seems a bit unfair to characterise it as "Stallman vs. Torvalds". IIRC, Newsforge tried to contact others who were unhappy with the licence and couldn't find any - the only criticism has been offered by HP saying that the changes on patents still weren't enough for them or something, but that they were happy with the process.
It sounds like a mountain of a story being made out of a molehill of comments.
"Elmo knows where you live!" - The Simpsons
The only people really bickering over the GPLv3 are people like RMS or Eric Raymond, and various journalists. They are people who may have done some development in the past, but today do little but advocate and talk.
Most of the developers, the people who actually develop the open source software we use on a daily basis, have considered the situation and made a decision. Instead of dealing with the GPLv3, they realize that they can get just as much freedom and benefit by switching to another license. Some will just stick with the GPLv2. Many have wisely chosen to go the BSD or MIT license route. Many have actually gone the BSD or MIT route after seeing how it opens up their project for commercial development, which is often hampered by the GPL.
After all, it doesn't matter what some open source pundits have to say. For the vast majority of the software out there, they don't hold the copyright on it. And thus they have litle to no say in how it is licensed. The developers, who do get to make such decisions, have already chosen. And at this point, their choice generally hasn't been the GPLv3.
If Torvalds chooses not to go with version 3 for Linux, the Free Software Foundation will become even more irrelevant to the business world of open source.
So does that mean we call it Linux/GNU then?
Linus didn't write it, though. Linus wrote the original kernel. Much of the operating system (meaning the kernel plus system utilities) is GNU software, many of which existed as mature software well before the Linux kernel came about, which is where the GNU/Linux argument comes from.
I agree with you that trying to get people to refer to it as GNU/Linux is a lost battle, but to say the reason is because Linus wrote it is silly. Stallman has probably written more code that is currently used in the Linux operating system than Torvalds has.
I think that the reason the GPL has been so popular is because it served the needs of the developers that used it. I think that everyone involved in the GPLv3 process is going to recognize that they need to put the needs of the community first, and in the end -- everyone is going to be mostly happy.
:)
Or nobody will use it.
Obliterate advertising!
While there is nothing wrong with being idealic and passionate about the things you believe in it is very important to keep an open mind and make sure you're not driving things into extreme world of total unrealism. And that is exactly what is happening here in my opinion.
While the ideal to have a "free" world filled with people who share their work no matter the cost may sound very appealing, so does the world of Utopia or paradise. In the real world this isn't going to happen, not in the amounts these people are talking about. And why should we try to force this freedom onto people and as such deny them their right to do what they want to do? What is this all about anyway, the good of the IT world or the fame and glory of the people trying to push this shiney freedom onto us, no matter how we may feel about it?
Fact remains that there are still people making money from selling software. Just like there are now also many people and companies who see the advantages of giving their software away and by doing so seeing their userbase expand ten/hundred/thousand -fold. Who are we to tell them what to do when they wish to use our software? Isn't that exactly what started all this; the imense EULA's and the likes where you basicly hand over everything and right but the kitchen sink to the publisher? Now I sorta see the same thing happening, but in the other sense of the word.
If it wasn't for fanatism like this then several "non-free" programs would have made it into the several Linux distributions by long now, thus increasing the functionality of the whole product tenfold. And even now, when many people download these programs first thing after installing a Linux distribution do we still have people around who whine "No, we can't distribute that with the distribution because it would be tainted". As asked before; what is this about anyway? To share the enjoyment and pleasure one could have with running and using a Linux distribution or to promote / enforce ones own personal idealism onto other people no matter what?
Issues like these really show IMO that while Linux is a very nice environment the whole steering and administration around it is still very fragile.
Here's the newsforge story ("Torvalds' comments on GPLv3 committees refuted").
I blogged about this and added more info about the committees.
One last think I want to point at is a side-by-side diff with the changes highlighted from draft 1 to draft 2 so everyone can see the responses to the public process that the committees talk about in the Newsforge article.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
I don't really understand what is the exact problem with GPL 3. If free software means one must be free to alter the software he runs, it was implied that one must be able to alter the software he runs and be able to test it. Unfortunately it was not directly said in GPL 2 and companies were using this fact as a tool to deny others to modify the code and use it. Now it will said in GPL 3.
I mean, it is like, you are free to say whatever you want but no voice should come out. Of course it should! That is what is meant with freedom!
