Slashdot Mirror
MySQL Changes License To Avoid GPLv3
munchola writes "MySQL has quietly changed the license it uses for its database to avoid being forced to move to the forthcoming GPLv3. CBRonline is reporting that Kaj Arno, MySQL VP of community relations, revealed the license change on his blog, noting it was made 'in order to make it an option, not an obligation for the company to move to GPLv3.'"
Why not just stay with GPLV2?
"However, now, until we get clear and strong indications for the general acceptance of GPLv3 over GPLv2, we feel comfortable with a specific GPLv2 reference in our license."
How did the old "version 2 or later" cause a problem then? All this does is restrict people from applying GPLv3 terms if they want to. It doesn't help anyone.
We're going to have to do this with Adium as well. We are unable to contact some contributors to get their ok on using GPLv3, and rather than disrespect their contributions by pushing the bottom line of v3, we're going to have to keep using v2 since it's the license they submitted with.
I completely agree with this in either case. v3 is about pushing an agenda within a license from what I can tell, rather than sticking to what it is, a license. It's their license, fine, but pushing their own goals through it makes it even more restrictive to use the GPL than it already is. It's frustrating.
I have severe problems with the GPLv3 as-is; I feel they're trying to stuff a brand of morality and a system of thought down the throats of programmers who licensed their creations in good faith under the GPLv2.
Anyone who takes a step back and says "now wait a tick" to that kind of thing, I like. Maybe the GPLv3 won't be as bad as it seems, but that little "or any later version" clause is one that simply should not be included for projects of any magnitude.
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
And they recently stopped putting the newest versions of MySQL on the website community download page, too. (5.0.27 on the DL page versus 5.0.30 on the FTP server) Time to fork?
I think it's possible you have no idea what free software is about. You seem to have a grasp of free as in free beer, but not free as in freedom. Saying "maybe here is the source and don't sell without my permission" has nothing to do with free software.
I understand your sentiment. But the rigid approach does have some merit. Does SCO ring a bell?
That's it, I've had it! I'm switching to SQL Server!
"has become"? Maybe you should do some research find out what Free Software means and has meant for as long as the term has existed... What you are suggesting is not even close to the definition pretty much everyone else uses.
The GPL has always been about promoting the agenda and goals of the Free Software Foundation. Yes, it's "just" a license. Licenses are always about furthering goals. Do you think Microsoft doesn't have an agenda and goals with their licenses?
I'm not sure from your description what the problem is with your project. If people had previously submitted code under GPLv2 only, then I would think most of the code would have to be GPLv2 only, so no change would be necessary? Is it possible to mix "GPLv2 and later" and "GPLv2 only"?
Let me see.... So, they're changing the licence from now on. But I can still download a GPLv2-and-later licenced one that just isn't the latest version.
So, are they planning on adding features that will be incompatible with GPLv3?
You're absolutely right that what has been done can be lost. Lost to companies that use DRM and patents to take away our freedom. "Tivoization" is just a proof-of-concept. Without GPLv3, companies will start exploiting loopholes like that more and more, until one day people realize it really can be taken away.
Given the GPLv3 (however it's written) cannot reduce the liberty provided by the GPLv2, one can only imagine that those who cross out "or later" are fearful that the public may be given more liberty by the GPLv3 than they'd prefer them to have.
What kind of liberties are there to be afraid of?
The GPLv3 can only restore the liberties suspended by copyright, patents, and the DMCA. It cannot grant any additional liberties, e.g. to inspect the publisher's premises, or to sleep with its CEO's daughter, etc.
From GPLv3 draft 2: "(For instance, if the work is a DVD player and can play certain DVDs, it must be possible for modified versions to play those DVDs. If the work communicates with an online service, it must be possible for modified versions to communicate with the same online service in the same way such that the service cannot distinguish.)"
bad idea. this means when BluRay comes out, someone cannot take existing DVD-based GPL code and mod it to work with BluRay if it won't also work with DVD.
"This License permits you to make and run privately modified versions of the Program, or have others make and run them on your behalf. However, this permission terminates, as to all such versions, if you bring suit against anyone for patent infringement of any of your essential patent claims in any such version, for making, using, selling or otherwise conveying a work based on the Program in compliance with this License."
i never like the wording of this one this one. (a) "if you bring suit" is not the same as "if you win the suit". and (b) why would a patent suit end said permission? if the patent suit is in one country, development could then just move to another country under which the original patent has no jurisdiction. basically, i'm not in agreement with patent suits winning in ANY case where the patent owner has only created a design but no implementation. if the inventor of an idea does not plan on implementation him/herself in a reasonable time, it is HINDERING THE WORLD to let them have a patent, because all they have done is lock up an idea from being developed. if they want to start a business and implement their idea, however, great.
I'm not interested in making money, and you can't do it either.
The GPL doesn't forbid you from making money. Mod parent Troll.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
No. I'm still going to release everything I do under the GPL, just to annoy BSD fanboys like you.
Just because right now I'm not making money from most of the the software I release under the GPL, doesn't mean that I may not choose to try and do so in the future. If I'm short sighted about it and release my software under the BSDL now only to find that when I do decide I'd like to commercialise my software that someone else is already doing so, I will have shot myself in the foot. Using the GPL doesn't stop this happening as such, but it does place me back on a level playing field with whoever else is commercialising my software.
Of course those people who do release their software under the BSDL are welcome to do so, and I say fair play to them. They're obviously happy to do that. I am not (For the most part)
You are right he has no idea, but the point I would like to have taken seriously is his question:
I mean a lot of people I spoke with seem to have the perception of the FOSS movement as a group of pedants and sticklers for the letter of the law, who have gotten entangled in sophistry and formalistics struggles over nuances of formulations.
I understand that all that is necessary as soon as enough money is involved, but I also see part of the strength of the movement (don't really like that word) going down the drain with that.
No solution from my side, though.
"Hannibal's plans never work right. They just work." Amy/A-Team
Can I get the source of a software which is licensed GPL2 only, make changes to it and release it as GPL3? Second question: How about the other way round?
Sent from my desktop computer
If they submitted it under a GPLv2 Only license then what's the problem? If you retroactively change all the code to GPLv2 Only you still have to ask all of them, simply assuming that is what they want is more presumptuous than simply allowing what the license says ad verbatim. In fact, it is an additional restriction which you can not legally apply.
Kaj Arno, MySQL VP of community relations, revealed the license change on his blog, on December 22, noting that the license for MySQL 5.0 and 5.1 had changed from "GPLv2 or later" to "GPLv2 only". As he explained, this was "in order to make it an option, not an obligation for the company to move to GPLv3".
To be more clear, what they have done was **take away the option** for other people to distribute the code under a GPL version higher than GPL2. Under the old wording, the company has no obligation to distribute their code under GPL3, even after GPL3 is released.
MySQL AB could continue distributing the code under GPL2 and leave others with the option of distributing their derivatives of it under GPL3. So their concern is what **other people** might do with their code, and has nothing to do with MySQL AB being forced to do anything.
