Perens Counters Claim of GPL Legal Risk

Microsoft Delenda Est writes "After ACT, a Microsoft front group, started claiming that the GPLv3 was legally 'risky' and could give rise to anti-trust liability, eWeek has published a rebuttal by Bruce Perens. Aside from the fact that IBM, HP, Red Hat, and a couple dozen corporate lawyers are watching over the creation of the GPLv3, there is already precedent that shows the GPL is unlikely to give rise to any significant liability — Daniel Wallace v. FSF. In that case, pro se litigant Daniel Wallace was all but laughed out of the courtroom for alleging the GPLv2 violates anti-trust law, and the GPLv3 clauses in question are simply clarifications and extensions of clauses in the GPLv2. Presumably, that is why the ACT neglected to cite any precedent substantiating their allegations."

Comments

*Yawn*

[MikeRT]

Group that is backed by Microsoft to kill GPL says GPL 3.0 is bad.
Respected open source partisan says GPL 3.0 is good.

No bias on that one...

Re:*Yawn*

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh, you expected them to be unbiased? It's sort of the nature of a debate that people with opposing views argue against each other. If you're not interested in the arguments, well fine, this is not the news your were looking for, move along.

I consider the GPL v3 and related stuff to be just the kind of thing I go to slashdot to read about.

Why tagged Linux?

[gnuman99]

Why is this tagged Linux? Linus already indicated that Linux will not be under GPLv3.

Re:Why tagged Linux?

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Well, if you call it GNU/Linux the way RMS wants, you'll realize that the GNU part (at least the non-LGPL) almost certainly will be GPLv3.

Re:Why tagged Linux?

[Bruce Perens]

As has been reported here previously, Linus is actually pleased with GPL3 draft 3, and will at least consider placing the kernel under GPL3. He really did not like previous drafts. But even if the kernel stays at GPL2, the C library, the main library in a Linux-based distribution, would go to LGPL3, it's copyright is owned by FSF in full. So are GCC, Emacs, a number of other programs. And no doubt other projects will go to GPL3.

Bruce

Re:Why tagged Linux?

[hackstraw]

Why is this tagged Linux? Linus already indicated that Linux will not be under GPLv3.

OK. Maybe I'm just behind the times or something, but what was "wrong" with GPLv2?

I've glanced at the side-by-side comparisons between the two, and I see the changes, and I've heard many people gripe about GPLv3, so why is there a push for it?

Re:Why tagged Linux?

[Bruce Perens]

you'll realize that the GNU part (at least the non-LGPL) almost certainly will be GPLv3.

All the talk of GPL3 has overwhelmed the fact that there is an LGPL3, which will share most of the GPL3 language. It will most certainly be applied to GNU LIBC.

Bruce

Re:Why tagged Linux?

[walt-sjc]

Because it allows for Novell / Microsoft type agreements???

Re:Why tagged Linux?

[Bruce Perens]

OK. Maybe I'm just behind the times or something, but what was "wrong" with GPLv2?

GPL has never stood alone, it has always depended on the local interpretation of copyright and other law to give it force, and those things change over time.

When the GPL was written, there was no web, music came from phonograph records, video from tape, and rather than DRM there was rudimentary software "copy protection". The renaissance of microprocessors, software, the web and digital media worked a tremendous change in the law with many changes to copyright, patents, the nature of consent, contracts, tear-open licenses, and copyright permissions. And there have been many trials over those years that added interpretation to laws that GPL 2 depends upon. As the law changes, GPL must change to keep up with it, or it will become increasingly un-enforcible.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:Why tagged Linux?

[Intron]

Of course, anyone who really doesn't like GPL3 for some reason is free to fork gcc, emacs, etc. and maintain their own GPL2 versions.

Re:Why tagged Linux?

[The Warlock]

And those forks will have to be significantly better than the GPL3 originals if they are to last longer than a month or two. I can count the number of successful forks on one hand.

Re:Why tagged Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if you call it GNU/Linux the way RMS wants

Wrong. He wants you to call Linux "Linux", to call GNU "GNU", and to call the combination of the two "GNU/Linux".

Re:Why tagged Linux?

[squiggleslash]

IIRC, Torvalds said he's pleased with the changes, not that he's pleased with GPLv3 itself. The misunderstanding boils down to a poorly written CNET headline:

"I'm actually pretty pleased. Not because I think it's perfect, but simply because I think it's certainly a lot better than I really expected from the previous drafts," he said in an interview. "Whether it's actually a better license than the GPLv2, I'm still a bit skeptical, but at least it's now 'I'm skeptical' rather than 'Hell no!'"

Re:Why tagged Linux?

[PMuse]

The renaissance of microprocessors, software, the web and digital media worked a tremendous change . . .

Seems to me to be more of a naissance, since there wasn't much of a dark age in computing between the invention of the microprocessor and now.

Re:Why tagged Linux?

[at_slashdot]

And those forks will have to be significantly better than the GPL3 originals if they are to last longer than a month or two. I can count the number of successful forks on one hand.

They will be significantly better for people who prefer GPL2 over GPL3.

Re:Why tagged Linux?

[Bruce Perens]

And those forks will have to be significantly better than the GPL3 originals if they are to last longer than a month or two. I can count the number of successful forks on one hand.

They will be significantly better for people who prefer GPL2 over GPL3.

That won't be the users, since GPL3 doesn't restrict them at all. So, a GPL2 fork of any GPL3 product will need to be technically better to attract the users. It's unlikely that anyone motivated to fork backward to GPL2 will be able to muster sufficient community resources to make such a thing better than the GPL3 version.

Bruce

Re:Why tagged Linux?

[squiggleslash]

You'll be surprised how significant a fork over a license change can be.

That said, I seriously doubt there will be much traction in GPLv2 forks, as most of the people who appear to oppose GPLv3 either have little respect behind the principles of GPLv2 (and argue as such), or oppose the GPL altogether (I am really not seeing heavy opposition from any group that believes in strong copyleft licenses, using arguments that are based upon the superiority of strong, copyleft, licenses.) Neither of the groups I mentioned has much incentive to hijack development of GPL'd projects to keep them on GPLv2.

Re:Why tagged Linux?

[wiredlogic]

As has been reported here previously, Linus is actually pleased with GPL3 draft 3, and will at least consider placing the kernel under GPL3.

Linus' position on a kernel licence switch has been greatly distorted. While he didn't like the earlier V3 drafts for some of its ideology he wouldn't have transfered the kernel over from V2 anyway for the simple fact that he doesn't have the copyright for the entirety of the kernel codebase. There is no practical way for him to contact all copyright holders to get approval for a switch in the license. The Linux kernel will always be GPL2. This is why the GNU project wants you to assign copyright over to FSF for work they absorb under their umbrella so they have complete control over the code for relicensing.

Re:Why tagged Linux?

[squiggleslash]

Ask the authors of the majority of the licences in this list that are copyleft.

The simple reality is that GPLv2 wasn't perfect. Many projects have seen the need to create their own licenses, often licenses that are incompatible with the GPL. Some of those licenses are more liberal than the GPL, others are more strict. In many cases, small changes to the GPL that would have had the support of the vast majority of people who use it, would have made the license acceptable.

The big one concerns the effects of patents.

Re:Why tagged Linux?

[petrus4]

Of course, anyone who really doesn't like GPL3 for some reason is free to fork gcc, emacs, etc. and maintain their own GPL2 versions.

This is pretty much always said with the rhetorical implication that a fork of gcc in particular would require an impossibly large degree of intellectual labour to maintain seperately.

"Of COURSE you're free to fork gcc under GPL 2! But you'll find, after a few months, that in practice the program is just too complex to be able to maintain your own fork effectively. So when you discover this and come crawling back, you'll have already learned that in effective reality it's GPL 3 or nothing without us needing to have said a word about it. So we get to have our cake and eat it too. We can give people the illusion that they're completely free to do their own thing, and we don't have to relinquish the appearance of holding the moral high ground, because they'll discover that they actually effectively *can't* do their own thing all by themselves. Cool, eh?"

Re:Why tagged Linux?

[Bruce Perens]

You'll be surprised how significant a fork over a license change can be.

Why has *BSD acheived less of a market than Linux? Which of these popular reasons do you believe?

• Because BSD came out for SCSI disks, and Linux came out for PC disks, and BSD has never been able to regain the early-mover advantage.
• Because people like and respect Linus.
• Because the good developers prefer sharing-with-rules licensing to gift licensing.
• Because even RMS is more warm and fuzzy than Theo.

:-)

Bruce

Re:Why tagged Linux?

[chihowa]

OT, I know, but Bruce... c'mon. It's impolite to usurp all of the +5 mods on an article about yourself!

Re:Why tagged Linux?

[Bruce Perens]

There is no practical way for [Linus] to contact all copyright holders to get approval for a switch in the license. The Linux kernel will always be GPL2.

Fortunately, it's not as big a problem as you believe. But how can the Linux kernel project, with its thousands of developers, change its license? We can't even reach them all, and some of those developers are dead and their estates don't know software licenses from driver's licenses. But changing the license is easier than most people think.

First, it's not a fundamental change: the intent of GPL 3 is that of GPL 2, the change is in the implementation. Given that, what would be required for such a change would be for Torvalds (or someone else) to publish his intent to start making releases with the new license, as a legal notice. A certain number of people would object, and they would have the right to require that their contributions be removed from the new release.

The kernel team has never been loath to replace code when necessary, and never slow to handle the job, no matter how large the item to be replaced. Just look at the replacement of Bitkeeper with "git", a big job that took a ground-up rewrite and yet was working in five weeks. So, code belonging to GPL3-objectors would be swiftly dealt with.

After some time passed, the release would happen under the new license, and life would go on. There is precedent for this, as Torvalds has already made two significant changes to the prelude to GPL2 on the kernel, publishing his intent and then making a release.

Bruce

Re:Why tagged Linux?