And those who say it just brings out good code, well, for me, freedom is not about being good or bad, but being free. The whole GPL was based on the free-software philosophy. If you didn't like the philosophy, you didn't need to adhere to GPL in the first place. If you did, nothing is being changed!
Btw, nowadays(tm) even Linus is not adding much to the kernel but is more into maintaining it. And the real concern of Linus is that companies contributing to Kernel may panic and stop doing so. What is this RMS vs. Linus?
I hate to do it, but I have to agree with Stallman on the one actual point of disagreement mentioned in TFA. That is, if a hardware manufacturer releases source for a software product which drives their hardware but the hardware won't actually run modified versions, that's not really "open source" (and certainly not "free software"). That's "look but don't touch".
I have always thought that the prinicpal practical reason for the GPL (aside from the philosophical reasons of freedom) is that without the safeguards of having to release modified code, a company can use the vast library of GPL software to short-cut their development process and then make profits without having to financially recognise the contribution from the legions of people who have contributed. Like patents and copyright, the GPL is a bargain between contributors in addition to those provided by usual copyright protection - sure you can use this code, but contribute the results back into the pool, if you don't like it fine but develop your own.
This is why the Tivoisation problem is so difficult, in principal you have the software but you would also require to build new hardware for it run on - the new GPL is an attempt to deal with this but is in my opinion slightly misguided as GPL deals with software abstractions and it would be very difficult to make restrictions restriction on the hardware that abstraction executes on. Hardware is covered by different legislation anyway and no software developer can insist that the designs for the hardware are also released. However, the flipside is that Tivo other projects have gained enormously from the use of GNU/Linux code and should have an obligation back to the contibutors for that commercial advantage.
-dave
http://millionnumbers.com/ - own the number of your dreams
And here is way - if it was true than Microsft and Apple should be calling their software "BSD/Windows" and "BSD/OSX", since they both have lots of BSD software in them.
The userland != the OS. The OS *is the kernel*. The rest is just tools on top. I could install the BSD userland on the Linux kernel, and it would still be Linux. "GNU/Linux" is just RMS ego-stoking - you don't *have* to use the GNU utilities with the Linux kernel.
Dare I ask why you can't or shouldn't? The simple fact is, the GPL is doing mostly today what it was designed to do, to give users the freedoms that Stallman set-out to insure existed in GPLed code. To me, the work of GNU has created a moral and social reform in some sense, by making people realize it is possible to run ever increasing sections of one's system on an open and modifiable platform.
And those people have it. At the same time, users want the freedom to take the work of others and fit it to their needs while at the same time allowing others to benefit from their work.
So, a new license offering more choice is intended to feed mindless zealots? Why with language like that, you must be against the creation of all sorts of new licenses!
If you want to control your users, then the GPL isn't for you. Nor was it ever designed to be. But don't be surprised when this means you can't use the GPL code of others.
Yea, that bastard Stallman. How dare he write up a new license to further refine his intentions. By God, it's almost as if he's the copyright holder of GNU and as a "developer" wants to decide what others do with his code. Hell, he sounds just like you. The funny thing is, he's interested in furthering user freedom. Clearly anyone who cares about the freedom of the common man is Far Left.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
The article argues that copyleft (not free software) is anti-business. This is clearly not true because the copylefted free Unix-like operating system (GNU/Linux) has far more business contributions and business models base on it than the non-copylefted free Unix-like operating systems (the free BSDs).
So companies have voted with their feet and have sent a clear message that they will work with copylefted free software.
The GNU GPL requires that everyone play fair. Many companies will look for ways to be the only person who is exempt from the rules, but free software will not gain acceptance by ditching copyleft and pandering to a few new best friends.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
So now except for dialing 911 we will need to dial 468/911 (GNU/911)
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The impetus to make a profit (and its associated compromises) isn't sitting well with true believers in free software.
I think most free software advocates take great pains to state they aren't anti-profit. They're against profit gained from activities they see as immoral.
It sometimes seems like this is the same position, but it's not. Any position of morality has this effect whether it is being against slavery or child exploitation. Accepting any moral rule is bound to render some profitable activities immoral. What muddies the water is when you have a lot at stake. It's hard to reason objectively if you see great harm or great benefits from one course of action vs. another.