What they are actually concerned with is a forking of their project by a group of developers who prefer GPL3 over GPL2. Anyone so inclined could still create such a fork using a version of MySQL distributed under the old wording (including the most recent current versions, if they received the code under the old license). They just wouldn't be able to use any code from MySQL that came after the license change. It would have to be a clean break, with no sharing of code after the license change.
okay ? now the interesting stuff: the FSF is just trying to keep up with teh evil(tm).
honestly, which responsible developer of GPLed software could like "tivoisation" ? if you program a software that is for everyone free to modify and some company uses it on their devices (that is like
or the novell-m$ contract: with GPLv3 that would be explicitly outlawed. and no one except novell, m$ and their customers could want such a contract - i am not even sure if their customers could want it.
after that, what is your problem with GPLv3 ?
they are just changing the wording, not the intent. Anyone who takes a step back and says "now wait a tick" to that kind of thing, I like. Maybe the GPLv3 won't be as bad as it seems, but that little "or any later version" clause is one that simply should not be included for projects of any magnitude. exactly that is the point: "maybe GPLv3 wont be as bad as it seems". by removing the "or-any-later"-clause, they hinder anyone to try it. that is the point. of course, mysql is written by a company, so its not so bad - they have the copyright, they could make it GPLv3 whenever they want. but OTOH meaningful "community" projects like the linux kernel can never make it to GPLv3, even if later on it is clearly that GPLv2 has a huge loophole. that is the danger that lies in removing the "or-any-later"-clause.
As for the danger of GPL subversion, it is clear and present: RMS could and would insert "As oversight authority, the FSF is party to this licence and may sue for enforcment" [@11 ur baze b3l0ng 2me]
"MySQL has quietly changed the license it uses... VP of community relations, revealed the license change on his blog..."
How does the VP of community relations announcing it on his blog qualify as 'quietly changing'? What do you want them to do, throw a bloody parade? Not everything is a secret plot to destroy OSS.
It gives more freedom to the code.
No, it gives the FSF a blank check, blank checks are not a good idea. You are *assuming* that future versions of the GPL uphold the rights you currently support and avoids overly restrictive requirements you do not support. You have no such guarantee with the "or later" wording, and you have little negotiating room when future licenses are developed. Basically if you only use a specific license you have bargaining power, you have rights.
What you, and a lot of other slashdot readers, fail to realize is free software to most (most meaning non-nerds) people means just that. Basically closer to the BSD license. Free software to most people isnt a mindset or philosophy.
I think the answer is "no," we haven't gone too far. There are dangers to software freedom from DRM and patents (and to a lesser extent, copyright), and the GPLv3 is intended to address this.
To the people who think it is all some radical overreach, consider how radical the original vision of free software appeared and how accepted it is now (in the form of GPLv2). It's not surprising that the same kinds of opposition appear when bringing the license up to date.
I'm not sure you can change your license from "v2 or later" to "v2 only" without permission. If you accepted contributions to a project under a "v2 or later" license, then your contributors were placing their code under *that* license, and a change to a "v2 only" license would constitute releasing contributors' code under a license they didn't approve.
MySQL AB doesn't have the same issue because they own the copyright on all of their code (i.e. they don't accept contributions unless the copyright is assigned to them). They do that so that they can dual-license their code, but it has the effect of allowing them to change their licensing terms at will.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Effectively, it does. You can still sell one copy of your software, but after that, the person who you sold it to can distribute it freely.
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
While sticking with V2 is the right thing to dor for Adium, you may be ignoring the critical loophole in V2 that they are attempting to close.
Tivo has abused V2 in a novel way that privatizes their software. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization Tivo is just the beginning of V2 abuse. (novell/microsoft anyone?) What happens when Trusted Computing is fully implemented? Tivo on a massive scale.
I'm saying this agenda benefits everyone tomorrow rather than sticking with V2 where the public benefits will come to an end through clever manipulations of GPL V2.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
I think I do realize that. That's why we need to talk about it and help people learn what software freedom is and why it's important. I answered the way I did because the original commenter seemed to be speaking as if they also understood, when they clearly did not. (Of course, I didn't take the time to be particularly helpful in explaining the concepts involved.)
IANAL, but it would seem to me that given a program consisting of two modules, one GPLv2+ and one GPLv2-only, the result would be distributable only under GPLv2.
Distribution under the terms of GPLv2 would satisfy the licensing requirements of both modules, but distribution under the terms of GPLv3 would violate the license of the v2-only module. The GPLv2+ module could be used as part of another program distributed according to the terms of GPLv3.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
People understand what you mean by free software, they just do not care. Repeating it makes no more difference to them than when a vegan tells someone that eats honey that it's wrong.
How did the old "version 2 or later" cause a problem then? All this does is restrict people from applying GPLv3 terms if they want to. It doesn't help anyone.
Removing "or later" protects an author's rights, it makes sure that the terms of the license matches their goals, the goals GPL v2 embodied. "Or later" is a blank check, author's have no guarantee that the license will not go in an undesirable direction and embrace ideas they do not support. Removing "or later" also provides balance, it gives some negotiating power to author's when it comes time to develop that new version of the license.
How many times will the community be screwed by license chicanery before before you wise up: Tivo, Open Group X, XFree86/Xorg debocle, GIF, the Java Trap, Bitkeeper... Early GPL versions obviously assumed too much about reasonable community behavior. GPL v3 simply makes an attempt to spell things out more completely.
an ill wind that blows no good
Yes, just like how Madriva caused the collapse of Redhat. Of course neither can we forget how MySQL AG were forced into bankruptcy, can we?
Oh wait, none of that has happened. Seems you're full of shit.
Red Hat seems to be making money just fine, thanks.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
They wanted to get around that ugly part of the GPL that says "and when GPL v3 comes out, this software must be distributed according to its terms."
Unfortunately, I can't quite find it anywhere in the license, though everyone keeps complaining about it...
Pushing an agenda? It seems to me that GPL v3 is designed top prevent companies from pushing their own agenda and over the spirit of the GPL.
It's actually pretty simple. If Adium received all its contributions under the license terms of "GPL v2 or later" then they've already been given explicit permission to use GPL v3; if Adium did not receive all its contributions under the license terms of "GPL v2 or later" then they themselves have been violating the licenses under which they received those contributions by re-distributing them in the past tagged with license terms of "GPL v2 or later".
If Adium genuinely believes they are only now realizing that the contributions under discussion were not licensed for "GPL v2 or later" the least good faith effort Adium could do to correct the damage they've done to those contributors is to remove from distribution of all prior copies that they now realize were marked with unauthorized license terms.
After all, that's what is usually asked of any other distributor caught acting in violation of some code's GPL-terms license.
Shame really, as the application looks quite nice.
We develop database apps for small local govts and migrated away from MySQL to Postgres exactly because of all the licensing wierdness going on with MySQL and its various backend data storage engines. Its future has just become too unpredicatable and uncertain anymore. Such a shame, because it is such a lightweight and nimble database. Too bad the MySQL organization seems to be headed down a path to crumbling apart.
first, you cannot enumerate freedoms. you cannot simply add them or substract them.
caption obvious calls bullshit for this one.
second, there are several positions - something that many ppl do not grasp:
one position is: here is the code, do whatever you want. kill puppies with it, make it proprietary but DO NOT REMOVE TEH COPYRIGHT. like BSD, this says, that freedom extends even to the freedom to withhold the code from others.
the second is: here is the code, do whatever you want, but DAMN YOU WONT'T REMOVE TEH FREEDOMS. like GPL, this says, that in order to ensure freedom, some sacrifices must be made - so the freedom to withold GPL source form those who got the binaries is outright killed, so that other freedoms can be preserved.
now compare this to the "weimar republic" (germany before WWII). there was a democracy, but even its enemies were allowed to form parties and get onto the ballot - hitler was democratically elected. so there were freedoms, but freedom-hating fascists could easily use them to abolish them.
