Slashdot Mirror
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
chessweb writes "Here is a rather enlightening article by Richard Stallman on the reasons for moving to GPLv3 that puts the previous TiVo post into the right context." From the article: "One major danger that GPLv3 will block is tivoization. Tivoization means computers (called 'appliances') contain GPL-covered software that you can't change, because the appliance shuts down if it detects modified software... The manufacturers of these computers take advantage of the freedom that free software provides, but they don't let you do likewise... GPLv3 ensures you are free to remove the handcuffs. It doesn't forbid DRM, or any kind of feature. It places no limits on the substantive functionality you can add to a program, or remove from it. Rather, it makes sure that you are just as free to remove nasty features as the distributor of your copy was to add them."
As a consultant for several large companies, I'd always done my work on
Windows. Recently however, a top online investment firm asked us to do
some work using Linux. The concept of having access to source code was
very appealing to us, as we'd be able to modify the kernel to meet our
exacting standards which we're unable to do with Microsoft's products.
Although we met several technical challenges along the way
(specifically, Linux's lack of Token Ring support and the fact that we
were unable to defrag its ext2 file system), all in all the process
went smoothly. Everyone was very pleased with Linux, and we were
considering using it for a great deal of future internal projects.
So you can imagine our suprise when we were informed by a lawyer that
we would be required to publish our source code for others to use. It
was brought to our attention that Linux is copyrighted under something
called the GPL, or the Gnu Protective License. Part of this license
states that any changes to the kernel are to be made freely available.
Unfortunately for us, this meant that the great deal of time and money
we spent "touching up" Linux to work for this investment firm would
now be available at no cost to our competitors.
Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any
products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to
its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.
Although we had planned for no one outside of this company to ever
use, let alone see the source code, we were now put in a difficult
position. We could either give away our hard work, or come up with
another solution. Although it was tought to do, there really was no
option: We had to rewrite the code, from scratch, for Windows 2000.
I think the biggest thing keeping Linux from being truly competitive
with Microsoft is this GPL. Its draconian requirements virtually
guarentee that no business will ever be able to use it. After my
experience with Linux, I won't be recommending it to any of my
associates. I may reconsider if Linux switches its license to
something a little more fair, such as Microsoft's "Shared Source".
Until then its attempts to socialize the software market will insure
it remains only a bit player.
Thank you for your time.
One rule for Tivo and another rule for IBM?
Why should I have less right to install modified code on my mainframe than on the box under my TV?
For all Stallman's huffing and puffing about defending freedom, it sounds like he caved in to big business here.
Stallman always talks about freedom and all that, but what if I want to write a new DRM system? The software license should not tell you what you can or cannot code.
In a more /. speak: In GPL3 land, the license programs you!
I am completely against DRM, but I am completely in favor fo free will. People should have the right to code whatever they want. Ok, obviously, GPL3 is not compulsory, so you can release things in GLP2 if you want, but this does not change the fact that version 3 is removing freedoms from you, and not adding new ones.
I don't see how you consider it "intellectual theft." You were perfectly willing to use a Free Open-Source Software solution & its kernel to you & your company's competitive advantage but not willing to post the source code of your "hard work?" This implies that the folks who built the kernel, or modified it before you, didn't put in any "hard work" into the project you were so willingly & ready to exploit for your own competitive advantage. It's like the old saying, "you can't have your cake & eat it too." You seem like a smart solution provider so I'm sure you've heard this before: RTFM!
As a hardcore proponent of FOSS, it sounds like GPLv3 is a step in the right direction (admittedly, though, I don't know all the hidden nuances) as it seems more conducive to creating a community of free software. To me, folks that keep cowering under their Windows-only "solutions" just don't see the larger picture. It's more than "look at me, I created this & I'm hoarding it all." It should be more about, "sure I created this, but who else will make it better (& maybe I can benefit from that down the road)." Once the masses start seeing that we ALL have more to gain through the GPL & FOSS, the world will be a better, more cohesive & more advanced place. Maybe it's just here in the States, but I see way too much of the "what can I take, exploit & hoard" mentality. I can only thank all the good folks who see beyond such a barbaric existence.
Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever. -Mahatma Ghandi
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
...because the appliance shuts down if it detects modified software... How does the appliance detect modified software? That is also a software check. Isn't it comparatively easy to bypass the check in software by altering the source code?On Services... (yeah, what -did- happen to that SAP bit?)
...
One major danger that GPLv3.1 will block is Googlization. Googlization means services contain GPL-covered software that you can't change, because the product is never published and so no source code has to be provided. The manufacturers of these services take advantage of the freedom that free software provides, but they don't let you do likewise. GPLv3.1 new services clause ensures you are free to remove the handcuffs.
On network-enabled devices...
One major danger that GPLv3.2 will block is Xboxization. Xboxization means devices contain GPL-covered software that connect to a network that you can't change, because the network shuts you out if it detects modified software... The manufacturers of these devices take advantage of the freedom that free software provides, but they don't let you do likewise... GPLv3.2's new network clause ensures you are free to remove the handcuffs.