You end up weighing one set of envisioned benefits and harms vs. another. This is where moral reasoning gets tricky becuase you are no longer in the world of pure ideas, but dealing with predictions and probabilities.
DRM is a perfect example. Much depends on what you project the impact of widely adopted DRM to be. Human reasoning being what it is, when we are for something we see the benefits clearly and have trouble perceiving the downsides; when we are against it the opposite holds. DRM advocates believe that artists can only surivive economically with DRM; opponents think artists will find a way to survive. Opponents think DRM will be the end of intellectual freedom; proponents think that people will find a way to express themselves.
There is a third philosophical position, which is agnostic but somewhat libertarian:whether or not you are for DRM, if people want to link DRM modules into your code it's none of your business. Yet, I think, that people in this position might have trouble defending it if they truly believed the end of intellectual freedom would result.
Finally there are the radical positions: DRM is wrong whether it is good for society or not. OR: protection of indvidual intellectual property is paramount no matter what the cost to society. By in large people who take the radical positions will also claim that pragmatism backs them up. However, I think this actually makes them less convincing. The only reason to trot out practical consequences is if your hearer doesn't agree with your fundamental position.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Please read...
http://gplv3.fsf.org/gpl-draft-2006-07-27.html
Deleted
The linux kernel can be used more or less standalone or with non GNU tools and it'll still be linux. Remove the kernel from linux and what have you got? A bunch of unrunnable tools.
You can run all of the GNU tools on a wide variety of other kernels, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here. The GNU set of tools existed well before Linux, and they would certainly have a great deal of value even if Linux had never been written. The Linux kernel without any tools at all is essentially useless. What's the point of having a running kernel if you don't even have a shell?
Calling it GNU/Linux acknowledges the fact that GNU tools have always provided a big part of the core of the operating system. However, that's not to say that I personally advocate calling it GNU/Linux. Personally, I think that name is just to cumbersome to ever gain widespread acceptance, and it's pointless to try and get people to use it.
This is of course rubbish. To use the GPL version 3 is simply a statement that you do not wish your work to be close-sourced by stealth. To insist that everyone use GPL v3 may be zealotry, but to use it yourself is not. To suggest that only mindless zombies would use the GPL version 3 is zealotry on your own behalf.
As for GPL version 2 being popular, well, why not let the market sort it out? The GPL version 3 may well prove itself in due course.
How is wanting people to respect the terms of your licence 'far left' in any case?
Wikileaks, no DNS
While free software purists debate things like binary-only drivers, the rest of the world moves on with more important issues. Do you want hardware support, huh? Do you want companies to actually build products on open source software stacks? Then stop begrudging them the right to choose what works for them, so long as it is in compliance with the basic requirements. Stop doing this little totalitarian inquisition of whether a company is a "good corporate citizen" based on whether or not they "do enough." I almost can't believe that people actually debate whether or not Google should have to open up its code because of the "spirit of the GPL."
This sort of moral grandstanding pisses me off. It accomplishes nothing other than to serve as a sort of self-esteem booster for rigid ideologues for when they inevitably fail to adapt to reality. It's mental masturbation that has all of the pleasantries of a clusterbomb going off on a playground because of how many people it denies a future to. You want freedom? Learn to live in *gasp* a pluralistic society. That means that some people might not like Open Source Uber Alles.
If you can read this, thank a teacher
If you are reading it in English, thank a soldier
If you use GNU/Linux, thank RMS
If you can run your OSS program sans a compiler, then you could thank Linus.
The point is that like the soldier, RMS made it possible for Linus to excel with his Kernel.
It could also be argued that Hurd wasn't getting the job done and Linus did.
But in the final analysis you need to consider which came first - no GNU tools, no nice OS to use - the kernel is just a file system, a very useful one, true, but only when combined with the free things RMS had spent years fighting for..
One should never forget, or undervalue the soldier - even when it 'seems' his time has passed... because it never really does.
And yes you can just put me down as a FSF fanboy... I'm rather proud of it.
If Stallman spent half as much time writing code as correcting people, Hurd might actually be out by now. I think it would be great if someone put out a version of Linux that used all BSD userland crap just to prove the point. Call it BSD/Linux just to confuse the crap out of people.