[poster invokes godwin's law, covers and ducks.]
p.s.: nowadays, in germany, parties that are against democracy can be banned. sometimes history teaches lessons.
Once you have that situation, the release under v3 does not 'trump' or efface the release under v2; it is just an additional license possibility.
In the case we're discussing, anybody who picks up the code to reuse it can choose to either release the result under "v2 only" or under "v2 or later". In the the first case, they're picking up the "v2" option of the initial package. Remember, the initial package is still out there in the ether, available under v2, v3, v4,
Note that this reading relies heavily on the use of the word OR in "... or later". It provides the choice to the person receiving the code as to which license they'll accept. If the original stipulation said "v2 AND any later version", we'd be in the sort of "v3 trumps v2" situation everyone seems to be worrying about - but if these issues ever came to trial, I seriously doubt any judge would accept as valid a release under a license that did not yet exist at the time the license was granted. (IANAL).
Read the best of all of Slash: seenonslash.com
The GPL has always had an agenda: "To guarantee the freedom to share and change free software".
GPL3 has more restrictions than GPL2 but the agenda has not changed as far as I can tell.
I've looked at the GPL3 draft and every additional restriction does seem to better promote that agenda than GPLv2 (against real threats or current uses of the GPL not in line with the stated purpose). I suspect a lot of the people complaining about GPLv3 actually liked or even relied on some of the holes in GPLv2, that were working against it's stated purpose.
We are unable to contact some contributors to get their ok on using GPLv3,
AFAIK, the GPLv3 is backwards compatible with GPLv2, so you can move part of the files to GPLv3 and leave the rest under GPLv2. As a result, effectively, the entire work would be under GPLv3, even though some source files are still under GPLv2.
and rather than disrespect their contributions by pushing the bottom line of v3, we're going to have to keep using v2
You don't have to do that; you're merely rationalizing your own agenda.
v3 is about pushing an agenda within a license from what I can tell, rather than sticking to what it is, a license. It's their license, fine, but pushing their own goals through
"Their goals" and "their agenda" is simply to keep the source code that's published under the GPL open, free, and available. The GPLv2 had some bugs in that regard (vis Novell/Microsoft deal, Tivo, etc.), and the GPLv3 attempts to fix those bugs as best it can. Their goals and their agenda has not changed one bit; if you don't like it with GPLv3, you shouldn't have picked GPLv2, with or without the "or later" clause.
By distancing yourself from those goals, one has to conclude that it isn't your goal to keep Adium source code open, free, and available. So, for example, it wouldn't apparently bother you if Apple or Microsoft or some Chinese manufacturer takes your source code and distributes the binary without distributing usable source along with it, or if Microsoft slips in a piece of patented code (through an intermediary) and then a couple of years later demands licensing fees from anybody other than Novell customers, because that's what the bugs in the GPLv2 amount to.
Why aren't you being honest then and switch from GPLv2 (which gives the appearance of preserving those freedoms but can't quite do it because of bugs) to the BSD license (which explicitly doesn't preserve those freedoms)?
I totally agree with you, for this part of criticism explaining over and over again and time do a good job.
But my personal problem are more non-techie people who generally agree with the idea of free software and do not think of it as too redical BUT do not understand the quibbling about GPLv2 vs GPLv3. (And comparable stuff.)
They think mostly that the legal/formalistic aspect rather than the goal is overreached. This part of my friends thinks that the goal has already come out of sight when they see how much energy is invested in v2 vs v3 fights and I must confess I normally change subject at that part of conversation.
"Hannibal's plans never work right. They just work." Amy/A-Team
I'm laughing right along with you.
It's difficult to overstate how strong the ramifications of that "or any later version" clause are. For all intents and purposes, including that clause when you license your code is the next best thing to assigning copyright of your code to the FSF, since it allows them to re-license your code as they see fit.
Of course, the FSF likes you to assign copyright to them anyway, but failing that, they booby-trapped the license with language which most people have not been aware enough to question. Some true believers like to respond to that with "but I trust the FSF", but that's nonsense: how can you trust an organization that doesn't exist yet, i.e. the future FSF. What happens when Stallman dies, for example?
The fact that the FSF recommended this language is, to me, an example of overzealousness which the FSF should be ashamed of. We see these sorts of tactics used by politicians and legislators all the time. It's disappointing to see an organization like the FSF, which seems to be founded on some real principles rather than "let's see who can grab the most power", stoop to these levels to promote their agenda.
No doubt FSF members and fans would justify this language on a kind of "means justifies the ends" basis. But the problem is that the language in question represents a centralization of power with no real checks or balances. No moral organization should want such a thing.
More than that. It's the language that typically accompanies the copyright statement, and is the formal indication of the license granted by the copyright holder. The recipient can choose which set of rules they redistribute under, but I'm not at all sure they can change the actual license chosen by the copyright holder.
To be clear, If write a program and license it under v2+, I think you can:
What I think you cannot do at all, though, is change the license selection in my copyright statement to say "v3", or "v2", or anything at all other than "v2+".
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I'm going to say this in the nicest way possible:
Fuck you and your sense of entitlement.
RMS seems to think you can enumerate freedoms ... he has the zero'th, first, second and third freedoms. www.gnu.org right there on the front page. Three strikes (plus a zero'th) and you, my trollish friend, are out.
I'm sorry, but I agree with Linus here, this is not abuse.
In fact, you could argue it is a security measure, a liability limiting measure, heck even a safety measure.
If some company implemented some hardware that runs in a critical area of some system (say, an airplane's fly by wire system) and just allowed any software whatsoever to run on it, and someone put new software on it, many people could be injured or killed very easily. To me, it is perfectly fine for the company to ensure that the software running on that system is qualified by them, both to help ensure safety and also to limit their own liability.
A bit offtopic, but since this topic is about the GPL I thought I might be able to get some more information from here.
Could anyone point me to a good resource/site where I could ask some specific questions about the (commercial) use of GPL-ed code (more specifically the Quake 3 engine source), as the GNU/GPL site doesn't offer me all my answers I am looking for; And when I contacted them by email with those specific questions, they referred me to talk to a lawyer specialised in this (which I am currently not able to do moneywise).
I -did- do some Google-searches for it, but most came up empty.
I've been waiting some time for a GPL-topic to come up on Slashdot, so I could pose this question: So here I hope someone is able to point me in the right direction.:)
Thanks in advance, and any help is appreciated.
I'm afraid I don't understand. Why would they be forced to migrate to GPLv3 if they stayed with GPLv2? Why couldn't they simply remain on GPLv2? What would force them to change?