[Bruce Perens]

OT, I know, but Bruce... c'mon. It's impolite to usurp all of the +5 mods on an article about yourself!

I'd rather you hear it from the horse's mouth than from the other end of the horse :-) I guess that's a pretty good description of ACT's lawyer, isn't it?

Bruce

Re:Why tagged Linux?

[MMC Monster]

Dammit. Now you're taking all the +1funny mods, too.

But, really, how about a separate analysis of LGPL v3? Can an LGPL v3 library be linked to a closed source device that uses DRM with unknown keys?

Re:Why tagged Linux?

[Bruce Perens]

But, really, how about a separate analysis of LGPL v3? Can an LGPL v3 library be linked to a closed source device that uses DRM with unknown keys?

As long as you can change the library without limitation. Don't lock down that library. And your DRM must not depend on the integrity of that library to work.

Bruce

Re:Why tagged Linux?

[qbwiz]

So the kernel would still be infringing on the copyrights of the people who are out of the loop, but because they're out of the loop we don't care about them, and if they ever started caring about us they probably wouldn't sue us?

Re:Why tagged Linux?

[Joey Vegetables]

Bruce, maybe you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not aware of a legal theory that would make this work the way you describe. Code licensed under GPLv2-only (as opposed to GPL v2 or later) can't legally be distributed under a more restrictive license, such as the GPLv3. To do so would be a copyright violation, and announcing one's intent to do so in advance would not change this. Linus of course can relicense his code, but not that contributed by others without their consent. Everyone, including Linus, must abide by the licenses by which that code was contributed. They must either get the consent of the GPLv2-only contributors, or strip that code, before releasing the entire thing as GPLv3 (or even GPL v2-or-above).

Re:Why tagged Linux?

[asninn]

The kernel team has never been loath to replace code when necessary, and never slow to handle the job, no matter how large the item to be replaced. Just look at the replacement of Bitkeeper with "git", a big job that took a ground-up rewrite and yet was working in five weeks. So, code belonging to GPL3-objectors would be swiftly dealt with.

No, I don't think that's true. The fundamental difference is that git was being developed when McVoy started interfering with actual development; Linus didn't mind the fact that BK was unfree at all as long as he could get his work done with it (and that necessitates other developers also being able to use the program).

GPLv2 code would probably be replaced if a serious problem with the GPLv2 was discovered - for example, if, for some reason, it turned out that the license contradicted itself and that you couldn't actually distribute GPLv2 code you didn't write yourself after all. But barring that, as long as the GPLv3 is "only" an improvement over the GPLv2, I don't see why there would suddenly be a big rush to replace code when there's no technical reason.

And that's doubly true when you consider how huge and complex the kernel really is: it was pretty easy to write an initial replacement for BK, but development certainly carried on (it didn't just spring into existence bug-free and chock-full of features), and BK, like most projects, is laughable in terms of size and complexity when compared to the kernel.

So I neither believe that it could be done as easily as replacing BK, and I also don't believe that Linus would seriously consider it unless there was an actual technical reason why all GPLv2 code would suddenly have to be rewritten from scratch in a hurry under the GPLv3 instead.

What's more likely is that code that was contributed as being under the GPLv2 *only* will slowly be replaced by "GPLv2 or GPLv3" code; and when all pieces are suitably licensed, there may be a switch from "GPLv2 or GPLv3" to "GPLv3 only", at which point the kernel would properly be licensed under the GPLv3. But it just as well might not happen, and if it does, it's going to be an evolution, not a revolution.

Re:Why tagged Linux?

[morganew]

From your post it's clear that you aspire to be both a lawyer and a comedian. And while I concede that as a lawyer you make a good comedian, no one will be laughing if this license is finalized without addressing some of the legal issues Wilder outlined.

Maybe you should apply your comic timing to chiding those dozen lawyers to get this agreement right, while there is still time. ACT provided you with some free-to-you legal analysis of the GPLv3 from a very well respected IP lawyer, and you are busy calling him names instead of taking advantage of it? Brilliant idea!

You claim to be a "leader" of the Open Source community, perhaps you should start acting like one.

Oh, and Wilder ALSO has an Engineering degree, so it looks like he has sees your bid, and raises you one degree.

Re:Why tagged Linux?

[SL Baur]

there wasn't much of a dark age in computing between the invention of the microprocessor and now Actually, I think there are several candidates for "dark age of computing". Pick one:

1. The rise of the C/C++/Java (pick one) language instead of a more safe-by-design language as a programming standard.
   
2. "Endless September" dating from when AOL users became a significant factor in Usenet
   
3. Microsoft Windows 95 - dating from mail and network applications defaulting to behavior that had been proven unsafe a decade or more earlier.
   
4. The takeover of email by unscrupulous advertisers - dating from when the majority of people on Usenet started actively discouraging email responses, instead of encouraging it.
   
5. The advent of the software patent - stifling most innovation.
   

Personally, I hope the age of the software patent is short-lived and we can look back on it as a bad dream.

Re:Why tagged Linux?

[Dick Wilder]

Mr. Perens says that changing the license from GPLv2 to v3 is "not a fundamental change: the intent of GPL 3 is that of GPL 2, the change is in the implementation." I guess it depends on the eye of the beholder. This is the first time that the FSF has decided to use a change to the GPL as a means to attack an existing, legal agreement between two companies. That seems like a fundamental change to me both as to its intent and implementation.

Re:Why tagged Linux?

[PMuse]

The so-called dark ages, if dark they were, lasted ~900 years and are characterized as a retreat from the scholarship and achievements of, inter alia, ancient Greece. While generations are short in computing, our analogy should be seeking a period of at least years when we forgot or ignored what those before us knew. Perhaps:

• The disconnected era (between initial multi-user computing and the ubiquitous networks of today).
• The pre-web era (though the advent of the web is more of a naissance without the 're').
• The age of Windows (which hasn't ended yet).

Myself, I think that the history of computing is better characterized as a continuous rise, with brief accelerations, brief pauses, but no significant retreats.

Re:Why tagged Linux?

[Bruce Perens]

Unfortunately, dispite his background, his goal here was not to sincerely contribute to the GPL development. He could have done that by participating on the committee, or using the feedback process. Eben Moglen, the general counsel for FSF, read his paper and declined to respond to him. No doubt others on the GPL committee have also read the paper.

Bruce

Re:Why tagged Linux?

[that this is not und]

It's more important, at this point, for Open Source projects to attract developers than it is to attract users.

Re:Why tagged Linux?

[that this is not und]

Because the FUD campaign regarding the BSD license in the mid to late 90's was capitalized on and echoed by the Linux community to drive 'the market' (as you term it) toward Linux.

Not the whole story, but a component of it. And it *was* a FUD campaign in all it's glory.

Re:Why tagged Linux?

[Bruce Perens]

You mean the FUD campaign against the BSD software's provenance waged by ATT in the early 90's?

I know there were lots of arguments about BSD vs. GPL, but the BSD license does have the virtue that it's easy to understand. I don't think it's possible to FUD a license that simple.

Bruce

Re:Why tagged Linux?

[sumdumass]

hat's more likely is that code that was contributed as being under the GPLv2 *only* will slowly be replaced by "GPLv2 or GPLv3" code; and when all pieces are suitably licensed, there may be a switch from "GPLv2 or GPLv3" to "GPLv3 only", at which point the kernel would properly be licensed under the GPLv3. But it just as well might not happen, and if it does, it's going to be an evolution, not a revolution.

You have to be careful. GPLv2 or later code contributed to a GPL2 only project can only be GPLv2 only. It cannot be GPLv2 or later because of the stipulation of carrying the same license as presented to you.

If there is a difference in licensing terms, then this can only be an oversight. Just like you cannot use the BSD license when modifying a GPLed piece of software. So this mix match of GPLv2 only and later versions could create some serious legal challenges by not only th original author of the project but anyone who has used the project and been force to retain the same license in the past.

It is something to look out for if anyone is ever crazy enough to do it. MS or anyone the FSF pissed off in the near future could create a situation worse then SCO when it first happened.

Re:Why tagged Linux?

[sumdumass]

SO far, the people who would need to fork the GPL2 stuff is the companies not wanting to be bound by the extra restrictions. While this isn't a lot of people, it is significant on several ways.

1:) they can higher developers to maintain the code.
2:) The maintinence won't need to be the full blown development like the main project will need. All that will need to be maintained is the stuff neccesary to make it work for them.
3:) Some developers will stay with GPLv2 because it would appear they are being forced into the GPLv3. This is little different then forced upgrades and other restrictive licensing terms opushed by companies.
4:) there will be some developers who find that cannot do something they want to do under the GPLv3 because of some restriction like a patent. There are several program currently that have shadow developments like media players with codecs and such.

In all, I see several places that could be attractive to developers to stay with GPLv2 stuff. And I don't see the maintenance problem to be as hard as it is being ,made out to be. Especially when some company if porking money out for it. This money might even attract some of the good developers from GPLv3 projects.

Re:Why tagged Linux?

[drsmithy]

OK. Maybe I'm just behind the times or something, but what was "wrong" with GPLv2?

It's still too easy to "productise" GPLed code (eg: by tying it to a hardware device like Tivo did).

Re:Why tagged Linux?

[rohan972]

This is the first time that the FSF has decided to use a change to the GPL as a means to attack an existing, legal agreement between two companies.

I would see it as: this is the first time a legal agreement between to companies has attacked the existing GPL. The GPL is being "patched" to remove the vulnerability.

Re:Why tagged Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

Write-in option :

Because the AT&T case put a lot of shadow over the *BSD's which made corporations turn away from a legally dangerous piece of otherwise excellent software.

Legal Risk Numero Uno

[andy314159pi]

I think that the first legal risk that the Microsoft Corporation should worry about is the risk of pursuing anti-competitive business practices. Their historic success at monopolizing personal computing software has not escaped anyone's attention and we know that it isn't all because of their stellar products.