My objections about DRM are fairly mild. I understand the concern from companies like Tivo (but this is irrelevant-- nothing stops anyone from making a Tivo clone and not including the DRM. You just can't use their hardware). In the end, I think the GPL v2 actually encouraged freedom on a structural level in a way that the GPL v3 does not. The real concern is not about Tivo. It is about large media companies requiring DRM in such a way that free software as we know it ceases to exist. So on the whole, while I think the cause could be better managed, I am for it.
But the idea that software which interacts with a user over a network might need to allow the user the right to download that source code in the same session seems to me to be seriously problematic and brittle. There are no clear definitions of "modified version of the program" or "interact with a user." And even if there were, this is stretching the definition of freedom to the point where I think it breaks. There is no existential threat (as from DRM) which justifies this sort of response. Instead this clause *is* itself an existential threat.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
That's a mis-characterization of Richard Stallman's viewpoint. He doesn't believe that all software source code should be available to the public. Rather, he believes that all source code should be available to the end user. There is an important difference.
'Free' software is not about creating a gigantic repository of source code. It's about each user having the freedom to modify the computer software they are using. A group of users can keep a piece of software (and associated source code) hidden from the public quite easily. The point RMS is trying to make is that it is inneficient, artificial and even immoral to restrict the user of software from viewing/modifying the internals of said software.
Of course when software is intended for public consumption, then under the FSF ideal the source code will be available to the public (and indeed we end up with repositories like sourceforge). But to comply with the GPL you don't need to post your code on a public server: you need only make it available to the users.
Much of the operating system (meaning the kernel plus system utilities) is GNU software, many of which existed as mature software well before the Linux kernel came about
The kernel is GPL software, but there is no GNU software in it as far as I know. And there are Linux systems where the implementation of the UNIX userland system tools do not come from GNU either, for example the case of embedded systems using BusyBox.
Since a big problem in the GPLv3 debate covers the actual practices of companies that develop embedded systems, this is really relevant: In embedded systems, size is an important parameter, and the GNU userspace tools are not optimized in that direction. This means that those systems may be Linux systems, but not GNU/Linux systems.
I remember when SFU shipped with the option of installing a large number of GNU tools (thus setting up a GNU environment on Windows). Does this mean that when SFU is installed in such a configuration we ought to call it GNU/Windows?
I don't mind Stallman simply siggesting that some credit is due to th GNU project. But the idea that the GNU project can adopt the Linux kernel and then try to require that everyone refers to the agregate as GNU/Linux when other GNU environments exist without such requests (GNU on Solaris, GNU on BSD, GNU on Windows, GNU on OSX). RMS wants to say this with Linux because the GNU project decided to use the Linux kernel as the official GNU kernel (until at least HURD is released at which point, I suppose, pigs will fly).
So I think that RMS can say what we wants but that doesn't make his viewpoint entirely fair.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Like with MIT or BSD licenses?
I don't get Linus. I don't like GPL, but as many people do like it and use it, I think there's a use for it and it's ok (that's freedom too). But Linus stated repeatedly to have picked GPL not because for "free" software, but for business reasons, so other businesses would contribute without worrying of competitors running away with the work and closing it. It is called as one of the reaons Linux is so succesful. For many, this is the sole purpose of picking GPL, not because they are hippies, but a practical choise not to be boycotted by potentially contributing companies (quite anti-hippy). So what made him change his mind and why didn't he choose MIT or BSD to begin with? These are -the- licenses if you don't mind others hiding code, exporting it to Mars, or yell it verse-like from towerlike structures towards the east, even for profit.
Apple refers to the Mac OS X kernel as XNU. "Mac OS X" is generic enough that it encompasses the userland and kernel all at the same time.
All editorial writers ever do is come down from the hill after the battle is over and shoot the wounded.
On the other is Linus Torvalds, the father of Linux. He and others in his open-source camp believe that freely sharing code simply produces the best software, but if other people want to hide their code, that's fine, too."
If that's truly Linus's opinion, then Linus should have picked the BSD license for his kernel, not GPLv2.
In any case, look at the relative success of the BSD and Linux kernels. The BSD kernel was much further advanced when Linux first came out, yet the Linux kernel is much more popular. At the very least, its GPLv2 license doesn't seem to have been in the way.
And, frankly, personally I really don't care about Linus's opinion anyway; the only part Linus provides for the "Linux" operating system is the kernel. If the Linux kernel project fell apart for whatever reason, the impact on Ubuntu, RedHat, Fedora, SuSE, etc. would be small since the Linux kernel would be replaced fairly quickly.