Unfortunately, people who would proprietize Free code make this stickling over the law necessary. It would be great to say, "Here's my code; do whatever you want with it as long as the changes are Free," but then people try to exploit loopholes, as in, "I didn't really change the code, so blah blah blah..."
In other words, if people would follow the spirit of the license, then we wouldn't have to be so nitpicky about defining and enforcing the letter.
FTFA: MySQL has today refined its licensing scheme from "GPLv2 or later" to "GPLv2 only", in order to make it an option, not an obligation for the company to move to GPLv3.
Doesn't this specificaly prevent them from using GPLv3 as an option in the future? I mean only means only right.
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
The section:
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.
is NOT part of the license, it is instructions for the license to the copyright holder. When it says (at your option) it is at the option of the copyright holder to automatically apply future versions. A licensee cannot make this choice, despite there being some text in the file saying "at your option". Because legally that text is not addressed to the licensee.
You can read for yourself if you don't believe me.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
The FSF has contractual obligation to me, and I guess thousands of other contributors, that limit what they can do to with the GPL. When you donate software to the FSF, you get a signed contract back stipulating what they can do with it. It obviously leaves some freedom to the FSF (as seen with GPL3), but it is not a blank check.
Consider the Linux kernel. They now cannot use any license other than GPLv2.
Now, consider the Gentoo project. As far as I know, every single ebuild is copyrighted the "Gentoo Foundation". That means they can relicense it to anything they want, at any time.
If I were to keep all the rights to all my code -- and any contributions to it -- I'd certainly be happy with saying GPLv2 only, until I'm convinced I like GPLv3. Otherwise, if it's something like Linux, where every contributor owns the rights to their own code, "or later" makes sense in that it gives someone the authority to change it later, and the FSF is certainly not the worst organization you could trust with that authority.
All things considered, I'd rather own my own stuff, but realistically, you need to be able to change the license somehow -- the GPLv2 will eventually have to be replaced. People will find loopholes -- hell, they already have, with TiVo, but maybe the next loophole will be one you care about. So, unless you can have an individual or an organization own all the rights to a given piece of software, your only way to ever change the license is that "or later" clause.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
You don't have to keep to using GPLv2. And if your contributors submitted using the standard verbiage, then they explicitly allow you to use later versions of the GPL at your option. That's what the standard verbiage does: it allows anyone to apply the current version of the GPL, or a later one if said person wishes.
It makes absolutely perfect sense, for MySQL. By staying with GPL2 they can pursue Software Patent claims against GPL3 projects.
Sort of like how Microsoft can now fork a Linux distribution via Novell, and still retain the right to pursue Patent Lawsuits against other Open Source projects.
I have no idea if this is actually MySQL's intention. But given how closely they've worked with SCO, I wouldn't put it past them.
I agree with others here -- even if it's legally OK for you to do that, if they released their code under v2 or later, then they have to be OK with it. You'll have to decide for yourself whether you want v3 or not -- and I'd suggest you either wait for v3 to be released, or make yourself a part of the v3 process. They have a public site where they're holding all their discussions.
And v2 wasn't an "agenda"? Every license has an agenda, even no license (public domain) is its own agenda. You may not agree with what the FSF is trying to do here, but if so, have the balls to say that, and why you disagree. Don't hide behind "It's an agenda" and "We can't because we want to respect these developers we've lost touch with."
By the way, if you read the FSF's philosophy pages, v2's agenda is identical to v3's, and indeed, identical to v1's. That agenda is, anywhere someone can get a copy of your software running, they should be able to see and modify the source code, and run that. The only difference is, v2 had some loopholes that v3 doesn't. You may like these loopholes, but that doesn't change what they are -- bugs in the license.
If that isn't what you intended, I'm curious as to why you didn't go with a BSD license.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
All of the GPL licenses have been about pushing an agenda with a license. Personally, I think the new license is generally clearer and easier to work with. It makes it much easier for non-GPL free software and GPL free software to be able to play together.
You are trying to push an agenda with your license too. It's an anti-GPLv3 agenda. So you're complaint about the GPLv3 is somewhat silly. If there's something a little more specific you'd like to complain about, please do. I would really hate to have to give up on using a nice piece of software like Adium.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
It is abuse. It is until they give me, the person who purchased their hardware the ability to change what software it runs. It's my hardware. They don't own it any longer. They should have no right whatsoever to tell me what I can and can't run on it. None at all.
Do you think any airline in their right mind would buy an airplane that they were told they couldn't take apart or fix the software of? What happens when the airplane manufacturer goes out of business?
Sure, hardware keys are darned useful for security, and I think they ought to be allowed. But not letting me change them when I own the device is tantamount to stealing the device back from me after I purchased it. It's my piece of hardware darn it. If you don't want to sell it to me, don't. But don't sell it to me then tell me it really isn't mind afterwards.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
I don't understand the reason why so many people are shying away from GPL3. To me it seems a pretty logical upgrade to GPL2 and makes it even harder for businesses to openly thwart the spirit of free software. To be honest, I've always been annoyed by the fuss made over licenses.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
If some company implemented some hardware that runs in a critical area of some system (say, an airplane's fly by wire system) and just allowed any software whatsoever to run on it, and someone put new software on it, many people could be injured or killed very easily. To me, it is perfectly fine for the company to ensure that the software running on that system is qualified by them, both to help ensure safety and also to limit their own liability.
This is the same kind of "what about voting machines/what about medical equipment." None of this protection is ruled out by the use of the GPL v3... and if you bothered to follow the reasoning and discussions that have happened around the GPL v3, you would know that the GPL v3 IS NOT INTENDED TO STOP THAT KIND OF USE.
It's only the idiots who are spreading this shit around.
Mainly off of someone *elses* work (though I must say Redhat has contributed quite a bit) who doesn't get to see a dime (which basically illustrages the previous posters point). Are they funneling any cash back to the guy who contributed lines to the systat package who would like some cash too? I've been using Redhat for years and a fedora user, but one must be truthful in that the argument you give is pretty hollow.
Why would an airline allow anyone to install arbitrary, uncertified software on mission-critical hardware? And why would the vendor of that hardware have any interest in preventing the airline from installing whatever software they want?
But,really, that's all beside the point because GPLv3 would not prevent the hardware vendor from implementing cryptographic signature checking that ensures that only authorized code is placed on that device -- GPLv3 would only require that the vendor give the signing key to the airline that bought the hardware or, more realistically, allow the airline to use their own keys. That way, random attackers can't install random software on the hardware, and the legitimate buyer of the hardware can do whatever they want with it.
In short, your scenario has absolutely nothing to do with GPLv3. GPLv3 wouldn't disallow the benefits of code signing for safety-critical applications, and there's no realistic scenario under which the legitimate owner of safety-critical hardware should be denied permission to modify it by the license (other contracts, or even government regulations, may well deny them permission to do so, but that's a separate issue).
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
To the extent that certain radicals in the open source movement are willing to make changes in the GPL license and to the extent they are successful in pushing these changes into important open source projects licensing, both today (with GPL v3)...and tomorrow (with GPL v10), this adds risk to businesses and individuals that choose to adopt these open source projects. I commonly hear on slashdot that the various open source projects' very "openness" represents a very important form of insurance for its users. The assumption is that, unlike with a closed-source project, the death, bankruptsy, disengagement, or arising conflict of interest of the developer is theoretically unimportant because you can always pickup where they left off with your copy of the code.