On ATI/nVidia Linux drivers..
One major danger that GPLv3.3 will block is BLOBization. BLOBization means software packages containing GPL-covered software that communicate to a non-GPL-covered piece of binary software (BLOB) that you can't change, because the BLOB is not covered by the GPL... The developers of these BLOBs take advantage of the freedom that free software provides, but they don't let you do likewise... GPLv3.3's new network clause ensures you are free to remove the handcuffs.
On not having to GPL programs compiled using GCC..
One major danger that GPLv4 will block is GPL-less compiling. GPL-less compiling means programs created using GPL-covered software that you can't change, because the actual program contains no GPL-covered source code. The developers of these programs take advantage of the freedom that free software provides, but they don't let you do likewise... GPLv4's derivative work clause ensures you are free to remove the handcuffs.
On using e.g. The Gimp to create your graphics..
One major danger that GPLv4.1 will block is artization. artization means original works of art created using GPL-covered software that you can't change, because the work is strictly non-GPL. The artists of these works take advantage of the freedom that free software provides, but they don't let you do likewise... GPLv4.1's new GPL-created works clause ensures you are free to remove the handcuffs.
On working around the GPL by re-implementing (much the same that free software developers re-implement things covered by patents)..
One major danger that GPLv4.2 will block is reimplementation. reimplementation means software programs developed based on, but re-implemented in a different way of, GPL software that you can't change, because the work is not GPL. The developers of these programs take advantage of the freedom that free software provides, but they don't let you do likewise... GPLv4.2's new GPL-reimplementation clause ensures you are free to remove the handcuffs.
On using GPL software internally only...
One major danger that GPLv5 will block is in-houseation. in-houseation means software programs based on, developed with, and so forth and so on as set forth in the other clauses, that is only used in-house that you can't change because the source code need not have been made available. The developers of these programs take advantage of the freedom that free software provides, but they don't let you do likewise... GPLv5's new out-house clause ensures you are free to remove the handcuffs.
And so forth and so on. It should be pretty clear that the GPL is all about freedom - pure and utter total freedom to do as you wish without restriction, as long as the product of this doing is available to everybody else to do with as they wish without restriction as well. Whether this is truly freedom or not (i.e. as opposed to the BSD-style licenses) is a never-ending debate.
But surely the clauses applying to the MS-Novell deal (though they don't specifically refer to it, but that's what they are aimed at) are completely unenforceable in a court of law?
How can it be that a license that 1) MS has and never will agree to 2) that didn't exist when the deal was made be valid?
If I write a program and license it under the condition that you pay me £10 for it, can I then change the license a week later and say you have to pay 10 people £10 instead?
If a law banning something is instated by the Government, they are very rarely retrospective (how can you comply with something that does not exist yet?).
Either I'm missing something, or the GPL 3 is going to be totally unenforceable.
One of the things society is trying to do right now is determine the value of DRM. The current corporate wisdom is that DRM is critical to a continuing economy. Many of course disagree with this, but the issue has yet to be actually settled.
On the assumption that the world may go either way, If GPL3 is adopted, will it mean that it is impossible to return to a more GPL2 like stance in say GPL4?
I've got no idea why this guy is still on Slashdot after all these years repeating the same pile of garbage to troll people.
This only happens because BSD are *developers only*. They see freedom only in so far as it pertains to developers.
The FSF was started because a user, Richard M Stallman, was unable to get a printer to work. Being a developer as well, he could have fixed the problem if it weren't for the fact that copyright forbit it. And so the GPL was born.
Because the BSD are looking at it as a developer and the FSF are looking at it as a user, they don't see the same freedom. Therefore they will always disagree because the argument the other side makes does not work with the view they have of freedom.
RMS's idealism is admirable to be sure but I've grown so tired of his rhetorical devices that I just can't be bothered to pay attention to him anymore. His deliberate use of phraseology that implicity argues or accepts the point he is trying to explain is sophmoric and while I accept his motives I've grown tired of listening to his dreck.
"He's using a quantum encryption scheme! That'll take hours to break!"
And so the people entering the agreement to produce this new code have agreed on a license after their patent pledge.
What GPL3 cannot do is say it acts retroactively. Only governments want to be able to do that...
If DRM is critical to your economy is is going to be in the form where software development is going to occur outside of your economy. Making it a legal minefeild to develop software in your country makes it likely it will be developed outside and then sold inside by those that have bought the monopoly rights for various portions. I get this bleak perspective because that is exactly what happened with encryption software a few years ago when it was heavily restricted by law.
As for RMS - his agenda may not always agree with those who take a less US-centric view such as Linus. The Tivio does not hurt linux in any way whatsoever and may actually help it even as it may make things more difficult in the DRM debate. They are two seperate things and should be treated as such. Free software can be handled with licencing and normal copyright laws - DRM and weird intellectual property laws and artificial monopolies far worse than DVD region coding has to be handled at the ballot box and the cash register.
If you don't like Stallman or the GPL then the answer is simple: don't release your code under the GPL! If you like the BSD licence better, use it for your code. If you want to release your code into the public domain, then guess what? You can do that too!