GPLv3 in the marketplace

[Anonymous Coward]

You could argue that the restrictions that GPLv3 is intended to prevent -- web services running off GPL software without sharing code, for example -- are a marketplace effort to move open source licensing closer to BSD-style.

Thus, if the marketplace already views GPLv2 as too encumbered, it is unlikely that commercial code released in the future will be licensed under GPLv3, or that commercial entities will contribute to GPLv3 open-sourced projects. Before you argue that this is irrelevant, consider the amount of commercial code that has radically improved Linux in the past five years or so.

I'm not sure if this an argument for or against GPLv3.

Re:GPLv3 in the marketplace

[Bruce Perens]

You could argue that the restrictions that GPLv3 is intended to prevent -- web services running off GPL software without sharing code, for example -- are a marketplace effort to move open source licensing closer to BSD-style.

Well, this might be moot because GPL3 won't prevent the performance of web services using undisclosed modified internal GPL3 code. RMS feels that this is your right, and has only provided a way for people to optionally apply the Afero GPL, which does prevent this, to GPL3 code.

But your posting touches on a more fundamental topic, where the market is attempting to move Open Source licensing. There will always be a difference between the goals of companies who offer licenses along with their developed code, and companies who receive those licenses. Companies that receive Open Source code will always want BSD-style licensing as it gives them more options to keep their own development using that code proprietary. Companies that release Open Source code will tend to want a more restrictive license as this enables a dual-licensing revenue stream so that they can charge those folks who want to keep their development proprietary.

We can leave the motivation of non-companies to another discussion, since your question did not touch upon it, but they often have reasons to want a sharing with rules (GPL) license over a gift (BSD) license. And of course a detailed discussion of motivation for gift or sharing licenses would be much larger than this little posting.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:GPLv3 in the marketplace

[John Whitley]

We can leave the motivation of non-companies to another discussion, since your question did not touch upon it, but they often have reasons to want a sharing with rules (GPL) license over a gift (BSD) license. One notable instance where creators (companies or no) often prefer a gift license over a sharing with rules license is when the software promotes a standard, where adoption of the standard (and a uniform reference platform for same) is often more important than the implementation itself.

Re:GPLv3 in the marketplace

[Bruce Perens]

One notable instance where creators (companies or no) often prefer a gift license over a sharing with rules license is when the software promotes a standard, where adoption of the standard (and a uniform reference platform for same) is often more important than the implementation itself.

I state this in paper on which Open Source license to choose that I give to corporate customers. If you really want everybody to adopt it, even your worst enemy, use BSD. But then don't complain if they make it work incompatibly from your version, as Microsoft is wont to do.

Bruce

Re:GPLv3 in the marketplace

[Khopesh]

RMS feels that this is your right, and has only provided a way for people to optionally apply the Afero GPL, which does prevent this, to GPL3 code.

Affero GPL is the correct spelling.

I had to stop using scroogle's search scraper and go to google directly to get the spelling correction. I am sure there are others with this problem.

Re:GPLv3 in the marketplace

[swillden]

Thus, if the marketplace already views GPLv2 as too encumbered, it is unlikely that commercial code released in the future will be licensed under GPLv3, or that commercial entities will contribute to GPLv3 open-sourced projects. Before you argue that this is irrelevant, consider the amount of commercial code that has radically improved Linux in the past five years or so.

Yes, do consider the amount of corporate contribution to Linux, and then think about why that work has gone into Linux and not into BSD. Why have IBM, SGI, Red Hat and others chosen to put so much effort into improving Linux rather than BSD? I posit that the GPL, far from being a bitter pill that corporate contributors unwillingly swallow, is the reason they chose to contribute to and work with Linux. IBM, for example, has no interest in putting its efforts into improving a codebase that can be ripped off by Microsoft or other competitors. Code contributed to a GPL project reaps returns in the form of other code that the contributor gets to use, but code contributed to a BSD project may or may not.

Consider Sun, also. They're in the process of open-sourcing Java, and there are strong rumors that Sun plans to license OpenSolaris under GPLv3. Why not BSD?

Because BSD is better for those who take, and GPL is better for those who give. There are exceptions, of course, but in general contributors have fewer concerns with the GPL than with the BSD, and that is why the corporate world has overwhelmingly favored GPL over BSD. IMNSHO, it's also why the volunteer community has overwhelmingly favored GPL over BSD.

What does this have to do with GPLv2 vs GPLv3? Well, projects that get corporate contributions are going to have to look and see if v3 poses any risks to the continued flow of contributions. In practice, I really doubt that any corporations who are willing to contribute and whose contributions we want are going to be put off by GPLv3 because v2 and v3 are essentially the same. v3 tightens up some loopholes and fixes the language, but the basic goals expressed by the license are identical, so the only people who might like v2 but not v3 are those who want to exploit the v2 loopholes -- meaning those who want to exploit the open source community and don't care about their reputation in that community.

If GPLv3 keeps such bad-faith contributors out, I think that's a bonus, not a cost.

Re:GPLv3 in the marketplace

[init100]

so the only people who might like v2 but not v3 are those who want to exploit the v2 loopholes -- meaning those who want to exploit the open source community and don't care about their reputation in that community.

In other words, the SCOs of the world.

Re:GPLv3 in the marketplace

[that this is not und]

that is why the corporate world has overwhelmingly favored GPL over BSD.

It is inherently impossible for you to make this assertion. Many elements within the corporate world overwhelmingly favor BSD, if by that is meant, they adopt the BSD code base into their product. They can do so far more quietly than if they incorporate GNU-licensed code.

There is a HUGE install base of hardware that runs on code derived from the BSD code base. And there are contributions back to the BSD code base from said companies.

It's a gray area, and most GNU enthuiasts and advocates only see 'their' side of the code base to comment on, but readily comment on the 'other side' as if they have a clue about it.

MY computer doesn't parse licenses

[iminplaya]

It works just fine without one. They are merely a waste of disk space. Licenses are for lawyers. Not for regular people, or computers. A simple "created by..." is good enough. Nobody can take the code away.

Re:MY computer doesn't parse licenses

[Bruce Perens]

my computer doesn't parse licenses, it works just fine without one

Then, you are not running any recent Mac or Windows system. Your computer probably depends on the work of people who would not have released their code at all without the GPL. Like the GCC developers, for example, whose work started with Richard Stallman's first implementation. GCC is most likely used to compile the system you are running.

Richard Stallman agrees with you. He doesn't restrict your right to use the software. It is copyright law that restricts your right to distribute other people's software, to modify it, etc. Richard would rather that there were no copyright law. Since there is, he uses the GPL to turn copyright law upon its head as well as he can.

Bruce

Re:MY computer doesn't parse licenses

[RobertLTux]

IANAL but i think that every program from the smallest "hello world" up has some sort of license so just remember
  lawyers are just folks that never stopped playing in the debate club and laws are just the "rules of the game"

Re:MY computer doesn't parse licenses

[iminplaya]

What I'm saying is that the computer doesn't read and agree with a license when I fire it up. "Trusted" computing is an apparent attempt to change that, I suppose.

Since there is, he uses the GPL to turn copyright law upon its head as well as he can.

Yes, I actually DO agree with that. GPL derives its power from copyright law, which of course is a good thing. I am happy to see this happening for that reason. But a big problem, to me anyway, is multiple licenses in one program. Talk about bloat! The big companies work under a single copyright. Not very well, I might add, but they're rakin' it in. So, who am I to argue with success? Maybe I'm a bit too anxious and want to eliminate the middleman and cut straight to the chase. Ignore all licenses. It's a shame that too many people don't understand that we won't need GPL if their is no copyright law. They seem to be under some impression that they can't use the code if a big company "takes" it. If somebody wants my code for whatever purpose, it's not for me to say or do anything about it. He would gain no exclusivity over it without copyright law. I still have my copy to do with as I please. What I'm concerned about is that with all these people worrying about licensing, it leaves little time for un-distracted(?) coding. It's like a nag screen in the back of your head. And even worse is the number and variation of licenses. The whole FOSS thing is moving from a bazaar to a Tower of Babel. The licenses will bring the whole thing tumbling down. As a business, I would avoid it for these reasons. Because then I would have to be concerned about being held liable for some mysterious, obscure copyright violation that only a lawyer could see. Licenses take up disk space. It's like a ball and chain. Imagine if each of my Snap-on wrenches came with a foot long, ten pound "dongle" stipulating how I can use it. Well, all that weight just made the tool pretty useless. The same is happening to software. The licenses are getting that it will be prohibited to use the program for what I bought it for. Well, here's hoping that someday Stallman's trumpets will bring down the Walls of Jericho.

Re:MY computer doesn't parse licenses

[iminplaya]

The license is there, but the program will run without it. To the computer it's just another occupied block of disk space that goes completely unused. That much less space for my documents. But you're right. We're just caught in the crossfire in a fight amongst lawyers.

Re:MY computer doesn't parse licenses

[phrasebook]

Richard Stallman agrees with you. He doesn't restrict your right to use the software. It is copyright law that restricts your right to distribute other people's software, to modify it, etc. Richard would rather that there were no copyright law. Since there is, he uses the GPL to turn copyright law upon its head as well as he can.

Are you intentionally trying to make Stallman out to be Jesus? Your style is exactly like that of religious people who try to indoctrinate kids. "Jesus loves you. He would rather that there was no pain and suffering. Since there is, he wants you to believe in him and go to heaven..."

It sounds absurd!

Re:MY computer doesn't parse licenses

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

Licenses are for lawyers. Not for regular people, or computers. A simple "created by..." is good enough.

They're also for coders. A lot of coders will refuse to code if the result is going to be placed under an unfavorable license.

And for consumers. I think you like the guarantee that your software will be reasonably priced (probably free) and that if the original developers give up, someone else will maintain the software so your documents don't bitrot when you move to a different computer architecture, etc.

Nobody can take the code away.

Um, didn't you read about the recent Google pinyin fiasco, where they did take the code away?