This, of course, assumes that the source code in and of itself is sufficiently usable to the individual and other malcontents. The reality is that many people who have already adopted the platform may not have the practical ability to make their own changes when necessary (e.g., it may be too costly, to time intensive, etc) and that there may not be a sufficient credible mass behind any one forked project to make the alternative viable. Sure, the open source project may have a greater chance of recovering from a disruptive event with the developers. On the other hand, most successful closed source software has a very concrete incentive to please their customers (excepting, perhaps, the most arrogant monopolist) and they typically do not want to alienate significant groups of their customers. I'm not so sure the same can be said for many open source projects. Idealogy, for better or for worse, motivates many of its followers (but not all, esp. Linus).
Yesterday the target was applications that link-to/depend on GPL code (e.g., libraries). Today the target du jour is DRM. Tomorrow, what if the next target is the production or support of any copyrighted material (applications, music, literary works, etc) that is not GNU's idea of "open"? How many companies and individuals might be impacted by such license terms? I'm not saying that this is planned... The point, however, is that most open source users have no way of knowing what is around the corner with respect to licensing (nor should they feel the need constantly take the pulse of its philosophical leaders).
Sometimes predictability and stability are greater virtues than any group's ideas of improvement (whims).
And before this is dismissed as merely theoretical or scaremongering... Let me just say that I do feel a little burned by GPL v2. More specifically (ironically) with MySQL's adoption of it to support their licensing scheme. What, with GPL v1, would have been an attractive platform for me to do development work with, as a closed-source developer, is now not so attractive (and would have been disasterous if I commited before this change). Today I have the choice, in essense, to either pay MySQL for their commercial license (so that I can retain rights to my code) or I can GPL it (something which I find entirely unacceptable for my business model). I don't begrudge MySQL's right to make a profit off of their work, but now I'm exposed to their continued commercial licensing and their continued operations where before I would not have been. That price may be reasonable right now though one cannot, for instance, simply visit their page to obtain even a rough estimate of price (one must call and negotiate a price)... so many of the arguments for how open source speeds development start to fly out the window. Some large percentage of open source developers may believe that I should never be able to profit from an open source effort with closed-source code, but those were not the licensing terms of GPL v1 -- GPL v2 was a significant departure. Had I invested time and energy into implementing MySQL at GPL v1 I may have been in trouble. How is one to know what the future might bring? Even if I find MySQL's new terms perfectly acce
I believe OP's contention was that the point of the GPL is that the person doing the actual work decides that they don't need to be paid for doing that work, and that they insist that no one else should make money from their work, either. It's not.
Granted, releasing your source code with a BSD license probably makes it a lot easier for others to profit from your work, as they don't have to compete with people who want to take the changes they add on to your work and undercut you on price, but neither license has anything to do with the right of a third party to try to make money; the difference is in whether the new not-free-as-in-beer software must remain Open Source.
If you don't want anyone profiting from your work, you don't GPL it, you use a license that forbids commercial use.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
That's all true, but claiming that they would otherwise have been "forced" to GPLV3 as the article says is nonsense.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
1. The device is protected from third party tampering, you get support.
2. The device is open, hardware issues are covered, any other problems and you are on your own.
Everyone who buys Wild Hunt will receive 16 specially prepared DLCs absolutely for free, regardless of platform.
Let's assume there is a software glitch which reverses the steering input for flight control. Now the plane is headed straight into the ground....
After investigating it is believed that the pilot control system malfunctioned, unfortunately all the chips holding the code burned up and the airline will not admit that they "customized" the code.
Who do you think the relatives will go after if they find out that there was a software glitch?
Everyone who buys Wild Hunt will receive 16 specially prepared DLCs absolutely for free, regardless of platform.
In any event, you can see my longer thread on the matter.
I believe that changing licenses on users midstream is the greater threat to users and, perhaps, to the movement itself (by alienating its users). Rather than re-typing or pasting everything again, you can read my prior comment on this article.
Well said, and it applies to the law in general.
GPLv3 does not prevent hardware warranty verification. If the unit throws up some kind of prominent notice upon modified software being installed (provided the owner of the device can still do so.) that the warranty is no longer under effect then the GPLv3 doesn't prevent that. In short, you can still still use hardware verification as a justification to not offer support but don't tell me what I can run on the hardware. Stallman has explicitly that the GPLv3 will not prevent such verification. The GPLv2 relied on an implicit assumption that the user could at run (or attempt to run) modified software. Since games are being played with hardware to prevent modified v2 software from running, the implicit assumption had to be made explicit.
"I mean a lot of people I spoke with seem to have the perception of the FOSS movement as a group of pedants and sticklers for the letter of the law"
Oh yes and the business world never are sticklers for the law. I hear they don't even hire lawyers!
evil is as evil does
They can simply void the battery if you modify the code. That's the case with most hardware these days, if you open the case the warranty is void.
Thanks for sticking up for them though, I am sure they are grateful, they can now cut down on their PR budget now that you are on the case.
evil is as evil does
How would anyone be *forced* to use the GPLv3? There was nothing wrong with the original GPL, and there is nothing to stop someone from using it. There is certainly nothing to force a person to change his license from the original GPL to anything else.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Well open source in and of itself is a radical thing. I for one am proud of it's radical heritage and it's radical future.
On another note your irritation is a powerful testemant to the power of open source and to the quality of the GPLed code on the market. Open source was intended to prevent you (proprietary software developer) form locking me (the people who use the software) out of the source code. It's designed to help me first and foremost and the fact that you are pissed at it means it's working.
I presume you know that if you write your own software then the GPL does not effect you are all but the good quality GPLed code out there is calling you like a siren. Taunting you by showing you how feeble your efforts are compared to it. Tempting you to steal it instead of writing your own code and then frustrating you by making you play nice if you decide to use it.
Your post is a powerful testimony for how great and effective the GPL is. Thanks for that.
"How is one to know what the future brings in the land of open source -- especially when the stated goals (even if not the current licensing terms) of many is to eliminate the ownership of almost any idea?"
How is one to know that your goals are not to rape nine year old girls in the ass while stuffing their face full of your freshly extruded excrement? There is no way to know the future is there?
evil is as evil does
In any event, you can read my longer post on this article (a related topic).
I agree with you. Don't mind the astroturfing RMS losers religious crusade. I'm hoping for a GPL that avoids the silly v3 agenda, puts RMS in his place, and gets back to what makes the GPL great.
Yeah, selling support on other people's work. That isn't nearly the same as selling a product.
"No. I'm still going to release everything I do under the GPL, just to annoy BSD fanboys like you."
I'm not a BSD fanboy, even though it's a better license. Just think of me more as a GPL hater.
"Using the GPL doesn't stop this happening as such, but it does place me back on a level playing field with whoever else is commercialising my software."
So, basically the GPL is a big warning to anybody looking to commercialize software that "look out, anybody else can come along an fork this out from under you"?? That's a great incentive.