The two biggest sticking points are patents and digital rights management. HP's objection is a part of the license that says anything touched by GPL code becomes open source. In other words, if a company bundles its hardware with open-source software and ships it to customers, it surrenders rights to enforce patents.
The author of the article has confused a lot of old FUD with the issues dug up by Tivo. Patens and DRM are the focus of GPL 3 because they undermine the intentions of the GPL. The enemies of free software have bought a lot of bad legislation and piles of bogus patents. That's why a change in the GPL is happening. Let's keep looking.
When Stallman says "free" he doesn't mean price, he means freedom. He believes all software should be freely available to be modified by the public. And for him, this is nothing short of a moral fight. On the other is Linus Torvalds, the father of Linux. He and others in his open-source camp believe that freely sharing code simply produces the best software
It's amazing how the copyright warriors can be so heavy about author intentions and control of work on one hand and then so completely misrepresent this issue on the other. The issue that GPL 3 is trying to fix is best represented by Tivo. Tivo runs GPL'd software and the makers have enjoyed great quality and savings by doing that. The problem is that they have managed to completely thwart all of the GPL's and the software author's intentions with DRM. Tivo will give you a copy of the source code for their device. You can compile it but you can't run it because Tivo locked the hardware with software keys. It won't run your changes. This might not seem like a big deal to people who are used to non free video boxes, until they realize that the Tivo is not very different from any other computer. Without GPL 3, non free software companies can freely use the entire GPL codebase but lock out their users worse than Bill Gates ever imagined. This is an issue that the copyright warriors can't win if they pretend any respect for the author.
I suppose that's why the specter of "big business" is brought up. IBM, Chrysler and others can tell you there's nothing anti-business about the present GPL. They are making and saving tons of money without stepping on their users or the authors of the software they use. When you drop user rights and author rights all you are left with to argue is "non free is better for business" which is something few people will believe.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I love how you spin that, "they cannot force me to give up my *private keys*!!"
Let's look at it the other way. Should people be able to put restrictions on the users of free software, which effectively prevents them from taking advantage of the rights that the license gives them?
If you like the Apache 2.0, that's cool. If you like the GPL 2.0, that's also cool. What's uncool is taking software someone else wrote under something like the GPL v3, and removing the rights that the author has provided to end-users. That's like someone taking software under Apache 2.0, but not giving the end-users the patent grant, so that they are unable to defend themselves to patent claims.
"Elmo knows where you live!" - The Simpsons
I think BW underestimates the relevance of the FSF. Yes, Linux uses GPLv2 only. Yes Mozilla uses their own license. But if you look at the basic toolchain that Linux, Mozilla and the like use, the majority of that infrastructure's copyright rests with... the Free Software Foundation. Use GCC to compile? Depend on Bash, flex, bison? They'll be moving to GPLv3. Even something as basic as grep, chances are if you're on a Linux system you use the FSF's version of it.
It's also going to depend on developers, not companies (unless those companies are also the developers and copyright holders on the programs). I'd note that one of the tipping points for the GPL was when people started to find GPL'd software in commercial products which the code owners themselves were locked out of by lack of source code. I think the same pattern will repeat, with the GPLv3 being RMS-only for a bit and then it'll pick up steam when a few high-profile developers want to modify a neat device and find they're locked out of modifying their own code by DRM.
That said, it's unlikely the Linux kernel will ever move to GPLv3 regardless of what Linus thinks simply because of the infeasability of contacting every copyright holder. It's been mentioned as a protection: there's so many copyright holders no company (say, Microsoft) could get authorization from all of them to put their release of the Linux kernel under a more restrictive license. The same thing applies to any contemplated change to GPLv3.
One of the problems that we are having with creating GPL3 is that a license is not a very effective way to solve the DRM and software patent problems. DRM and software patents are embedded in the law. When there is a conflict between the law and a license then the law takes precedence. So GPL3 does not have much maneuvering room to solve the problems that DRM and software patents cause Open Source.
I agree with Richard Stallman's efforts to put clauses in GPL3 to alleviate the DRM and software patent problems. However, I don't have much hope that these clauses will be very effective.