Re:MY computer doesn't parse licenses

[iminplaya]

A lot of coders will refuse to code if the result is going to be placed under an unfavorable license.

It's a free world. I would never ask them to. Somebody else will fill in out of necessity. If it provokes others into learning code, all the better.

Um, didn't you read about the recent Google pinyin fiasco, where they did take the code away?

What? They actually stopped the Chinese from using it? How was that possible? The only issue I took up there is the possible plagiarism. I have made myself perfectly clear on that matter. Everything else is window dressing for the lawyers. I don't look for guarantees. It would be very unbecoming of me to expect anybody to guarantee anything to me...without a signed contract anyway. By the same token, I offer none. Without exclusivity there will be no lockdown of abandonware, for instance. Speculation will be reduced dramatically. Exclusivity is keeping us in the computer stone age. In fact, it is responsible for all impediments to every facet of human progress. It necessitates constant re-inventing of the wheel, instead of creating blocks on which to build. Old argument, so what. It's the truth.

Re:MY computer doesn't parse licenses

[Bruce Perens]

Are you intentionally trying to make Stallman out to be Jesus?

I do not happen to be a member of a religion that preaches belief in Jesus. On the other hand, I have experience that Richard is a living individual :-)

The original posting "my computer doesn't understand licenses" was sort of deliberately simplistic and childlike, and this may have flavored my response.

Then again, the spirit of St. IGNUtious may have posessed me. Here, child, you may have an icon of St. IGNUtious.

Bruce

Re:MY computer doesn't parse licenses

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

It would be very unbecoming of me to expect anybody to guarantee anything to me...without a signed contract anyway. By the same token, I offer none.

In a perfect world, that would work. The sad truth is that the majority of the world disagrees with you, and would get justifiably angry if you don't offer certain guarantees to others without signed contracts. In fact, if you live in a country that's a signatory to the Berne Convention, you are bound by international laws to offer guarantees to others without signed contracts.

The point of the Free Software Movement is to use further legalese to cancel the effects of copyright, restoring things to the way they should be. The debates between the various licenses are merely worries over what's the most effective way to accomplish this goal.

Re:MY computer doesn't parse licenses

[iminplaya]

They have no moral basis to obligate me to anything. Only by the force of their weaponry do I comply. Life is still good, so there won't be much resistance at present.

Note to self: Neutralize all weapons.

Re:MY computer doesn't parse licenses

[inode_buddha]

Well, that's because people (companies, lawyers) are and can be asshats. The legalese is there for good reason, even tho the legalese itself is asshat.

Re:MY computer doesn't parse licenses

[volpe]

Richard would rather that there were no copyright law.

If there were no copyright law, all his work would be in the public domain. If that were the case, I could take it, modify it in a neat and innovative (i.e. valuable) way, and sell DRM-laden binaries without having to redistribute either his original source or my patches. If this is the way RMS would rather it be, he's certainly free to put all his work in the public domain, isn't he?

Re:MY computer doesn't parse licenses

[Bruce Perens]

If this is the way RMS would rather it be, he's certainly free to put all his work in the public domain, isn't he?

The problem with putting his work in the public domain is that you can take the work and make a copyrighted modified version. So, public domain unfortunately plays into the hands of people who want to make copyrights with restrictive licensing.

Bruce

Re:MY computer doesn't parse licenses

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

I'm not even going to attempt to argue the point any more. If you're actively opposed to the social contract, I refuse to recognize you as part of legitimate human society. Goodbye.

Re:MY computer doesn't parse licenses

[iminplaya]

Of course I'm opposed to such nonsense. I don't need to be told or ordered to show respect. And I won't be, period! My only obligation is to leave you alone, and yours is the same to me. Your social contract is just a bunch of hogwash to justify misdeeds by the authorities. Any society that demands my allegiance can take a flying leap. Goodbye, yourself.

Re:MY computer doesn't parse licenses

[iminplaya]

The problem with putting his work in the public domain is that you can take the work and make a copyrighted modified version.

And that is among the reasons that copyright law must be abolished. To prevent exactly that.

Can we trust?

[triskaidekaphile]

Does Microsoft know anything about anti-trust?

Well, I suppose they are anti-trusting their consumer base.

The only part I don't agree

[vivaoporto]

But, to Perens, the fact that Microsoft is currently giving to customers coupons that can be redeemed for a copy of SUSE Linux indicates that these coupons are intended to be redeemed for a copy of the copyrighted GPL 2 software.

"So, Microsoft is actively participating in distribution of the GPL2 software today, and must have assented to GPL 2 to do that, because any distribution without assent to GPL2 would be infringement. Under GPL 2, they have already given away the rights to use Microsoft patents that are applied in the Novell distribution, for any use in any GPL software, by anyone, forever," Perens said.

Giving away coupons doesn't equate to distribution but to promotion. Giving away coupons makes Microsoft a distributor of GPL2 software as much as giving away free BigMac coupons makes a radio station a BigMac distributor. That's promotion, not distribution.

Anyway, I think GPL3 is very welcome to stop people to circumvent and thus negate the very 4 freedoms that are meant to passed along with any distribution of GPL'd software and derivative works.

Re:The only part I don't agree

[Bruce Perens]

Giving away coupons makes Microsoft a distributor of GPL2 software as much as giving away free BigMac coupons makes a radio station a BigMac distributor.

The word "coupons" might have led you astray. What Microsoft is giving out is paid-up Novell licenses which Microsoft pays for. Either the distribution or support inherent in those licenses, which is done on Microsoft's behalf, involves copying: a direct infringement if you haven't agreed to the license. And there is also the potential for contributory and vicarious infringement in the law. In contrast, when a radio station gives out Big Mac coupons, it is always doing so on behalf of Macdonands, who is paying for that form of advertising. So, it's not the same thing at all.

Bruce

Re:The only part I don't agree

[tkinnun0]

That sounds a bit vague. Let's say I have a patent on thing X which I've only put in my product Y and I'm going to distribute OSS Z. Let's say following events happen:
A) I start distributing Z,
B) Someone puts X in Z,
C) I become aware of X in Z,
D) someone on Slashdot becomes aware of A and/or B.

Which sequences of events would cause me to have to give away my patent and at which point should I have stopped distributing Z to prevent that:
A before B before C before D?
A before B before D before C?
B before A before C before D?
B before A before D before C?
B before C before A before D?
B before C before D before A?
B before D before A before C?
B before D before C before A?

Re:The only part I don't agree

[R2.0]

"Giving away coupons doesn't equate to distribution but to promotion. Giving away coupons makes Microsoft a distributor of GPL2 software as much as giving away free BigMac coupons makes a radio station a BigMac distributor. That's promotion, not distribution."

Well, IANALBIMO. The radio station in your example may not be "distributing" BigMacs, but id does tie them up in the legal liability chain to some extent. If someone gets poisoned by the BigMac they bought with the radio station coupon, that station will be included in the lawsuit/insurance settlement sure as day. That is, unless McD's signs a "hold harmless" agreement/waiver of subrogation.

Point is, if you get involved with someone else's product, you also get involved with the legal aspects of that product. So in that sense, the Microsoft/Novell agreement is similar to your example - just not in the way you suppose.

Re:The only part I don't agree

[adah]

"Under GPL 2, they have already given away the rights to use Microsoft patents that are applied in the Novell distribution, for any use in any GPL software, by anyone, forever," Perens said.

Prove to me how this holds. I believe only GPLv3 Draft 2 (maybe Draft 1 too?) has such implications.

Sorry to be frank, but I think this is sophism, and will not hold in court. Would you really want to argue about this before a judge?

Re:The only part I don't agree

[Bruce Perens]

I would want Eben to argue it before a judge. It's his theory.

Bruce

Re:The only part I don't agree

[adah]

I would be really glad if all Microsoft patents ‘infringed’ by a SUSE distro were automatically invalid now for good. Unfortunately this is unlikely to be true. Following your argument, the best result you can get is stop Microsoft to ‘distribute’ Linux, which is really trivial.

So Glad I use SUSE

[filesiteguy]

Wow! After reading that the GPL v3 could constitute a legal risk by me, I'm happy I'm using SUSE and not , which isn't covered by the non-agression treaty setup between Microsoft and Novell.

Think about the droves of people and organizations who will now be joining us (Microsoft and Novell) in ensuring their users and customers are lawsuit-free by only using GPL v2 and hiding behind the MS agreeements.

Thank you ever so much, Steve!

Thank you Ron!

Seriously - I figure the GPL v3 is being worked over so much that - like v2 - whatever challenges will hold up just fine.

Good rebuttal by Bruce Perens

[MarkWatson]

Hey, I actually read the article - I must be new here :-)

I am looking forward to the V3 release of GPL and LGPL. I especially like the way the new LGPL draft basically just references the V3 GPL (draft), with exceptions.

I believe that Microsoft's claims of anti-competitiveness of the new GPL is laughable. Microsoft sets a high standard for anti-competitive activities, in my opinion. Also, people and organizations who want to live, play, and build systems in the LGPL/GPL infrastructure world should be allowed to do so - Microsoft's push here seems to be desiring to remove people's freedom to pick alternative (to Microsoft) development strategies. No big surprise.

I have some influence on my customers (I am a consultant) and I use this influence to convince them to go open source on more of their projects.

Re:Good rebuttal by Bruce Perens

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, I actually read the article - I must be new here :-)

In Soviet Russia, the article, whose I for one welcome as our reading overlords, reads YOU in Japan(!), you wifeless insensitive clod!

Re:Good rebuttal by Bruce Perens

[mr_mischief]

I don't get the whole anti-competitive thing either.

Let's look at three scenarios:

Let's say you grant me a license to your software, and license it GPL. If I give or sell a copy to my competitor, I must give him the same chance to make changes that I had. How is that anti-competitive? It sounds like it levels the field, not the opposite. If I write software that does the same thing later, I have the choice to write it from scratch, to pay for libraries, or to release my sources and build on what you licensed to me already.