Again, many of its contributors may not share this same idea. If I create a closed-source application that merely links to a GPL library (not modifies it) so that I can interface with the platform, I fail to see how you can argue that I am "taking" code from you. This philosophy is a little contradictory to say the least. Furthermore, the point is that this was not part of GPL v1 -- so where is the "design"? Where is the document that I can read? What if the next part of the "design" is that any data contained within an GPL database must also be disclosed?
It is testament to the fact that reasonable people, such as myself, see the value in sharing some code (like in the case of Linux and other such common platforms). In this specific instance, the attraction is not to have to write my own data storage engine. MySQL was attractive because: of its nominal price, the (falsely) perceived stability (of the project/on-going support), and potentially its future scalability (long term plans). [Not because it is the best product on the market for technical merits -- MSSQL and Oracle are superior in many ways]. However, the actual price imposed on me as a developer, due to future threats imposed by zealots like yourself (if MySQL shows signs of caving at least), will likely force me to choose Postgresql or a commercial engine -- which, at the end of the day, are likely to be appreciably superior. And, as a side note, I will likely avoid making any GPL code contributions in the future, in favor of artistic-style licenses or just keeping it closed, as the GPL crowd is turning increasingly radical and away from pragmatic concerns. If I make a contribution under a particular licensing scheme, I want that licensing scheme to remain largely the same or, at the very least, evolve in a predictable and pragmatic direction.
This issue is much broader than just my rights as a developer with commercial interests. When opensource zealots can't restrain themselves from muddling with the licensing of existing and critical projects. Even if these purges just limit themselves to anything directly relating to copyright, patents, trade-secret, etc -- many more people, companies, and applications may find themselves at the other end of this unpredictable and constantly changing license.
Caveat Emptor.... or, as saying goes (paraphrased)...
"First they came for them, then they came for me"
I'd like to see the Tivo guys put a sticker somewhere inside the unit that says 'warranty void if removed', and under that sticker have a one-way switching mechanism that a user could engage to accept the responsibility for running unauthorized kernels, which would disengage that feature of the 'BIOS'. The absence of such an opt-out mechanism is probably a deal-breaker for many potential buyers.
So use Myth TV instead. You can even contribute some of Tivo's modifications to the project if you like.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
You don't have to contact anyone as long as you don't change the clause from "GPLv2 or later". So I must understand that you don't like the "or later" clause, and it has nothing to do with what the commiters you cannot contact maybe had in mind. This is certainly understandable (after all Linus had the same fears you have now) and you can surely do it. It's your choice.
Personally, I would advise you to look thoroughly at the draft of GPLv3 and see whether you really wouldn't like your code to fall under that license too (via the "GPLv2 or later" clause you already have). This first because GPLv3 if just a bug-fixed version of GPLv2 so many consider it better. Second, because you are not in the same position as MySQL, and don't have all the options they have. MySQL is owning the copyright for the code, directly or indirectly (via copyright waiving), so they can change their license any day of the week without any legal trouble. On the other hand, once you decide to go "GPLv2 only", if afterwards you don't ask all your commiters to wave copyright you are basically stuck with "GPLv2 only" FOREVER. This is basically what Linus did for Linux a long time ago and many people currently think that it was a mistake (even more if OpenSolaris ever gets released under the GPLv3 and gets full support from the FSF and large distributions like Debian). The "or later" clause provides more flexibility, more choice, in situations like yours (that's why it was devised in the first place, to stimulate choice not to inhibit it), but if you if you are willing to give away this flexibility for the sake of having ONE license, then at least read the GPLv3 and make sure you don't like it more than GPLv2. This because going "GPLv3 only" is also an option you will soon have.
If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough. (Alan Kay)
If I write a kernel driver and it gets incorporated into the official Linux source tree, and I don't explicitly release copyright of it to the Linux kernel project, then they need to talk to me before changing the license on that code. But if I license it under the GPLv2 and allow the clause that the code may be distributed under "any future version of the GPL", then they could switch to GPLv3 without having to get my permission again.
GPLv3 is considered problematic at this point because of a few things the FSF is trying to do with the new license. They're seeking to prevent people from exploiting GPL code in ways that still manage to lock out user control (Tivo is the typical example - they provide the source for the GPL code they're using, but you can't change the firmware on a Tivo yourself because they have hardware that requires crypto signatures on the installed software) and they're seeking to limit the ways software patents can affect free software. (For instance, you can't write a piece of code, release under the GPL, and restrict people's access to that with software patents. I think they're also looking to prevent people from using a piece of GPL software and simultaneously attacking others' use of it with software patents.) Various people have various problems with these clauses - and while I appreciate what they're trying to accomplish I'm not sure it's entirely a good thing, either.
---GEC
I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
How is posting to a public blog on the Internet "quiet"?
If you want to play those games, turn it around. If the vendor can ensure that all of the airlines that buy the devices do customize the software a little, they can almost completely shield themselves from any software-related liability. Proving that the airlines did so is easy -- just subpoena all of the development records and depose the programmers and the mechanics.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
For the love of God, mod the parent up. It's not flamebait to be critical of RMS. Geez, when is everyone going to stop being sheeple, and actually THINK for theirselves?
Everyone who wants to can just continue using it as GPLv2 (it's their choice). We aren't talking about a license that says "under the most recent version of the GPL only" -- I don't think that's even possible.
On the other hand, a newer version could be *less* restrictive, so people might choose to use my code under GPLv6 if that specifically permits ESP redistribution, or whatever. So there's an element of trust here... but the FSF certainly can't use later licenses to grab more control over already-released code.
If the unit throws up some kind of prominent notice upon modified software being installed
Not clear that this is allowed, since it arguably changes the functionality in the same circumstances (same hardware) - which is prohibited.
Further, if the support/warranty was done via network connection, then such notice of modification is explicitly prohibited - the network support service must not be able to distinguish a modified version.
I think you missed the PP's point - the issue is not whether or not you can install software, it's one of notification. Nothing forces you to disclose the fact that you installed non-vendor software on a vendor-certified system, which is a problem for the vendor.
"My God...it's full of trolls!"
The device still works as it should and so in what way has it changed? It now says on bootup "This software has been changed"? Well, what about kernel tainting: if there is a binary module in the kernel/device system, then the kernel will report it has been tainted by non-open code and cannot necessarily be fixed. That is EXACTLY the same process as the one described in the GP.
And it seems to be GPL compatible...
No; we all know what the free software foundation stands for. There has never been any hint that they would in any way interfere with the freedom of software users. Nobody has ever sustained such an allegation against them. That they may interfere with the freedom of software developers, where that is opposition to the freedom of users is a known and clear fact. We know that the primary objection to the GPLv3 is that some developers want to be able to develop restrictive software which makes it difficult to copy information.
The clear reason MySQL would make this change is because they intend to interfere with my freedom. Making a Fork now and committing it to switch purely to the GPLv3 if they switch to a purely to the GPLv2 is an important strategic move; if we wait until after the GPLv3 is completed, the version we release will be far behind in bug fixes. The point to do it is now.
Please don't claim MySQL is committed to software freedom or even to Linux. We've already had clear evidence that they are not when they chose to work with SCO at exactly the time when that could only do harm. MySQL is not a company to trust.