I think that a much more effective course of action is to try to change the laws on DRM and software patents. I think that we should lobby governments all over the world to abolish software patents. In the case of DRM I think that the DRM copyright protection should be legal but that the DRM laws should not contain clauses making it illegal to create software or hardware which can copy DRM protected material. The act of copying copyrighted material should be illegal but the act of creating a copying machine should be legal.
-----------------------
Steve Stites
The only thing I can find about keys simply states that you have to give up whatever keys are needed to install modified versions of the software.
Torvalds may feel it's a terrible infringement of TiVo's freedom not to be able to lock their hardware to specific, TiVo signed, versions of the kernel he co-develops with thousands of free software developers, but personally I remain puzzled. Arguments like "But someone might make something that only runs copies of software signed by Linus" do not make a lot of sense. If Torvalds is doing it, he needs to knock it off. If someone else does it, then they're going to have problems distributing Linux to end users anyway, as they - not Torvalds - will be in breach of the license by not making the key available. The easiest way to stay compliant is make hardware where the requirement for a key is easily enabled and disabled by the end user. Which is how it should work anyway, whether it's free software or anything else.
These changes strike me as well within the spirit of what the GPL is trying to achieve. They ensure maximum freedom for the receiver of the software. They do not grant "freedom" to restrict the freedom of others. If you object to it, the chances are you disagree with the principles that the GPL stands for anyway, and there are certainly alternative licenses, the BSD and X11 licenses being the most obvious, that will get you where you want to be.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
ARRRGHGHGHGHGHH!! If I read this once more I'll puke. Why doesn't the FSF rename itself to the Freedom Software Foundation and stop explaining it over and over and over and over and over and over...
I can explanate how to administrate your network. You must configurate and segmentate it, so it can computate.
I'm definitely no lawyer, and I sometimes have a hard time following all of the crazy language used in licenses, so please bear with me. I'm looking for correction here.. :)
As I understand it, the GPL in it's current form (v2) allows for modifications to the existing code if, and only if, that code is then posted with the same license. Correct? However, if you're using it for yourself, then there's no need to post the source unless you want to. You are limited, however, in that you cannot re-distribute it without the source.
Oh, that's all well and good. I have no major problems with that. Let's move ahead a little. Can I use a GPLed library as a dependency for my closed-source program? For instance, let's say that I write a new compression program. Instead of re-inventing the wheel, I use a gpl gui toolkit to create the front end. I have not modified the source of the toolkit at all, just used it to create my front end. Do I need to distribute the source code for everything then? I don't think this is a derivative work of the toolkit as I'm not modifying the toolkit in any way. And the compression code was created from scratch by me. So am I free to sell binaries?
How about another example. If MS actually ports Office over to Linux, do they need to open source it? Don't they need to depend on certain libraries to make everything work, or re-invent the wheel just to avoid OSS licensing?
How does v3 deal with this? Are any of these "liberties" changed? I'd love to see a concise list of things you can and cannot do using the GPLv2 and GPLv3 licenses...
XenoPhage
Technological Musings
When a any group tries to build a big and professional project for thier first release, it almost always fails. The thing to do is build a minimal functional version and then go from there. The name HURD says it all. (A Hurd of UNIX Replacement Daemons)
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
The issue in my view is different. This is not about Tivo-- they just happen to be in the crossfire.
The GPL v2 ensures that anyone else can build a more Free version of the Tivo-- one that would still appeal to the Tivo user base and still provide those who like to hack the box an ability to do so. Thus the GPL v2 makes Tivo's choice simply bad for business.
Quite frankly I don't think anyone cares what Tivo does on this matter. That is right-- nobody really cares because anyone can go out and install Tivo's kernel on other hardware platforms even if you can't use their hardware.
The real problem though is in the fear that large media companies will force users to stick with approved version on approved hardware. This is, I believe, an existential threat to open source.
I still don't like the GPL v3 for other reasons (the ability to add certain other restrictions such as source distribution to a user over a network connection by the software itself).
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
It's nice for RMS to quantify his position by saying "By Free I mean Freedom" but the end result is the same. Perhaps someone can post a time when Richard said, "Yeah, the price on this software is just right" and there is actually a dollar amount specified. The truth is, there's a need for paid software. Paid for software produces some good stuff. It's not the endall but it has a right to exist. It feeds a fundemental human need, to be compensated. Glory alone is not a system of compensation and never will be.