If you grant me a closed-source license, then I might not be able to sell to my own competitors or customers, and I might not be able to give them the source even if I chose to do so. That gives you a competitive advantage over me, but that's okay because I bought the software from you according to my own judgment.

If I write the software myself, I can pick and choose which customers and competitors can buy licenses to my software at what prices and can determine who, if anyone, gets the source. If I don't advertise a price and only sell by inquiry and quote, then I can even charge one customer more than another based on how much of a threat I consider them to be in the marketplace. I can intentionally make it more difficult for certain competitors to use my software in their IT environment, and they may never know. If it's completely closed source, they can't easily fix it. If it's open or I grant them their own license to the source, they can. However, if I'm picking and choosing who gets source licenses, my biggest competitors won't, even if I offer source licenses to other customers.

It sounds to me like the first scenario is the most friendly to competition, not the least.

Re:Good rebuttal by Bruce Perens

[Bruce Perens]

Thank you. You might find this one useful as well. I wrote it just before GPL3 version 3 came out, the conclusions are unchanged upon reading the third draft. The scope of GPL3's tivo-ization restrictions has been reduced somewhat, but my advice on how a company could handle DRM still applies.

Bruce

Re:Good rebuttal by Bruce Perens

[Anonymous Coward]

... in space!

Re:Good rebuttal by Bruce Perens

[noahclem]

Let's say you grant me a license to your software, and license it GPL. If I give or sell a copy to my competitor, I must give him the same chance to make changes that I had. How is that anti-competitive? That's not anti-competitive. But let's try a different scenario: let's say that a bunch of big companies and a non-profit get together (let's call them the wild bunch, because we like them) to discuss ways to stop a competitor from getting an edge by providing its customers with assurance that they won't be liable to another large company for patent infringement, if any exists. The "wild bunch" decides to add a term to the software license to take away the competitor's ability to compete because of the deal it made to protect its customers. The stated reason given by the "wild bunch" is that the competitor shouldn't be able to "make a separate peace" - everyone should needs to stand together against that large patent owning company, customers be damned.

We talk about the fact that free software has "grown up" because big companies are adopting it, and big companies are sponsoring developers (who of the major contributors doesn't work for a big company these days?). Well, when big companies get together and decide to specifically exclude another big company from a market, they call that a group boycott, an antitrust violation.

Noah Clements
IANAN (I Am Not A Nimmer)

Re:Good rebuttal by Bruce Perens

[init100]

Let's say you grant me a license to your software, and license it GPL. If I give or sell a copy to my competitor, I must give him the same chance to make changes that I had. How is that anti-competitive? It sounds like it levels the field, not the opposite.

The court that threw out Daniel Wallace lawsiut against the FSF more or less said the same thing:

[T]he GPL encourages, rather than discourages, free competition and the distribution of computer operating systems, the benefits of which directly pass to consumers. These benefits include lower prices, better access and more innovation.

Re:Good rebuttal by Bruce Perens

[mr_mischief]

The thing is, it's the FSF that owns the copyright on GNU software, and only GNU software is 100% certain to come under the new license. The FSF as an organization has the right to license its software as it sees fit, so long as the license is legal and valid.

The big question becomes, I guess, whether there's some sort of problem with the fact that the FSF has partnered with all of these companies and acts as a hub of collusion for them.

As far as anti-competitive goes, though, Novell was competing in the market before Ximian and Suse. They can still compete with GPLv2 software once GNU software becomes GPLv3 licensed. How well they can compete may be in question, but their chance to compete I don't think has been impacted at all. Keep in mind that Novell sabotaging the very people from whom they got the license for the GPLed software they sell in the first place is not only anti-competitive, but rude and morally disgusting.

The funny thing about all of this is, if the people who originally contributed the code under the GPL are no longer allowed to distribute it because of something Novell promises Microsoft, that means it was really illegal for them to distribute it all along. This is because patents don't become an issue only once the issue is pointed out. If it was illegal for them to distribute it in the first place, then they couldn't really license it to Novell. If it couldn't really be licensed to Novell under the GPL, then Novell is in breach of copyright laws for redistributing it and for making derivative works. So how is it that Novell thinks they are going to take GPLed software proprietary, exactly, by claiming Microsoft holds patents on it? There's no upside for Novell here, unless the payoffs from MS were worth losing Suse as a product. I wish a lawyer would review this paragraph and tell me how far off base I am.

Most interesting part...

[srmq]

Perens thinks that with the Novell-MS deal, MS is granting rights to all their patents that may be used in a SUSE distribution for any use in any GPL software. And this under the current GPL 2.

... to Perens, the fact that Microsoft is currently giving to customers coupons that can be redeemed for a copy of SUSE Linux indicates that these coupons are intended to be redeemed for a copy of the copyrighted GPL 2 software.

"So, Microsoft is actively participating in distribution of the GPL2 software today, and must have assented to GPL 2 to do that, because any distribution without assent to GPL2 would be infringement. Under GPL 2, they have already given away the rights to use Microsoft patents that are applied in the Novell distribution, for any use in any GPL software, by anyone, forever," Perens said.

Re:Most interesting part...

[Bruce Perens]

Perens thinks that with the Novell-MS deal, MS is granting rights to all their patents that may be used in a SUSE distribution for any use in any GPL software. And this under the current GPL 2.

This started with a legal theory that Eben Moglen, FSF general counsel, gave at the FSF annual meeting. Someone should interview him on it.

Bruce

Re:Most interesting part...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wonder if Microsoft lawyers are scrambling around today researching and having meetings after reading that. Be interesting to see what spin Microsoft puts on the comment too, wouldn't be suprised if they don't use some shill reporter to say something akin to "Bruce Perens made a statement indicating that the GPL could be used to steal patents from their owners". If they do, Bruce should sue and if it comes out in court they were paid by Microsoft to put that spin on his statements then should sue Microsoft too. If only things were so simple of course.

Back to the original statement by Bruce Perens though, it would be nice though if there was an actual court decision that Microsoft couldn't sue GPL software users/vendors/writers for patent infringement. More likely though they would just quit distributing any GPL software and use it as proof that companies shouldn't deal in GPL software as it puts their intelectual property at risk.

The real question of course is did NOVELL by making this contractual agreement with Microsoft in effect protect all GPL'd software from IP lawsuits by Microsoft? One could assume from Bruce's comment that the FSF has done a legal study on it and came to that conclusion, but he does not say that and we all know the breakdown on "assume". It would be nice if some law colleges gave this notion a strong examination and posted it online. Would make for a nice tool to educate the future lawyers in intellectual property and contract law as well.

Might as well claim

[Anonymous Coward]

that the MS source being leaked was merely the marketplace deciding the code belonged PD.

Or piracy that the software should be free. (though this last one is actually closer to reality: piracy is the only way in a government mandated monopoly for the market to set its price).

What?????

[Anonymous Coward]

Pray tell why anyone in their right mind would listen to a Microsoft-backed group about anything GPL or open source? Microsoft (or at least their slashdot apologists) calls open source "open sores" and "a cancer". Listening to them about open source is like listening to Iranians talk about Israel, or Israelis talking about Palestine.

Where was this story last night when I was "invited to the firehose" so I could vote it down? Someone please tag this sorry story "troll".

It got me to bite.

-mcgrew sm62704

"open source partisan," what is that?

[twitter]

I don't think you are going to get very far if you try to equate free software advocates with PR hitmen. One group is composed of volunteers out to promote software freedom and your rights. To do this, they share their code and documentation freely. The other group is composed of people who are paid to advocate positions, regardless of their personal beliefs - a job the more closely resembles prostitution than other professions. The company they represents thinks of developers as pawns to fuck over and routinely calls their users worse. It's a good thing that most people can see through the bullshit this second group has to offer.

Of course, you might be able to point out some kind of vast conspiracy to strip me of my rights that I might have missed. I have not seen it in the GPL, or on the FSF site or in anything Perens has ever written. Go ahead, make my day.

Re:"open source partisan," what is that?

[dedazo]

The fact that you claim the moral high ground does not mean you are some sort of saintly martir. Everyone has an agenda. If you are one of these free software "advocates" I hope you're the exception rather than the rule.

The company they represents thinks of developers as pawns to fuck over

Nice language. This seems to be your favorite soundbyte of the moment. Something some mid-level manager at a company with 60,000 employees said years ago. Talk about hanging on for dear life.

I was wondering though - what do you think about Stallman claiming anyone who does not subscribe to his beliefs is "immoral" and should be doing something else? Is that just his opinion, or should I generalize that to anyone who claims they're "advocating"? After all, if you can generalize your "pawns to fuck over" FUD, I don't see why Stallman's position should not apply to the community as well. Which means people would have a genuine right to be critical of him and by extension worried about the direction the GPL is taking.

Re:"open source partisan," what is that?

[inca34]

You have completely failed to convince me that the "moral high ground" of FSF does not make them more likely to fairly, honestly, and straightforwardly represent my and the public's interests better than the other group.

So he used some nice words to contrast volunteer positions versus paid positions, big deal. The essence of his argument boils down to this: We do what we do for the love or for the money. It turns out that people will lie for money. How many will lie for love?

That may not make him or anyone in FSF a "saintly mart[y]r" (who apparently is unquestionable?), but it does give their "agenda" a better chance of being for the people and not just for the wallets of some executive management teams.

Re:"open source partisan," what is that?

[jayp00001]

I think that the point of the ACT article is that gpl3 DOES take away your rights. IANAL but in essence it seems to me that GPL3 is trying to make it impossible for anyone that creates GPL3 code to partner with any commercial company. It also seems to say that if I wanted build upon your GPL3d work, I am not allowed protect my intellectual property. It also seems pretty ambiguous, and I think that when GPL3 goes to court (as seems inevitable) it will be decimated becaue of its ambiguity. If GPL3 wants to be successful it needs to remove the nonsense and get back to protecting the 4 freedoms.

Re:"open source partisan," what is that?