But there are thousands of developers who DO like the GPL (and may or may not like Stallman) and happily use it, to everyone's benefit. Don't try to pretend that you haven't benifited from code released under the GPL.
It's not exactly rocket surgery.
Affero closes the ASP loophole.
But don't think for one second that the GPL is about "freedom".
Yes you should.
Public domain is about freedom. To a lesser extent, so is BSD.
They do nothing to protect freedom. They are merely free for the taking.
If you *take* something from the public domain and modify it, it can belong to you, and you can then distribute it while denying the very public who freely provided that source material to you in the first place the right to further modify it. So sure, the public domain is about freedom: giving YOU freedom to freeload the work of others and ultimately screw me over.
The GPL infringes on our freedoms for very specific resons, and it does so with good intent. But it infringes upon them nevertheless.
The GPL is about perpetuating the freedom of the *code*, specifically the freedom to modify the code.
And in doing so, the *only* freedom of yours that it infringes upon is your freedom to infringe upon others freedom with respect to modifications of the code further down the line.
(It really denies very little. You can use GPL tools to make non-GPL products (including other programs.) You can use GPL tools to run your business without returning anything back. The only thing you are required to give back is any modifications to the GPLed code itself, and even then, ONLY if you are re-distributing it.
Derivative works of GPLed CODE remains GPLed. That's it. That's the GPL in a nutshell. Everything in the GPL is there simply to ensure that no-one can take GPL'd code and fork it into proprietary non-free code. (or [with gplv3] tivoise it by binding 'gpl code' into hardware/drm schemes that make it effectively non-free.) To ensure that any tool that starts out FREE cannot become NON-FREE.
(TiVoisation is the equivalent of putting a 'free man' into a cell with no doors or windows. There's nothing legally stopping him from leaving the cell -- but his 'freedom' isn't worth a hill of beans -- he still can't get out.)
When you GPL your code you are asserting that it will be forever "free", that nobody can lock it up.
GPL is a lot like Free Speech.
Which is more 'free' a society where you can say whatever you like, and then someone in government can exercise their freedom to lock you up for ever. [=public domain] Or a society where you can say whatever you like, and the government is forced to protect your right to do so, even though you are infringing on someones freedom to lock you up forever. [=gpl]
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
You are restricted from locking up code, you are restricted from giving others less freedom than you received. This way the original freedoms are always preserved. This is the fundamental difference between BSD-style and GPL-style. BSD is totally free, but GPL has one single restriction that aims for a better end result with more freedom for everyone. Or, in other words:
BSD: "Do what thou wilst shall be the whole of the law."
GPL: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Now stop being a devil-worshipping BSD fanatic and join the winning team!
You get the original free code from the same place that they got it.
In a fair world, refrigerators would make electricity.
nt
RMS wrote:
...
Change is unlikely to cease once GPLv3 is released. If new threats to users' freedom develop, we will have to develop GPL version 4. It is important to make sure that programs will have no trouble upgrading to GPLv4 when the time comes.
One way to do this is to release a program under "GPL version 3 or any later version".
Now, this is NOT the way to do it. Let me tell you why (and please correct me if I'm wrong):
-GPLv4 can be started by Microsoft, or any evil company, they can today start to write GPLv4 or v5 which says: you are not permitted to change the source-code, neither redistribute the source-code, and when compiled and used, a one time-fee of $100 for the usage of the program or another hostile non-sense. You get what I mean, the notion 'GPLv4' or 'GPLv5' is not secured by FSF - it maybe even can't be secured.
-The license must be included in text form (e.g. as a file called LICENSE) which contains the license, e.g. the text of GPLv3 or v2, in the source-code package (e.g. tar.gz) to be sure, it's GPLv2 or whatever. By no means I would say 'http://fsf.org/GPLv2' or alike, we cannot rely on that fsf.org remains in control of people who keep up the spirit of GPLv2 or v3, domain taken over, FSF changes mind, RMS passes away and successors are brain-dead people and mess up big time
Now, these are my concerns, someone smart please enlighten me and correct me - and please take the time to really elaborate why I should use 'GPLv3 or later' in my license and how the two points above can be resolved.
Right, but how am I "able to do what [I] want with" the modified code? I'm not? Doesn't sound very free to me.
Hang on a second here: I think you'll find that this is the way that most people argue(!) - Why would anybody deliberately use phraseology that goes against the point they're trying make?
And it works - just read any discussion by politicians, *IAA*. The writings on "Network Neutrality" are a very good example of this too.
Bottom line: People have to think for themselves, regardless of who they're listening to.
We discussed it and the company president was worried something like the GPL 3 could be a problem in the future. There were serious questions on whether or not we could us our modified code without releasing it. It was going to be used only on our company website and not released for sale to others, yet it would have been there for the public to use for a subscription. So the answer was use only code if it was available under the BSD-style license.
Since that day, I've been a fan of the GPL for personal/hobby projects, but have stayed clear of most opensource software in the business world other than popular CMS systems like Xoops and Joomla.