I understand and respect what it's trying to do, and I agree with most of the goals (though I do see possible value in some uses of DRM, and hence do not agree with that section), but I think the license as a whole needs a clean-up and simplification. It's trying to catch every visible instance where it was felt that GPLv2 failed, and in doing so may end up being too specific and limiting, unable to adapt to the needs of the development community.
In addition (and this is admittedly a bit trivial), I've heard complaints here for years about the length of Microsoft EULAs, but GPLv3 is getting up there in length, too. As a quick comparison of some common licenses:
I guess in summary, my feeling is that while GPLv2 could use some tweaks to handle some oddities, an entirely new version is not necessary. I don't think I'm alone in opining that it would be better to have seen GPLv2.1 than 3.0.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
At GPLv2 there weren't clear definitions of "modified version", "interaction", or "source code", for that matter.
And I can't see why the technical detail of using the software through a network, instead that in the same machine, should vary the intent of the GPL - which is to allow the users of a program, in any form, the freedom to tailor it to their needs and execute it in their own.
Encapsulating the program in a remote server in effectively a way to circunvect the freedom protected by GPL. Why should it be allowed by the license? How does preventing this loophole become a "stretching" of the original intent?
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
A linux operating system cannot work without a CPU.
Therefore the CPU is part of the linux operating system.
Therefore the operating systems which I use are AMD/linux and Intel/linux.
(from here)
Linus has said before that he could have used any compiler, and any userland, its just that GNU was there at the right time. A distro could be built on BSD, or an environment based on icc (yes, it compiles the kernel)
Stallman begat Emacs :-)
Emacs begat elisp
elisp begat gcc
gcc begat gnu
gnu begat hurd
hurd has a growth-inhibiting condition, so
gcc begat linux, and qt
qt begat kdelibs
kdelibs begat kde
kde begat kubuntu
and there was light
Any similarity with the truth is mere coincidence.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
I'm getting tired of reading about how RMS is using GPLv3 to impose his ideals on everyone. He may well believe that all software should be free, but that is most definitely not what he's trying to accomplish with the GPL. If his main goal was to make all software Free Software he'd have to do it with legal challenges on the concept of intellectual property etc.
While he may be involved in that, GPL is different. GPL doesn't attempt to overturn the status quo, it provides an alternative to it. While RMS and Lessig et al. work on the long fight to get rational patent and copyright reforms enacted, GPL provides an immediate option for people that want to develop an alternative model. It gives you the opportunity to share your code without fear that someone else will benefit from it without sharing their improvements. If you prefer to write closed code, you can still do that; nothing in the GPL prevents you from writing your own code and releasing it under any other license.
The latest additions just address a few new issues. If you think DRM is fine, and you don't care if someone modifies your code to make it effectively unmodifiable via DRM hardware, then you can continue to use GPL2 or any other license. If, however, you think that's a bad thing, you'll be able to use GPL3 and protect your code. Currently, no other license addresses this issue. But still, there's nothing in the GPL, 2 or 3, that imposes itself upon anyone. You aren't forced to use the GPL, nor are you forced to use GPL programs.
The point of the public consultation is to bring as many people on-board as possible, so that those of us who agree with the system enforced by the GPL will have the widest possible selection of projects to use/contribute to. If people would stop arguing about how irrelevant the GPL is becoming and choose to either 1)participate to make it better or 2)bugger off and use another license, maybe this would all go a little smoother.
yp.
Okay, I have to say that personally I think you're completely wrong. The GPL3 only requires that you provide the keys to anyone you distribute the software to. If you sold them the computers, or gave them away or possibly even if you rented them out for people to take away then sure that would be distribution. But that isn't the case for a net café.
However, if you really feel that the GPL3 terms could have the effect you describe then contact the FSF about it, because that's certainly not the effect they're aiming for.
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
These have some restrictions in them that many devs would find onerous, but they're much more open than the standard EULA. A license covering use of the Windows source code (they do exist) are probably much longer and use a 3-ring binder, and are somewhat unique to each company or group involved as lawyers would certainly be participating in the drafting of the license.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
How does preventing this loophole become a "stretching" of the original intent?
I have a diffrent consept of the Intent of GPLv2.