[ericrost]

There is nothing in any GPL v1, 2, 3.. that says you can't partner with a commercial company. There are many commercial companies producing GPL'd code (Canonical anyone?).

However, it was always the goal of the GPL to make it such that if you wish to benefit from the years of hard work GIVEN to you FREELY by developers that created the GNU toolset, you would have to play by their rules. Which are very simple. Make your work freely available. Distribute the source code... now.. you can charge for the distribution.. you can charge to set it up for someone.. you can charge for support.. you can charge for training...

It is redirecting the money to where it belongs. In the information age, knowledge is power/money. If you have the knowledge to do your own support/training/deployment/sales pitch to management, more power to you, you have now become a consultant that can sell that service.

There are VERY viable commercial models using the GPL, you just have to claw your way out of the proprietary software model that is so unnaturally imposed by our backwards IP laws (thus the GPL is helping you to make this cognitive shift).

If you disagree, don't use GPL'd code.

It's really pretty simple :)

Re:"open source partisan," what is that?

[aardvarkjoe]

"open source partisan," what is that?

I don't know about anyone else, but it sure sounds to me like you fit the bill.

Just because Perens isn't being paid to make this statement (at least directly -- he makes his money largely from his free software advocacy, and this is part of that) doesn't mean that he's not a biased source. He's been one of the core supporters of the GPLv3 from the beginning. His position is just as unsurprising as Microsoft's.

Re:"open source partisan," what is that?

[LionMage]

Partisan: "an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance"

Don't know where "PR hitmen" came from, but the definition of partisan does seem to more-or-less describe Bruce Perens and a host of other advocates. Bruce might object to the terms "biased" or "emotional," but I think one could objectively point to other opinion pieces he's written where he shows some bias at the very least. Everyone is biased, so this isn't a particularly strong condemnation.

Re:"open source partisan," what is that?

[dpastern]

Richard's ideals are far different to yours. He believes that everyone and everyone should be able to use Free Software, without fear of harrassment. He believes that software patents are blatantly illegal, and bad for business. He believes that supporting proprietary formats is bad, or that taking the community's hard work, and modifying it outside of the terms of agreement of the GPL is bad, and worse, illegal (and it is). If you don't like the terms of GPL software, get your hands off it. Simple.

Good on him for his beliefs, and good on him for standing his ground for so long in the face of personal attacks such as above. I for one totally agree with Richard's views and beliefs, and will always support the FSF.

Big corporate entities like Microsoft don't want you to use FSF software, because then they lose:

1. Money
2. Control

and they don't like this. Other big business (RIAA, MPAA) like Microsoft a lot, because it does their bidding (which happens to be against the rights and interests of the population I might add). The FSF does not endorse the tactics that the RIAA & MPAA use to control the populace, and therefore our software is untainted. Richard, in my humble opinion, rightly questions the validity of software patents - statistical evidence clearly shows that they hamper competition and development (sorry, can't remember the report, but it was in regards to the health of the database software industry in mainland US, as part of the EU trust vs Microsoft saga).

If you don't like Richard's viewpoints, fine, but many view his views as spot on, and laud them because they care for the community, not the minority corporate interests.

Ask yourself this question (and this is particularly pertinent to the US government) - why does corporpate interest have so much influence over government decisions, especially when corporations are not individuals and have no legal right to vote?

Dave

Re:"open source partisan," what is that?

[inode_buddha]

Since when are saintly martyrs and agendas unquestionable?

Re:"open source partisan," what is that?

[dedazo]

Richard's ideals are far different to yours.

Yes well, we've already established that, haven't we?

Big corporate entities like Microsoft don't want you to use FSF software

Please don't be ridiculous. Microsoft doesn't want me to use anything other than Microsoft software, period. They'd rather I run SQL Server instead of Oracle and Windows instead of OS X. The same way Toyota would rather I drive a Camry than a Ford Mustang. Why do you people insist on attaching such deep significance to simple commercial and competitive realities? To further your "oh we're so good and they're so evil" agenda?

why does corporpate interest have so much influence over government decisions

Because that's - for better or for worse - the way the system works. It has nothing particular to do with software or Microsoft or "freedom" or anything else. I have no idea how this is relevant here. And the FSF & friends also do their share of lobbying, in case you've missed that.

Re:"open source partisan," what is that?

[eno2001]

I think the dissonance in your viewpoint vs. one like mine is that you mistakenly believe that your right to make a profit should have more power and validity than my right to be free. On the surface, those people who want to make money writing software have nothing wrong with them. For the most part many of them are well intentioned. But, when they believe that their right to make money with software should negate my right to create a competitive and completely free (both in terms of speech and gratis [that means free of charge for the mouth breathers in the audience]) alternative to their product, that's when people like me fight back.

All this saber rattling on the part of Microsoft, their supporters and companies like them trying to threaten users and developers about possible legal risks (likely based on the flawed concept of software patents) is born of the idea that their profit is more valuable to society than my freedom. In general, I call horseshit on Gates, Ballmer, et al and anyone who supports that view. You have absolutely no right to make a profit when it interferes with my freedom to create an original implementation of a basic concept. As long as people at MS and companies like MS continue to try and hold to this unsupportable viewpoint, people like me will come around with as many methods as possible of thwarting them. The GPL is built on the concept of freedom and so it stands. I agree with it and unless you can give me one good reason why I shouldn't that doesn't relate to your own profit, I won't change my mind. Profit is the least important aspect of our society even though it's been elevated as the most important. The most important aspect of our society is freedom as long as that freedom benefits each individual fairly and functions without the concept of personal gain in terms of material wealth. Any clearer now?

Re:"open source partisan," what is that?

[dpastern]

True, Microsoft would prefer that you used their software over other commercial offerings, but their FUD isn't the same. You don't see Microsoft spreading anti Apple FUD like they do against Linux with their 'get the facts' campaign, do you? Microsoft hates the fundamental design methods and distribution methods, and freedom that GPL'd software brings. Period. You can live in your dark and damp world and ignore these truths if you want.

As to business interfering with governmental decisions, it might be the way that the system works, but it doen't mean its right, and it most certainly doesn't mean that it can't be changed, and the balance of power tipped back where it should be - with the people. And it has everything to do with software and freedom. Ever heard of patents? Copyrights? Both of them are intertwined with software, both of them limit freedoms. Both of them were lobbied by big business, hence their introduction, and extension. Do you even understand why copyright was originally introduced? What its purpose was? Why it is so twisted now that it almost makes copyright irrelevant in regards to contributing to society? Probably not.

Dave

Re:"open source partisan," what is that?

[dedazo]

You don't see Microsoft spreading anti Apple FUD

I see Microsoft competing with other companies and other companies competing with Microsoft, all of them using tactics akin to your concept of "FUD" as they've done since the IT industry was invented. You have cheapened the meaning of the term "FUD" to the point it is attached to anything, including constructive criticism (remember ESR saying that CUPS sucks? That was FUD!). So really, cry me a river and all that.

You know, Microsoft is not the only commercial software company in the world, and you are not the center of the world. Try to keep that in mind. It helps.

Microsoft hates

Microsoft "hates" nothing. Please stop attaching emotions to something that is a practical, commercial issue.

You can live in your dark and damp world and ignore these truths if you want.

ROFL! I don't know if your "world" is dark and damp, but it sure isn't close to the reality I live in.

but it doen't mean its right, and it most certainly doesn't mean that it can't be changed

You are correct there, of course.

And it has everything to do with software and freedom

You are (mostly) incorrect there, of course. That's an emotional response to a legal problem. That's also counterproductive.

Do you even understand why copyright was originally introduced?

Despite what you might think, I understand it well enough to know that you (and Stallman) are only partially correct in your approach. But that's your problem, not mine.

Re:"open source partisan," what is that?

[dedazo]

you mistakenly believe that your right to make a profit should have more power and validity than my right to be free

Oooh, can I be combative and cocky as well? Let me say this: your "freedom" stops precisely at the point where my right to make a profit starts. And since your hero Stallman has repeatedly claimed I'm a spawn of Satan (among other things) because I don't give him my code, we're likely to have a problem, no?

On the other hand, if you're whining about patents (I suppose that's the center of your argument), then keep in mind Microsoft has very rarely used patents offensively and have been victimized by them more often than not. Why don't you look behind you at what IBM et.al. are doing with their patents? I'm sure you'll be amused to no end.

Other than that, I have no software patents and I could care less about your crusade for "freedom". More power to you. So I'd appreciate it if you got off your morality horse and stop insulting my intelligence because I don't see the light with the same clarity as you obviously do.

Re:"open source partisan," what is that?

[jb.hl.com]

I'm sorry, "Flamebait"? Buh?

Res publica conservata est!

[iperkins]

Microsoft delenda est... Cato the Elder, Scipio, et al would be proud! Throw the Tarquins off the Tarpeian Rock!!

Well...

[sux0rz]

If anyone knows anti-trust lawsuits, its Microsoft. However, they've never been concerned about them in the past.

re: what was "wrong" with GPLv2?

[g2devi]

Besides the other reasons stated (the N-M deal, the GPL depends on US-specific concepts), the GPL v2 is incompatible with more free software licenses than it needs to be and this leads to some license fragmentation.

The GPL v3 attempts to fix this problem by adding a "permissions clause" which allows the original license owner to add other permissions (e.g. the LGPL is now the GPL plus some permissions) and by adjusting the license to be more compatible with the free software norm (e.g. the Apache license is now almost compatible with the GPL v3. The patent clauses are now compatible, unfortunately the Apache indemnity clause was a bit too strong for the GPL community to swallow. ).

This "permissions clause" makes it easy for the average user to understand how different flavours of the GPLv3 can combine -- just drop incompatible permissions and end up with the common subset (which would be no less restrictive than the GPL v3).

This could allow you to define the CPL, PHP license, Mozilla license, etc as GPL + some permissions and either get rid of the original license or publish "equivalent GPL+permissions versions" of these licenses along side the orignal (simpler) license so as to make it obvious how you can combine code from your license with other licenses.