Mod me down if you'd like, but I've been of the opinion that if you truely believe in open and free software, BSD-style is the way to go. GPL maybe open, but it has strings attached and often is only free as in beer.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
You don't have any claim on the modified code. You didn't write the modifications, someone else did. The writer gets to decide what happens to the code -- not you.
I wonder if I use bold in my signature, people will notice my posts.
Um you didn't really read the draft did you?
My karma is not a Chameleon.
>Why would you even consider releasing a DRM system under some sort of open source license?
Simple, peer-review. After all that the same problem as security: peer review will allow external experts to validate (or not) your work.
But, to DRM makers I say: don't be that clever, continue wasting your time and money on stupid scheme to punish your legitimate users (like myself) and see you revenue diminish because of it (I don't buy anything DRM-ed).
Which means it is restricting my own freedom.
And there is nothing wrong with that. But saying that something which inherenting restrictions ones freedom actually promotes freedom is simply wrong.
I wonder if I use bold in my signature, people will notice my posts.
You only have the choice because not everything is GPL...
Otherwise, you would have to build your own OS from scratch if you wanted to make some proprietary code.
You also have choice not to buy windows with a new computer you know, but still most people use that rotten argument against Microsoft here.
That's why you need both closed and open source. To keep your freedom of choice.
But Stallman does NOT want you to have the choice.
So screw him and his zealots.
So I'm not free. Guess such licenses as the OP described aren't about ensuring people's freedoms then.
Interesting point of view I never considered, also looking forward to see replies to this.
I am a software developer and sometimes there are programs/libraries, which I cannot use because of the GPL. So what? The majority of software I use, I use as normal end user. So even if I personally don't look into the code and make adjustments, I am glad that this possibility, this freedom exists. I much more often get freedom from the GPL than that the GPL takes freedom from me.
Nothing against BSD or public domain, but for me to use these license forms, I demand payment. Personally I won't accept it that someone might take my hobby code, incorporates it in his product and someday I might indirectly pay for my own code. Therefore if I don't want or cannot make money with my code I would always choose the GPL.
How so?
You still have access the original code.
The person who wrote the modifications has the freedom to keep his modifications prviate, and is exercising said freedom.
No freedom was given up by anyone.
I wonder if I use bold in my signature, people will notice my posts.
What is really important is that there are quite a few people who are willing to share the fruits of their labor with you as long as you don't try to screw them by taking what they've done and close it up.
The GPL (any version) is not about some kind of intangible idealism. It is a practical tool used by developers who want the work they have done to remain open.
There are two socities with all things being equal except for one tiny aspect, which one promotes freedom more? Society #1: You have the freedom to shoot people in the head. Society #2: You do not have the freedom to shoot people in the head.
"Googlisation" might come up or not (we'll see), but the rest is rubbish.
"Xboxisation" is likely already covered by Tivoisation. "BLOBisation" is either no problem at all (legally *OR* philosophically) or already illegal by the GPLv2 (even though companies like Nvidia and ATI ignore this). Preventing "GPL-less compiling" and "artisation" would be wholly incompatible with the GPL's philosophy: the GPL explicitely does not have to be accepted and explicitely does not apply when all you do is *use* a piece of software. "re-implementing" is obvious rubbish, and "in-houseation" is a weaker version of "Googlisation" that does not pose philosophical problems.
butter the donkey
You're thinking of freedom in terms of the original product. I'm thinking of freedom in terms of the original product and all subsequent derivatives. I don't necessarily have freedom in the derivatives, therefore licenses as the OP described are about taking away the freedom people have with derivatives.
Ok. If I go out and release a professional quality piece of software. Now this arbitrary "consumer clause" would allow commercial manufacturers to rip off my software, place it on tivoized closed hardware and sell it. My software was meant to professional use all along, even though I wanted it to be Free Software.
I thought GPLv3 would protect me, individual free software developer, from this nonsense. But now, what used to be a loophole in GPLv2 is now a right written down for commercial entities to go hunt and close down free software. I sincerely hope somebody will understand and fix this problem before GPLv3 goes final.
Nonsense, there could be license problems with GPL code but all software is at risk from license changes. The worst case would be that you'd end up maintaining a fork of a project but this is also true of the BSD license.
Did you actually have a point?
What's worse is when he engages in argument by redefinition. He's got a long list of words that he assigns his own meanings to.
I respect the man, but his philosophical writings are terrible.
I appreciate your application of Crowley and the golden rule to describe BSD vs GPL, but for one reason or another, I feel the need to extend your description of these concepts. Hopefully, it will also be descriptive of the software world in the process.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
At base, this is not an ideal. This is not a commandment. This is a perfect observation of the physical world. Do what thou wilt. I cannot command you to do otherwise. The only rule is that you will do as you choose. That is the entirety of law, and there can be no other. All other law is falsehood.
In applying this concept to the world of code, it describes the fate of all source I release. I cannot control what happenes to that code. Individuals will do with that code as they will. That is the whole of the law. I might not agree with their application of said code, but I cannot control them. They will do as they will. I can only apply "false" laws in their opposition. Man made laws. Imperfect laws.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Now that is more than a description of reality. It's an ideal, and one whose sentiment I can fully agree with. Of course, it's also an ideal which depends entirely on the "laws" of men. That is the ideal of the GPL... that we should share and share alike. I hope that I'm not alone in feeling that this is an ideal worth striving toward.