I thought it was to allow you to know what was being executed on your machine (hardware or virtual).
so if I own and run a machine I should have a right to know what is happening to that machine. and I should be able to change it to make it do what I want, on my machine.
but if I comunicate with somebody elses machine (via network) I don't need to know what will be executed on there machine. I only would like to know the protocall being used. and what response should be expected for a given input.
now as for the "loophole" that GPLv3 covers. which is interaction of GPL code running on a DRM machine. which allows you to change the GPL but not to execute it on the machine after. I remain firmly undecided.
I see the potetial afront to my freedom
however
I also see how this is maybe more of an issue of the hardware/machine licence.
I need to meditate on my belief structure much longer before I decide if I am for or against v3
--meh--
You're right that you can't link GPL3 only code to GPL2 only code. One or other author would have to dual license.
You're wrong that there couldn't be a gradual migration, at least if I understand what you mean correctly. For a gradual migration each author would have to initially dual license under version 2 and version 3 (or version 2 and any later version). Then when you reach the point where there is no longer any version 2 only code left, you release as version 3 only. In practice that would mean replacing the code of anyone not willing to make the change. If Linux is one of those people then no chance. If he isn't then it'd still be tricky.
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
You misunderstand the new version of the GPL entirely.
You don't have to share your encryption key, as long as someone without it can modify the software and have it run as normal. Your signing key is yours alone, and as long as your program will run after modification without it, you're fine. The only time you have to share such a key is if it impossible to run a modified copy of the software on the relevant hardware without that key.
No. BSD is about giving freedom to the end user. GPL about paying a price to the "creator" who calls that "freedom". BSD is end-user oriented, GPL developer oriented. It's about getting back stuff. You got it exactly the other way round. If I hand you a gift and then limit what you can do with it because I want stuff back, it's not giving total freedom. If I hand you a gift, limit what you can do with it, and call it total freedom, while at the same time creating the illusion that licenses that do give total freedom are in fact lesser in that department, then I think I just explained why so many don't like the GPL. I don't mind the GPL that it wants to control its users for the developers purposes. But it ain't freedom. I see an anagoly with freedom of speech. Real freedom of software is were you even defend that freedom even if some people do something with it that you don't like or agree with, like closing enhancements and selling it.
Close, but you still overstate when the GPL3 requires you to give people your keys. For example you can keep a private key and sign software enabling people to authenticate that it came from you or that you certify it, and you can give them the GPL software without turning over your key.
The way I'd put it is that the GPL has always required you to supply the COMPLETE source code that is needed to sucessfully compile the intended WORKING executable. Look at the Tivo case for example. What happens if Tivo themselves attempt to compile their software for its intened use, and they do not use their private key during the compilation process, and they do not embed that crypto signature in that executable? Then they themselves would be incapable of making the intended working executable. That signature is in fact a functional element of the executable, and the key is in fact a required portion of the source code for compilation.
The GPL3 simply clarifies that that key is indeed a part of the source. This is simply clarifying the origingal intent and fuction of the GPL. That either the original GPL already covers this sort of case (and simply no one has tested this issue legally), or this sort of case is an abusable loophole in the original GPL and the GPL3 simply closes that loophole.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
2 years of not getting it. Truly sad.
In an era when companies are patenting "one click" buttons, to say that the people that provide a legal framework for FOSS are doing nothing, is most disingenious, uninformed and frankly idiotic.
Some people in the IT world need to broaden the view of the issues at hand, hacking (in the good sense of the word) is not what software is all about, your right to tinker, protected by people like this "albatross" you deride so cheaply, is essential if you have any hope of challenging big companies at their own game, os simply if you want to preserve the pleasure of thinkering and sharing without receiving an stupid lawsuit.
The problem with people with vision and understanding of a situation is that they are not unifiers, they are dividers because they say the truth as they see it, but the truth always hurts, and the people harmed will obvioulsy answer back.
To say that Stallman cause contoversy is an unintended plaudit, sheppesh compliance is what kills progress. Agitators as what fuells it.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Stallman created the GPL because the radical idea of making software proprietary was beginning to become the norm, replacing the original way of doing things openly. When AT&T started licensing UNIX, a things were starting to change. Before that, the UNIX and other project source code was shared openly, but there was no formal license. So AT&T simply changed the rules. RMS realized that there needed to be a formal way to ensure that software could be explicitly declared free and the GPL became the way to do that.
So, the idea was not radical, but rather an attempt to go back to the way everything used to be done, but in a formal declared way.
Signatures are a waste of bandwi (buffering...)