Thank you ACT!

[cyphercell]

Thanks ACT, for providing criticizim at such an early stage, providing an opportunity to review the GPLv3 before release. Thank you for the increased public attention.

Allowing the FSF to defend GPLv3 against FUD early in the game simply makes it less likely that people(customers) will be affected by FUD at a later date after GPLv3 has been deployed.

ACT is stupid.

Re:Thank you ACT!

[ACT_Spokesperson]

Wow, you're right!! We're dumb. We spend money to do a legal analysis of the GPLv3 to look at potential downfalls and then share it with the community during the comment period... when they can actually change it.

If we were just trying to spread FUD, that would be idiotic!!!

Perhaps you, Bruce and the rest of the community would be better served by reading, digesting and taking lessons from the actual content of our work we provided, rather than simply launch ad hominem attacks.

Just a thought, not a sermon.

Re:Thank you ACT!

[cyphercell]

I don't care about your work, it will fail. Proprietary software fails all four core concepts in economics, it's a pipedream. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics#Core_concep ts It's like fiat money except, comparatively, very few people have a vested interest in keeping it afloat. The proprietary software industry as a whole may simply be decreed (in court) as worthless at any time. It's a naturally occurring service industry, and software vendors are selling cdr's marked up several million times, this will not hold the test of time. So, go ahead drown in your tar pit, I could give a damn. The FSF will go through your work and learn from it, as well as the rest of the community, many will implement licenses influenced by both your work and the FSFs, and it will happen overnight. The FSF should worry about your work not me. Bruce Perens is responding to your claims and he has every right to do so. In effect there is an army of lawyers working on GPLv3, they are your opponents not Bruce, myself or anyone in the community, targeting us is what makes your work FUD.

Re:Thank you ACT!

[ACT_Spokesperson]

Thanks for all your really thoughtful commentary. You're such a kind, open-minded, and well-reasoned human being. No wonder the quality of discussion is so high here on Slashdot.

Re:Thank you ACT!

[cyphercell]

*REVISED*
I am not a lawyer, go argue this with a lawyer, leave me alone. Charge me with anti-trust and you can talk to my lawyer. Otherwise stfu!

Key quote:

[gillbates]

We note that the draft of the GPLv3 does not tear down the bridge Microsoft and Novell have built for their customers. It is unfortunate, however, that the FSF is attempting to use the GPLv3 to prevent future collaboration among industry leaders to benefit customers..

I believe what Horacio Gutierrez really meant was: "It is unfortunate, however, that the FSF is attempting to use the GPLv3 ... to benefit customers..."

Because Horacio's argument just doesn't make sense. Typically, industry collaboration works to benefit the industry, not the consumer. In fact, I believe the boards of most corporations would consider collaboration among companies to reduce price and increase features (thereby reducing profit margins) to be a breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the CEO. I'm not aware of any company trying to decrease its profit margin, yet this is what Horacio suggests. In fact, I think it is just the opposite: industry collaboration tends to stifle new features, increase cost, and reduce the functionality and usability of software. The FSF is actually having a positive impact on the industry by virtue of its increasing competition. It is the classic example of how capitalism minimizes inefficiencies in markets - currently, the major proprietary software makers aren't very efficient at producing what the market wants. In comes the FSF, and solves the problem.

Re:Key quote:

[Yfrwlf]

I wonder if the FSF really has completely solved the problem economically though. As of right now there are certain areas in which Free Software lags behind proprietary software. The gaps are shrinking though of course, and in a matter of time perhaps the FSF will have completely solved the demand for software, and good, restriction-free software at that. There are some interesting market pressures at work, and I wonder if the Free Software forces will be able to fulfill every consumer need. Consumers want new and fresh constantly, and even though the nature of Free Software means there is an increasingly diverse number of programs and modifications to programs, will the development speed be sufficient to quench consumer thirst without paid help?

I'm working on a project that to attempt to solve the problem of the gap between Free Software and proprietary that exists in some areas, for instance in education and the gaming industry. If this problem is temporary remains to be seen, but for now I think it's a potential solution. I'm a bit shy about making it public as there are several things I'm still trying to figure out, and I'm not happy with the wording in certain places, and the ideas are pretty random. For now it's still "hidden" behind my index.html file because I'm still trying to write everything, but it's somewhat nearing being "ready" (at least for discussion). I would like feedback if anyone is interested. :) Oh, and the title doesn't display correctly in IE and I haven't figured out why yet, but most slashdotters use Firefox or Opera any way I imagine, or any other browsers that actually conform to web standards. Open Development Network About Page

Just a random pondering here, but as the pool of Free Software increases, it becomes more difficult for proprietary software companies since they are either forced to rebuild everything from the ground up or pay for the use of other proprietary code. You see it in graphics engines a lot, for instance. I wonder if the costs for proprietary software developers to use such proprietary code will go down, or up, as Free Software competes more with it? If it becomes more expensive, it will be more difficult for proprietary software developers to stay in business and could cause a complete collapse of the proprietary software model as it could be just too expensive to catch up. Perhaps the pressure will make the costs lower though in order to be able to compete with Free Software, but at lower costs the developers would get paid less, and projects which pay more that are for creating Free Software would look much more appealing.

Wow!

[SwashbucklingCowboy]

Hope the person who wrote this isn't a programmer, I sure wouldn't want to use any software (s)he worked on.

The idea that the GPLv3 is likely safe from litigation because one case against GPLv2 was laughed out of court is itself laughable.

Re:Wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi Steve! Have you thrown any chairs about lately?

Interesting twist

[gillbates]

The threat of being completely cut off from the ability to distribute GPL code can easily be seen as extreme and unfair for any company...

I believe even Microsoft is being forced to admit the power of free software.

Remember when Microsoft said Linux was irrelevant? When Balmer called it a toy?

Now it seems they are making the claim that free software developers must allow Novell to distribute their works, according to Novell's conditions, or suffer liability under a claim of tortious interference.

So it would seem that:

• Free Software does have an impact on the business world, and:
• Microsoft is laying claim to it, as if they own it.
• Developers of free software could be forced to distribute it under Microsoft's terms, or face liability under theory of tortious interference. That is, even though you gave away your software for free, you aren't allowed to change the license terms if it interferes with someone else's established business.

What is particularly galling about this position is that Microsoft's lawyers seem to be of the opinion that if someone stopped giving away their software - software upon which Microsoft has built a business relationship - that Microsoft can now sue the author, who received no money for his work, for damages.

Yes, this is our legal system at work. Where the refusal to give away software can get you sued.

I imagine by this reasoning, Microsoft could be sued for tortious influence the next time they raise the price of Vista.

bias is fine...

[Anonymous Coward]

bias is fine... i'm biased that 2+2=4. it has served me well.

everyone has a bias. the key is if one allows the bias to impact the reasonableness of one's conclusion. i've changed my mind on a number of issues despite a bias that existed prior to my changing my mind. it can happen.

i do agree it is rare, though. i can't recount how many arguments i've been in where the conclusion smacks me in the face, i argue the points, they get ignored and i get slimed. it appears to be a quirk of human nature - but they do know enough not to discuss the arguments. they know on some level, even if it is subconscious, that they can't support their bias.

anyway, bias is often an issue, but not always.

judge an argument on the quality of the argument... overly focusing on bias while ignoring the arguments is a red herring and in poor style.

Read the Papers

[Dick Wilder]

Bruce Perens has responded to the papers I wrote for ACT without having read them. He made the absurd statement to eWeek, repeated here, that the Daniel Wallace case "shows the GPL is unlikely to give rise to any significant liability." I was talking about GPLv3, not an earlier version and the Daniel Wallace case was based on a predatory pricing theory - not group boycott theory as I discussed. Different facts, different law, different result. It would be great if someone with some legal training look at this, if not Mr. Perens. They are at http://www.actonline.org/documents/ACT-GPLv3-Legal -Risks.pdf and http://www.actonline.org/documents/GPLv3-License-o r-Contract.pdf.

Re:Read the Papers

[allthingscode]

IANAL, so I would just get lost in your documents, but it's a shame that when someone says:

      You can use my code if:
      1. when you make any kind of money off it, you must give them my code
      2. you add to or modify my code, then you must redistribute it because i would like to benefit from your changes
      3. you can't restrict someone from using my code
      If you violate these, you are not allowed you use my code.

that not only do you have to explain what every letter means, but you have to make sure that they don't try to interpret the spaces between words to mean that they can ignore you.

Novell, in buying SuSE, understood that they were acquiring a company built on the work of others. Just like Microsoft, a corporation, can end a license with another company because of a violation, the developers of Linux can revoke their license under the GPL.

Re:Read the Papers

[noahclem]

That would be a great license, but you couldn't remake all of society with it ;-) GPLv3 both adds to and subtracts from your great license in many ways but here are two major ones.

Subtraction

2. you add to or modify my code, then you must redistribute it because i would like to benefit from your changes This one went out the door because big companies who are not Microsoft didn't want it.

Addition
If you sell my code, you can't make a deal to protect your customers from my infringing code.

There are those who would intentionally write to infringe on Microsoft's patents just to test the system. I'm all for "fight the power", many patents are not very good and should be challenged. But GPLv3 is the wrong way to go about it. GPLv3 says it's ok to drive a company out of business if it tries to protect its customers.

Re:Read the Papers

[Bruce Perens]

Mr Wilder, had you sincrely wished to solve any problems with GPL3, there were avenues open to you including participation in the committees and use of the feedback process. But that's not your role here. Your employer is a lobbying front for Microsoft, a company that has a vested interest in spreading fear and doubt about GPL3.

I checked with Eben Moglen, general counsel of the Free Software foundation, before writing a rebuttal to the eWeek material. Moglen had seen your paper and did not consider it worth his time to respond.

I responded to your quotes in eWeek since they had already run in the press. I have no desire to propogate the rest of your material.