I suppose my whole point here is to expose the philosophical concepts that the BSD and GPL licenses represent... BSD represents the immutable laws of our existence, while the GPL uses the laws of man to strive towards a goal. BSD desribes how the world is, while the GPL describes a world worth achieving.
The second promotes freedom more. The first promotes safety more.
It is a myth that freedom is ALWAYS better than safety. The two
need to be balanced wisely.
I'm guessing you got second and first mixed around. Actually I would say the second promotes the freedom "not to get shot in the head." As with many things, perspective determines how you view a matter with two perspectives viewing the same thing in different lights.
It's as if the FSF are building in license clauses which are guaranteed to be legally challenged; one of the problems with the original GPLv2 license was it was NEVER effectively taken on in court and defined in legal concepts or precedent as most other licenses tend to have been.
It was never tested because it's pretty much unassailable, a law suit has no chance. It's not an EULA, but a simple copyright license.
Consider: the GPL only gives you extra rights over what copyright law gives you, it takes away none. You are under no obligation to accept it whatsoever. If you don't accept it, you get all the normal rights you get under copyright law (that is, you may use the program, but not modify or copy it). The GPL states that you can get the right the modify and copy, provided you adhere to a list of requirements.
An argument like "I copied this program, which I was only allowed to do because I chose to accept the GPL, but still I feel requirement X doesn't apply to me" just doesn't make much chance in court. That goes for both GPLv2 and GPLv3.
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
Well said! I confess, it took me a while to really understand the concept behind the GPL, but it's analogous to the situation where a wealthy family donates a piece of land to the city for a hospital. They OWN that land. It's theirs to do with as they wish. They choose to donate it ... and as part of the agreement, specify that it MUST be used for a hospital, and nothing else.
Years pass and the city decides to sell the property and take the money elsewhere. The family objects. At that point, it goes to court ... and whether the family's wishes are honored will boil down to how well the original agreement was written.
Same with my source code. I have choices about how to license it (if at all). But if I release it under the GPL, I am essentially offering it to the public for use as the end user sees fit. I have made a conscious decision to permit others to copy it, distribute it and modify it freely. It would annoy me if someone figured out some slick way to get around my intentions, because it's MY CODE. It's copyrighted and I still own the rights to it; I have decided that, instead of receiving money every time it's used, my payment will be the satisfaction of knowing that my code can go anywhere and be anything when it grows up.
Whether you agree with Stallman or not (and I don't always agree with him; I'm not a free software fanatic who refuses to use anything proprietary on my own computer, for example), give credit where due: the FSF is trying to amend the GPL to cover possible loopholes, many of which couldn't even have been anticipated when v2 was written.
Tivo, LinkSys and the other companies that have used GPL'd software had a choice. They could have written it themselves; they could have used BSD-style code; or ... they could use GPL'd code, accepting that the people who wrote it, and who OWN it, expect this in payment: that their code will be freely modifiable and distributable by everyone else.
ah so the GPL actually is a EULA now...
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
You can of course build an electric chair in your garage, I think this is exactly
what Fred Leuchter did when he refurbished the Tennessee electric chair, but...
you can't lure the occasional bum into your garage and try it out on him.
Same thing with DRM. If you want to waste your time on yet another DRM scheme
you can do that. You could possibly even sell your contraption to someone else who
shares your taste for nuisance software, but don't hold your breath for it to be forced
on people.
So there you go, you still have your free will and you can experiment in your
garage all you want and thanks to the GPLV3 people don't have go out of my way to make
sure you don't become a nuisance.
i find it interesting that the community appeared to have little difficulty reaching a consensus on tivoisation. a possible view point would be that the hardware is broken. as long as the source code for the software is available, who cares? just don't buy the broken hardware. what would happen if motorola released the complete source code for their linux phones but without a means to flash the memory?
the addition of this clause to GPL3 seems to me to be broadening the scope of the original software license. did GPL2 deal with this? no. why not? because it wasn't thought of back then (one possible answer). my point is, the scope has now been broadened into hardware. now i'm all for free hardware (i quite enjoy playing around with openSparc), but is this a good move, seeing as the appreciation for free hardware is almost non-existent in the general population. there is a general idea that free hardware should come with schematics for the hardware, so you can theoretically figure out yourself what it does, but are there any common free hardware licenses? i don't know of a single one (sun uses the GPL2 for openSparc, but that's just for the microcode and auxiliary programs AFAIK)
But as the owner of a small business (in a hypothetical situation), I am not being protected whereas I, being the same person, would be protected if I were simply a consumer. Doesn't sound right or fair to me. It also goes to show once more that the GPLv3 is anti-business.
You definitily make me think you're trolling here. Your "freedom" seems to be to deny other people theirs.