Do you think any airline in their right mind would buy an airplane that they were told they couldn't take apart or fix the software of?
Yes. Because that is how I understand the industry works (or at least did work when I was last in it, which is a fair few years ago).
Airlines have to do exactly what the aircraft mfr. says in terms of maintenance. Or they don't fly - legally (at least in the first world).
They have to use approved parts and procedures, and carry out checks / changes / repairs as the manufacturer specifies. Sometimes the notices come from mfr., sometimes from FAA / CAA etc., but I think they usually just require conformance with the notice from the manufacturer.
Either way, I am absolutely sure that airlines don't modify flight control software. I'm nervous enough about fly-by-wire on civilian aircraft as it is, but if I thought the airlines were able to modify the software I actually would not fly on that aircraft.
What happens when the airplane manufacturer goes out of business?
My understanding is that either:
a) someone buys the business and continues supporting the aircraft (possibly requiring additional / new FAA/CAA approvals for new business?)
or:
b) nobody does
In case (b), once you run out of mfr. supplied / approved parts etc., your aircraft is grounded. If it happens to be fast, pointy and in fact rather beautiful, then you can probably find it a new home in a museum, but don't expect to get paid much for it.
That is what happens. That is how the aviation industry works, and that is how it gets to be as safe as it is.
Ok, forget which application (voting. medical, whatever), please just explain how you do dual-key (SOP for many things) under GPLv3.
ie. to install the software it has to be signed (showing audit/authorization) by at least two independent key holders.
AFAICS under GPLv3 the "user" (a single entity) _has_ to be provided with _all_ keys necessary.
I don't see how you can reconcile this with the dual-key concept.
If you think I am wrong, please explain exactly how it would work under gplv3.
I seem to remember reading a clause in v2 that stated if you write "GNU GPLv2" then this explicitly means the license is upgraded to future versions. Anyone care to verify this?
Thanks.
Why would an airline allow anyone to install arbitrary, uncertified software on
mission-critical hardware?
They wouldn't. The FAA / EASA / whoever would ground them for it.
And why would the vendor of that hardware have any interest in preventing the airline from installing whatever software they want?
Because if they allowed it the FAA / EASA / whoever could ground all aircraft of that model.
Airlines are _not_ allowed to mess around with their aircraft hardware/software as they wish. For good reason.
Not only may the FAA etc. mandate that only Boeing parts be used on Boeings, but they may (and I believe do) mandate that the Boeing be deliberately designed to make it more difficult (ideally impossible) to use an Airbus part instead.
The FAA might require the aircraft to only accept FAA-signed (possibly in addition to other keys) flight software, with the argument that the FAA could then ensure the software was that which had gone through flight certification, then I would think that was reasonable and within their remit.
The aircraft mfr. then would be unable to use GPLv3 for that software - because they obviously cannot give out the FAA key, which their hardware is required to require.
Since the GPL V2 stipulates that the code so licensed cannot be licensed under a more restrictive license, and since GPL V3 is a more restrictive license, does this not in and of itself prohibit a project from switching to GPL V3 without the explicit agreement of all contributors?
Nothing forces you to disclose the fact that you installed non-vendor software on a vendor-certified system, which is a problem for the vendor.
The support contract or warranty conditions can do that. Neither version of the GPL controls the conditions under which warranties can be offered. If the support incident is escalated to an RMA then the vendor can certainly tell what has been installed on the unit. If we're talking phone support, the vendor has numerous options to verify how the system is configured. The GPL does nothing to hinder support contracts. Withdrawal of support does not affect the freedoms the GPL is intended to protect. Vendor support is mostly orthogonal to either version of the GPL. Forgoing GPL protected freedoms for the period of a warranty or support contract is an equitable exchange.Umm... I think he was meaning more that if one GPL's something and charge for support, anybody can take it and redistribute it, and cut the original developer out of the equation if they so choose. Which becomes especially possible if a distribution such as Redhat, Suse, Ubuntu, etc picks it up as they can bundle support for a full suite of applications rather than just a single application and the original developer is left high and dry because he as a lone developer can't possibly compete against a support fleet like those vendors have, even as the writer of the software.
sorry, i meant "you cannot calculate with freedoms" but used the wrong word.
forgive me.
the point is: X freedoms are not necessarily more worth than Y freedoms, when X > Y.
Uh, couldn't somebody else just register a new type of aircraft - a Boeing 737 with 3rd party bolts? And then apply for airworthiness? If they did that, then the 3rd party is now an official original manufacturer (of the modified plane). Viola, no problem for people to use non-Boeing-approved parts.
I'm all for a requirement of validation of parts in safety-sensitive arenas. However, there are ways of accomplishing this without giving vendors monopoly powers over their parts.
In any case, people should still be free to modify the firmware on their planes - they just fly them if they do so. If the plane manufacturer doesn't like it they can just avoid using GPL v3 code. Just like Tivo will have to do so in the future if things go the GPL v3 route.
FTFA: MySQL has today refined its licensing scheme from "GPLv2 or later" to "GPLv2 only", in order to make it an option, not an obligation for the company to move to GPLv3.
FTFA: MySQL has today refined its licensing scheme from "GPLv2 or later" to "GPLv2 only", in order to make it an option, not an obligation for the company to {allow you to} move to GPLv3.
the un-spun version
What makes you think I'm more comfortable with FSF/GNU/RMS taking away my freedom than having a commercial entity do the same?
And how does GPLv3'ing your software protect me from this? If a company that wants to use DRM or whatever cannot use GPL'ed software to do it, they will develop (or buy) proprietary solutions to do the same thing, netting me nothing, and possibly costing me standards compliance.
As long as the free software remains free to use for anything, including using it for stupid purposes, some marginal control over the process remains with the developers.
Whatever happened to "Unix is like a gun; if you point it at your foot and pull the trigger, it should effectively and reliably deliver the bullet to its intended target: Mr. Foot"? Just get the job done, and let people decide for themselves if they want to use your software for something stupid or not.
What's next? "Cannot be used in software directly or indirectly furthering the development, availability and/or deployment of WMDs" would be a tempting target, for instance. Until the day one is required to fragment a stellar object on a collision course. One small step at a time, moving towards one group's definition of "good" and "right". When will they start mandating EULA clauses?
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
So, basically the GPL is a big warning to anybody looking to commercialize software that "look out, anybody else can come along an fork this out from under you"?? That's a great incentive.
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realise it was my job to write software for you to commercialise. How terrible of me. Lets just look at it this way: How much money are companies such as RedHat and MySQL making from selling GPL software, and how much money are companies such as, er...are BSDI still around?
I cannot make a gplv3 fork from anything but the old code. I think this effort should start immediately.
Well thought out. Make transitions even more difficult in the community. Brilliant.
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
Simple - you provide the owner of the system both keys.
If it is voting, give the voting commission both keys.
Voters don't own the voting machines, therefore voters don't need the keys. And the user doesn't have to be a human entity if the software is distributed to a corporation.