I think it would be helpful for you to debate your material with an attorney supporting GPL3, instead of me. Unfortunately, we have not yet found an attorney who sees sufficient merit in your work to find it interesting to engage you.

Bruce

anti-trust law allegations taken seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

litigant Daniel Wallace was all but laughed out of the courtroom for alleging the GPLv2 violates anti-trust law

I thought he was actually laughed out of the courtroom. Really, he was taken seriously?

Oh, the irony

[evil_Tak]

Interspersed with the article were the following links:

* Click here to read more about ACT's warnings that there are the legal risks associated with the third draft of GPL 3.
* Is GPLv3 dead on arrival? Click here to read more.
* Some top Linux developers have warned that GPLv3 could kill open source. To read more, click here.
* Novell's CEO says he has no regrets about his company's deal with Microsoft. Read more here.
* HSBC is standardizing on Novell's SUSE Linux. Click here to read more.

I wondered if anyone would notice...

[Anonymous Coward]

I stole it from a Groklaw sig (SCO delenda est) that prompted me to read up about ancient wars via a quick Google, just for this article.

RMS/Theo popularity contest?

[The Monster]

Because even RMS is more warm and fuzzy than Theo.

You're INHUMAN! And your inhumanity retroactively excuses code theft. Which we didn't do. How dare you accuse one of our developers of code theft! It wasn't deliberate; it was a mistake. We meant to rewrite the copied code before committing it to the tree, and thereby create merely a derived work of the original, but not 'derived' in the legal sense, mind you. We didn't really steal anything because it didn't actually run or anything.

You inhuman bastards are the reason we hate Linux.

</Theo>

You're wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

> impossible for anyone that creates GPL3 code to partner with any commercial company

If you own the code (rather than using *someone else's* GPLv3'd code), you can license it under any terms you want--you probably wouldn't license it to them under the GPL at all. So no obstacle there.

> It also seems to say that if I wanted build upon your GPL3d work, I am not allowed protect my intellectual property.

From whom? You can still sue 3rd parties. You're just not allowed to take other people's code, then assert patents against your fellow users... but how fair is that? Aren't you essentially extorting the other parties? You take their code by using your patents to steal* their rights to their own code, given that the patents will forbid anyone but you from using their code? Please remember, the FSF is against software patents to begin with. The US is the only country to recognize them, and that only came about due to bad legal precedents.

So if you don't want to share, don't. But don't pee in the communal well and act snobbish when they try to take away your IP rights. (Bad pun, huh?)

> It also seems pretty ambiguous, and I think that when GPL3 goes to court (as seems inevitable) it will be decimated becaue of its ambiguity. If GPL3 wants to be successful it needs to remove the nonsense and get back to protecting the 4 freedoms.

I think it's you who is confused, based on the misapprehensions you harbor. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not having any trouble with the GPLv3 draft. You might find it helpful to consult a legal dictionary or read the rationale documents. The rationale documents, in particular, detail exactly why and how the clauses support the four freedoms.

That doesn't mean the draft is perfect, of course. So if you do find any potential situations that would be problematic, by all means, bring them to attention and explain how they impact the four freedoms. They have open forums for comments, after all.

* In this case, it is stealing, because they no longer have the rights after you take them. The GPL, by contrast, allows people to essentially "copy" rights and distribute them to others, which I believe to be a good thing.

Wouldn't it be better

[YetAnotherBob]

Wouldn't it be better to get our legal advice from a lawyer? I'm not sure that either side in this war of words really knows what the legal issues are.

The professional lawyers I've seen comment on this have all said 'Wait and see what it actually says before deciding.' It's still months too early to say what the end result will be. Linus has come from 'Hell No' to 'We'll See' as the process has advanced. They aren't done yet, and I hope that it continues to get better. It is after all still in the comment stages. They are floating trial ideas, and seeing what works, and what gets shot down. The shot down ideas don't mean the end of Free Software, or the end of Linux. They just mean that that idea might not work. Or that one idea needs to be modified or clarified before it works.

But

Let's wait to pass judgement until we know what we are judging.

restriction impedes innovation?

[GovCheese]

If a company includes in its own closed proprietary package an application covered by GPLv3, does that threaten that company's proprietary control over the rest of their package? The GPLv3 seems ambiguous but I'm inept reading legalese. But I do worry that as the GPLv3 becomes more antagonistic towards the private sector, users will not see innovation benefits that otherwise may occur. Society benefits from innovations in both sectors, private and open: I've been the beneficiary of both and more power to both sides.

Partisan

[Anonymous Coward]

Something like this, this, this whole thread, this, this, this, this, this, etc.

BSA wants to talk to you

[Anonymous Coward]

n/t

I'm confused

[volpe]

Ok, I'm confused:
Your original statement says:

"So, Microsoft is actively participating in distribution of the GPL2 software today, and must have assented to GPL 2 to do that, because any distribution without assent to GPL2 would be infringement. Under GPL 2, they have already given away the rights to use Microsoft patents that are applied in the Novell distribution, for any use in any GPL software, by anyone, forever," Perens said.

You then further clarify:

What Microsoft is giving out is paid-up Novell licenses which Microsoft pays for.

So, Microsoft buys a product from Party A, and gives it to Party B, and in so doing, Microsoft gives up any claims to their patent IP that may have slipped in to Party A's product? Isn't this stretching the definition of "distribution" a bit? I mean, suppose Party A infringes some source code owned by United Parcel Service. I buy a GPL'd product from Party A and have them ship it to me via UPS. In delivering the product to me, has UPS "distributed" their copyrighted work to me under the GPL, thereby forever rendering it a GPL product and ligitimizing the original infringing distribution by Party A?

Re:I'm confused

[Bruce Perens]

If you ship something by UPS, they are doing the shipping on your behalf, you are the one with legal liability. In contrast, Microsoft showed detailed knowledge of the product's provenance and its licensing in their announcements, etc., and is having Novell ship it and render services (including modified copies) on Microsoft's behalf.

Bruce

Ha ha ha

[Anonymous Coward]

You can use my code if:

1. when you make any kind of money off it, you must give them my code
2. you add to or modify my code, then you must redistribute it because i would like to benefit from your changes
3. you can't restrict someone from using my code

If you violate these, you are not allowed you use my code.

Funny. The GPL doesn't say any of these things.

If GPLv3 is risky...

[BlueParrot]

... then what about all the proprietary licenses out there? I mean, consider Microsoft's license for windows Vista as an example. They are allowed to install software on your machine without your consent, you are prohibited from running it in a debugger, the software can "phone home" ... etc

Perhaps what is "risky" about the GPLv3 is that it grants users a plethora of rights, which is "risky" in the sense that you might get sued if you try to take those rights away... Of course, that is the entire point of it to begin with. Basically what they are trying to say is "It is risky promising users you won't try to take their rights away because you might want to screw them over in the future."

The catch is of course that with free software "developers" and "users" are often the same people. After all, all those GNU and Linux developers need a working system to create their software. It thus only makes sense for developers to try to protect their rights [ as users ] by putting their code under this "risky" license.

go back to sleep

[fuliginous]

You miss the point dim wit. Some places in the world there are people to who the legal landscape around the GPL matters. So it is important to highlight for those who care what facts there are in the world rather than the FUD and things like case law qualify as facts.

Tortious interference

[jgoemat]

Hmmm... It seems to me that Microsoft could have a problem here. They specifically crafted their agreement with Novell to interfere with Novell's license to use Linux (the GPL). The changes on patents in GPL v3 are just clarifications. Version 2 already "makes it clear" that patents must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all. Novell's deal with Microsoft is framed as a "covenant not to sue" Novell's customers, but it is in fact a license for their customers to use Microsoft's patents. A license is nothing more than a covenant not to sue.

OT: Discussion about ODN

[gillbates]

Sounds like a good idea. I could really go for paid work developing educational software.

Re:OT: Discussion about ODN

[Yfrwlf]

Thanks, know of anyone who wants to help? ;)
 
I'm going to try to nail together an outline for a project idea for how to get something like this out there and attractive so that this can get rolling, because all I've heard is "that sounds like a good idea" which just makes me want to get this going more. I know that *I* would also be very willing to pay to get some good programs, especially games and video editing software, and I know school districts would be interested in educational software to solve their needs so they could switch easily over to Linux and save even more money.
 
I have so many ideas for Linux in so many areas, but it's just frustrating that it's an up-hill battle at first, and for Linux in general. Getting more games on Linux would make it's popularity skyrocket and any kind of adoption increase for Linux is good for everyone.

Re:OT: Discussion about ODN

[gillbates]

Ok, who does project planning. Really. I would be interested in doing some coding for educational purposes, but I'm not sure that my efforts would meet the needs of the educational community. What we really need is for teachers to come together to tell us what they need, rather than scratching our own itch. The site is targetted primarily at programmers, not the end user right now.

But let's do some work on this. I have years of source code which for which the whole is less than the sum of the pieces because the efforts weren't focused on a single goal. Maybe I can put that to use if I have a clear goal to work toward.

Re:OT: Discussion about ODN

[Yfrwlf]

Right, and a lot of school districts would switch if the educational software they needed was available. Edubuntu I'm sure offers some good things, but of course I'm sure there's a lot more that is still needed. There are several niches to be filled in many areas.

I was considering trying to put together a new site based on something other than simple forums. While forums can be used to a degree, I felt a Digg system may be closer to what I want, but would have to be modified, or perhaps a rewrite from scratch would be easier. Perhaps a wiki would be best for collecting ideas for a new site layout. We also need to spread the word about the project, but I'm scared of being hit too hard because of my local hosting bandwidth. We'll see how that goes I guess. :)

I may submit a few articles to various Linux sites to see if they can ask the community what they think about the project, and give it some attention. Scared of slashdotting though as I'm sure it'd kill my connection if it was ever posted. May move it to GoDaddy. If you know of anyone who may be interested in such a project, have them head to the forums or chat room. Need a meeting place at the very lease. :)