If you want to spread it you have to uphold your "predecessors" freedoms, not ignore them. And if you would (ignore them) would that not give any receiver of your derivative you claim to have "freedom" over the right to do the same (and by that, create total anarchy) ?
Not true for all, since there are jurisdictions that don't allow a copyright holder to put his work in the Public Domain. (It could maybe be done by a license that give the same rights, but there can even be restrictions on what one are allowed to license away)
Spelling/grammar nazis welcome (English is not my first language and I am trying to improve my spelling/grammar)
Whether or not it's trademarked, such a licence would not in fact be a later version of the GPL. Just giving a licence a name that implies it's the GPL doesn't make it true.
what the problem is?
If you want to run your own Tivo box then surely you can take the software, recompile it, and run it on a box you put together yourself?
The only thing that Tivo stop you doing is running your own version of the software on the boxes they sold you - or am I wrong?
My Journal
They just code the BIOS/hardware to run redundant checksums on everything, and if they don't match, display an error on the screen, and stop working.
Encrypt the whole OS and make it where it is decrypted at boot time and do this...don't see how it would be that difficult. Release updated source code - which adheres to the GPLv3. There's nothing stating that you can't check for modified code and the hardware portion stop working.
People can be free to change the software all they want (thus adhering to GPLv3), but when the hardware detects a change, wham, device no workie anymore.
Just curious... (mod Troll if you wish, but certainly not intended as such)
Obviously if I modify a GPL package, compile it, put it on my website... i'm distributing the thing, and anybody who downloads it should have access to my source code.
But if I'm Google and I use a GPL package, modify it, compile it, and put it as a service on my website... I'm not distributing the actual program as that stays server side. So no source code for any users of my service. Also fair enough, I suppose (though some feel that Google is in abuse of Free licenses there).
Now I'm ToVi (not sure about the exact bits in the TiVo case, so I'm not TiVo).. I modify a GPL package, compile it, put it on a harddisk platter, from which it can be read by the system to play back ToVi content. The user can access that harddisk via a USB cable. Did I just distribute the program? Probably.
Now I take away that access, and the user can only get at it if they remove the HDD and put it in some other HDD enclosure or straight into their case. Did I just distribute the program? I'm going to guess 'yes'.
Say that I am... now I encrypt the content of that harddisk and that content can only be decrypted using the key in the non-GPL firmware. Obviously the key will be cracked soon enough.. but did I still just distribute the program? I'm going to wager 'yes', because even though it's encrypted, it's still on there (though that might set some pretty dangerous precedent).
So say I stick the program in the firware chip instead, and that firmware can't be read out (unless you have some very expensive gear). Am I still distributing the program? It's just on a chip, but the user certainly doesn't 'have' the program in any which way or form. I'm going to guess that the spirit says 'yes' but the letter may say 'no'?
Assume it's 'no', and I update the firmware over the ToVi network. I suspect I'm now distributing the program again?
So what if I, as ToVi, run everything GPL as a service.. the menu, DRM keys, whatever. That's a la Google. The only part I'm putting on the ToVi device itself being the decoding routines and such, as the internet is nowhere near fast enough for realtime upload/decrypt/decode/display/etc. routines. Assume those are not GPL. Am I now in the clear?
In short... what's the argument for 'distributing' software, where the GPL kicks in?
I know I might be splitting hairs, but the latest draft has some hairs that should be split (as pointed out by others) as it is.. might as well split this one and find out what the answer is.
You go to a restaurant for dinner, and get something you cannot identify. When you ask what this is, you get the answer 'food'. Does it violate your freedom, when you are asked to eat or pay for something you don't know?
As I said, this example is as stupid than yours. I suppose others could find dozens for other ones to support the one or other opinion.
Many people complain about GPL being less Free than the BSD license. They miss the point.
GPL wants to ensure that all modification to the code remains free. BSD allows you to do anything to the code, including making it proprietary. Remember Windows' TCP/IP stack used to behave identically to BSD's, hinting to same underlying code.
So if you realease code version n under the BSD license, sure, users of n can do whatever they god damn want. But it does not ensure anything for users n+1. GPL, on the other hand, ensures that users of n+1 enjoy exactly the same liberty. So, while BSD users have more immediate liberty, users of GPL have more long-term (in the sense of derived works) liberty.
Ask HP-UX, AIX, Irix, and Solaris users if they enjoyed the same liberty the BSD gave to HP, IBM, Silicon Graphics, and Sun. Ask Linux users if they enjoy the same liberties as the kernel hackers have.
So which license gives more liberty? Well, in the short-term, BSD. On the long term, GPL.
As a developer providing code, selecting the license depends on where you want it to go. Do you want it to spread as far and wide as possible, at the expense of the original code? Go BSD. Do you want the original code to enjoy improvements brought from other people, at the expense of how far it'll spread? GPL.
As a developer using free code, sure, BSD is so much easier to use. You can use it at work on your proprietary product that feeds your kids! It's harder to make a business model around GPL code, though (yes, I know there are many examples out there, but they still remain the [loudly publicized] exception to the rule).