In the case of aircraft I'd argue that whoever owns the aircraft should be able to do whatever they want with it software-wise. Whether or not they can legally fly it after doing so is a separate issue - and not a matter that the software vendor should be concerned with. Should aircraft maintenance panels have locks that only the vendor can open? It is up to end-users to obey the law if the FAA requires certification of flight control software. If a user wants to install software which is legal for use in flight but which the vendor hasn't blessed, then the user should be able to do so. Perhaps the user wants to fly the plane over Botswana, or maybe the user got an FAA blessing for the software despite vendor non-cooperation.
In any case, what security does the dual-key concept provide in any of these situations? You don't need both keys to rig the machine - it just makes it a lot easier.
And what happens if the user wants to use the aircraft in Africa? Why should they need FAA-signed software when the FAA lacks jurisdiction over the end-user?
The FAA should certainly regulate the skies over America. They should even regulate manufacturing practices for aircraft flown over America. They should not require vendors to lock down their systems so that the whole world is subject to the cost of FAA regulations.
Uh, what makes the GPL great? Being just like the BSD license? :)
And what happens if the user wants to use the aircraft in Africa?
Most likely they'll mess around with it in unapproved ways until it falls out of the sky. I'm not sure if I was a mfr. that I'd want to make it easier for them to do so, particularly if that meant removing an FAA mandated safety feature.
They should not require vendors to lock down their systems so that the whole world is subject to the cost of FAA regulations.
I don't disagree with that. Raises an interesting question though - suppose an FAA-certified aircraft is locked down, but the non-US version isn't, could GPLv3 software then be used ? Which version of the hardware is the "recommended or principal context of use" ?
Can the aircraft mfr. say that the "recommended or principal context of use" is the international version, which you can modify the software on, but if you want to fly in the US obviously you have to buy the locked down version.
Is that ok with GPLv3 ?
If it's not, then the mfr. is still effectively barred from using gplv3 because of the US regs (unless they build solely for non-US market).
Now suppose **AA makes TIVO lock the hardware down in the US, but they do a Russian "all-of-mp4" model which is unlocked.
Is that ok with GPLv3 ?
Simple - you provide the owner of the system both keys.
Precisely. That is now no longer dual-key (the whole point is that no one ever has both keys) - you just restated my point that GPLv3 prohibits dual-key.
In any case, what security does the dual-key concept provide in any of these situations? You don't need both keys to rig the machine - it just makes it a lot easier.
Again, you just restated my point - if (as you say) having both keys makes it a lot easier to rig the machine, then dual key (ie. no one person/entity ever has both keys) makes it a lot less easy to rig the machine. That is the point.
A typical safety deposit box is dual key (one for you, one for the bank). I can't see how the fact that you don't _need_ both keys to open the box, (eg. a burning bar will probably do it) negates all the reasons why people designed these things to be dual-key.
Uh, couldn't somebody else just register a new type of aircraft - a Boeing 737 with 3rd party bolts? And then apply for airworthiness?
Yes, given enough money to burn, this might be possible, however I doubt it could ever be economic given the massive costs of certification.
I'm all for a requirement of validation of parts in safety-sensitive arenas. However, there are ways of accomplishing this without giving vendors monopoly powers over their parts.
I'm sure the airlines would love to know your ideas - because the aircraft industry doesn't seem to know how to do it (IMO).
If the plane manufacturer doesn't like it they can just avoid using GPL v3 code.
And if the FAA constrains the mfr. to lock down to get certification, then the mfr. is prevented from using GPLv3 code - although they may use, and contribute to, GPLv2 code currently.
Thus GPLv3 could bar use in a legitimate field of endeavour (because of the regulatory rules in that field) that was not barred under GPLv2.
Sorry, I think you're wrong about that.
GPL requires that the license terms (i.e. "version 2 or (at your option) any later version") be present in the copyright notice. If you don't own the copyright, you aren't allowed to change the licensing terms. Essentially, if people submitted code while the copyright notice read "v2 or later" you are allowed to distribute that code under v2, but you are not allowed to prohibit distribution under v3 or later. You can only do that to code you own.
Support SETI@home
To me, they're perfectly within their rights not to redistribute software under my copyright, if they're not willing to abide by my license.
how to invest, a novice's guide
I don't care who they work with. Their software is licensed under a valid open-source license and it does what I need it to do.
Furthermore--the idea that you can simply take what rms and the FSF say as complete truth and fact is a joke. rms does not care about your freedoms as a developer. He would gladly trample them to make things more free in the way he thinks they should be. He is just another zealot, trying to dictate to others how they should live their lives and conduct their own business. He has done great things--but his "advocacy" is contemptible.
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
Thus GPLv3 could bar use in a legitimate field of endeavour (because of the regulatory rules in that field) that was not barred under GPLv2.
Uh, you could also word that as "Thus the FAA could bar use in a legitimate field of endeavor (because of licensing issues) that is not barred in nations with more flexible regulation." [sic]
Many regulatory schemes are bad because they regulate the how and not the what. If the goal is aircraft safety then have regulations that promote that end. They shouldn't specify how exactly the end has to be achieved - at least not to the level where they are specifying how to implement firmware.
If they want certification of every part on an aircraft then say that. Don't say that you also have to go out of your way to keep 3rd parties who are also FAA-regulated from trying to bypass the regulations.
If somebody wants to break the rules they will - and NO amount of vendor lock-in is going to stop them. All the vendor lock-in does is raise the costs of legitmate use of the equipment.
Precisely. That is now no longer dual-key (the whole point is that no one ever has both keys) - you just restated my point that GPLv3 prohibits dual-key.
Uh, the voting commission can still ensure that no single person has both keys, thus accomplishing the goal of a dual-key system.
And even if GPLv3 was not dual-key compatible, why is that all that important? I can't really think of any applications that really require dual-key approval of software, where the software owner doesn't have both keys. So, if I write some GPLv3 code I won't lose much sleep over the fact that somebody who mistakes buzzwords for security won't be able to use my code without asking me for permission first...
To use your illustration if there is an electronic voting system I could care less whether it is dual-key, or if the software is easy or hard to tamper with. I want a printout showing how I voted, which becomes an official record of the vote. If that is done I could care less if somebody can flash the firmware since it won't make any difference except to disable the machine (and any voting location should have plenty of manual ballots on hand for any number of reasons).
And in the scenario of a bank with safety-deposit boxes the GPLv3 wouldn't get in the way at all. Suppose you have a website that requires two keys to retrieve data from it - the GPLv3 doesn't even regulate that at all. It only concerns the ability of the owner of the website to modify their own code, and possibly the ability of users to download the source for the website - not the data stored inside.
I don't disagree with that. Raises an interesting question though - suppose an FAA-certified aircraft is locked down, but the non-US version isn't, could GPLv3 software then be used ? Which version of the hardware is the "recommended or principal context of use" ?
I'd imagine that they could incorporate GPLv3 code into the international version, but not the US version.
Now suppose **AA makes TIVO lock the hardware down in the US, but they do a Russian "all-of-mp4" model which is unlocked.
Is that ok with GPLv3 ?
As long as they don't use GPLv3 code in the US version.
The two versions are two different products, each with its own "recommended or principal context of use".
The whole point of the GPLv3 is to disallow Tivoization of software, so if any loopholes do arise that allow it I'm sure they'll get closed in v4...