I really like the example of ODE (a game physics library). It is licensed under LGPL and BSD, but really, it seems most people use it as BSD. I know it's been used by Crytek (they contributed changes back), and I've heard it's been ported to the PS2, XBOX, and PS3. This is something that only the BSD license allowed, because the NDA of the devkits for those consoles implicitly prohibits the use of LGPL or GPL code in games, as the changes contributed back to the GPL/LGPL code will give hints of what's behind the NDA, and furthermore the developers cannot provide you with an object file that you can link with the GPL/LGPL code.
There are two sides of the coin, here: the contributors to the mainstream ODE library are happy to know their work is used in awesome places like those consoles. However, the mainstream code is none the wiser: those changes have never made it back to the main tree.
So what do you want? Your code to be improved upon by the community, or thrown into the wind, never to see those improvements come back, but knowing it went much farther than it ever could if you tied it down with the GPL?
It really is two different things, and saying that one is more restrictive than the other is missing the point.
Misleading titles? Inflammatory blurbs? Keep in mind that Slashdot is a tabloid.
Check it out. I'll bet there are laws in your State that restaurants have to tell you the ingredients. Check out a bag of Doritos. It has a list of ingredients in decending order of proportion. People with food allergies do have a right to know what's in their food, because it's a life or dead situation. I don't think any restaurant worth it's salt would refuse to tell you if a meal has been baked/fried/whatever. Put that together with the ingredients, and you have a pretty good start at duplicating the meal yourself.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
...to some extent. The language of the license is so vauge as to have a wide range of interpretations (i.e. viral, not viral, etc.); BSD doesn't suffer from that; it's simple.
Take MySQL for example, they seem to believe that any program that _connects_ to the database is now under the GPL and requires a special commercial license ($$$$$$$$) if you want an exemption.
"...all software is at risk from license changes."
Some more than others depending upon the license, that's the friggin point!
> One major danger that GPLv3.1 will block is Googlization. Googlization means services contain
> GPL-covered software that you can't change, because the product is never published and so no
> source code has to be provided.
This was actually up for GPLv3, but meet too much resistance through the review process.
> One major danger that GPLv3.2 will block is Xboxization. Xboxization means devices contain
> GPL-covered software that connect to a network that you can't change, because the network shuts
> you out if it detects modified software...
Xboxization would require DRM restrictions already forbidden in GPLv3.
> On ATI/nVidia Linux drivers.. One major danger that GPLv3.3 will block is BLOBization.
> BLOBization means software packages containing GPL-covered software that communicate to a
> non-GPL-covered piece of binary software (BLOB) that you can't change, because the BLOB is not
> covered by the GPL...
This is already forbidden in GPLv2, the only reason ATI/nVidia can do it is because Linux is considered covered by "GPLv2 plus an implicit exception for binary BLOBs". Well, that and the fact the legal power to enforce GPL to people not actually distributing any GPL'ed software (but only binary BLOBs intended to link with GPL'ed software) is somewhat dubious. A new version of the GPL will not change either of these.
> One major danger that GPLv4 will block is GPL-less compiling. GPL-less compiling means programs
> created using GPL-covered software that you can't change, because the actual program contains no
> GPL-covered source code.
This is kind of silly, as the tools where this could actually be enforced (like GCC and Bison where non-trivial GPL'ed code is usually included in the result) has specific exceptions to allow "GPL-less compiling". For Bison, this exception was added recently.
> One major danger that GPLv4.1 will block is artization. artization means original works of art
> created using GPL-covered software that you can't change, because the work is strictly non-GPL.
How is this different from the previous point?
> One major danger that GPLv4.2 will block is reimplementation. reimplementation means software
> programs developed based on, but re-implemented in a different way of, GPL software that you
> can't change, because the work is not GPL.
Given that the core of GNU is re-implementations of proprietary work, this goes beyond silly. It is also unenforceable with copyright law, you'd need a "copyleft" for patents instead (which has been suggested (albeit not by the FSF): This patent can be used by anyone who shared their own patents in a similar way).
> One major danger that GPLv5 will block is in-houseation. in-houseation means software programs
> based on, developed with, and so forth and so on as set forth in the other clauses, that is only
> used in-house that you can't change because the source code need not have been made available.
This would violate freedom 0, which would mean a clear breach of the contract signed to everyone who has ever donated software to the FSF. The FSF has already declared licenses with a "anti-in-houseation" clause for non-free with reference to freedom 0.
> And so forth and so on.
Actually, only your first suggestion had any basis in reality. The rest seemed made up with the sole purpose of spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt about the future of the GPL.
So in other words, GPLv3 wants to prevent 'tivoization', aka a successful Linux based product.
Because the biggest sin in the FOSS world is becoming mainstream and successful. Keep it real, yo.
Why did you think that there had been nobody crazy enough to try challenging GPL? See
l
http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS8564956607.htm
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
> Personally I won't accept it that someone might take my hobby code,
> incorporates it in his product and someday I might indirectly pay
> for my own code.
Right now Google could be using a modified version of your GPLd code,
and be requiring you to view advertisements in return for letting you
execute your own code. Another site could charge you a subscription
to use a service based on your very own code. How did the GPL help
in that case?
If they took over the FSF they could control the world!!!!
Because they're trying to be intellectually honest, and their goal is finding a solution rather than forcing through the point of view they had at the start of the discussion at any cost?
But yes, that's quite uncommon(and quite hard, humans seemingly being competitive and given to conflict by nature).
Suppose that Darth goes ahead and does it anyway, what does the enforcement process look like? Darth gets sued under copyright law, like IBM did against SCO with IBM's counter claims. The free software side has to prove two things:
In order the suit to be successfull against Darth, both steps have to succeed. Step (2) can be optimized by the FSF, by adjusting the terms of the GPL, to make it as difficult as possible for Darth. The GPLv3 is an improvement in this process. Step (1) is the step that the FSF can not control, because the applicable copyright law is written by the legislature (in the U.S. that would be congress), not by the FSF! Therefore, step (1) is the weak point! If Microsoft is ever sued under the copyright law because of the coupons, Microsoft will attack the week point of the argument (1). This is what Microsoft's lawyers will say:
The key assertion in the above is:
If Microsoft can win on the key assertion. Then it will win. If the lawyers for the free software side can knock out the key assertion then they will win.
Why do the coupons exist in the first place? Why did not Microsoft just hand out SuSE installation DVDs? The reason is obvious. Microsoft did not want to become a GNU/Linux distributor. The coupons are a dodge to get around this. The whole raison d'etre for the coupons was that that Microsoft avoid becoming a GNU/Linux distributor! Can anyone believe that Microsoft allowed the coupon scheme to proceed, without first getting on Lexis and finding out whether the scheme would work? It is guaranteed that in some Microsoft lawyer's briefcase, there is a brief. And that brief deleniates in excruciating detail why the coupon scheme does not make Microsoft a GNU/Linux distributor. And the brief was checked and rechecked by multiple lawyers before the coupon scheme was ever allowed to proceed.
The free software argument against the MS-Novel coupon scheme, is a chain. And like any chain, it is only as strong as its weakest link. It is no good for free software advocates to sit back and congratulate themselves on how strong their strong point (2) is. Of course it is strong! The FSF deliberately designed the GPLv3 to make it strong! The point is, that Microsoft is not going to attack this strong point. Microsoft is going to attack the weak point (1).
Instead of congratulating them selves, free software advocates should be critically examining their own arguments looking for weak points. And when they find one, they should research the caselaw looking for ways to shore up their arguments! They should not be replying to the weak points with mere repeated assertion of what they hope should be true, instead they should do some real scholarship.
Let us not forget the anti-patent provisions of GPLv2! It includes an "im
What is the freedom supposedly being violated if you choose to eat at a restaurant where the staff refuse to give out a recipe along with the food? If you demand recipes, what's stopping you eating somewhere else, or even preparing your own food? Nobody's forcing you to do anything or preventing you doing anything.
Awesome troll. Almost believable.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
TiVoisation is the equivalent of putting a 'free man' into a cell with no doors or windows. There's nothing legally stopping him from leaving the cell -- but his 'freedom' isn't worth a hill of beans -- he still can't get out.
Pretty good analogy, it works much the same for DRM except it's the same in reverse. It's putting your legally bought content into a safe with no key. He's 'free' to use the content -- but his 'freedom' isn't worth a hill of beans -- he still can't get in.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
If you don't like the GPL...don't use it. If you like the BSD license, use it.
If you don't like the fact that the GPL software you are using to develop your proprietary software has a GPL license then that is YOUR fault.
People who bitch about the GPL are the people that don't believe in the GPL and don't agree with the FSF's ideas. Duh. They get upset because they can't use GPL sofware like software under the BSD license.
It's not YOUR license. It's the FSF's license. They get to write it with whatever input they accept. It's not YOUR software you are using to develop whatever you are developing (if you didn't write it). The authors get to decide legally how you can use it. If it's the GPL and you don't like it? Too bad.
Freedom does not include the right to force somebody else to do your bidding. That's called enslavement.
> Pretty much. GPLv3 is a great win for Microsoft in the embedded market.
It would have been had they not inadvertently licensed their patents via the Novell deal!
> The inability to run modified code also means an increase in the security of a
> Tivo placed on the network.
I'm not happy with the clause but why deny keys to those who want to modify their hardware? The risk from twats who set up servers and never do maintainance or apply updates is far greater. This isn't an argument for TPM either, it's an argument for assigning liability for networked devices.
Laws against murder restrict your freedom to kill people. Laws against slavery restrict your freedom to own slaves. Yet most reasonable people would still consider both those laws to promote freedom because they promote the freedom of the people who would otherwise be killed or enslaved. Is that so hard to understand?
Similarly, the GPL restricts your freedom to close the source code. In doing so, it promotes the freedom of the people who receive the software from you. Is that so hard to stand?
It is not "simply wrong" to say that the GPL promotes freedom!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Forgive my ignorance on this issue, and stipulating that once a person links to any library in GCC, etc., it is unlikely to be able to avoid GPL'd code -- but my understanding is that as long as a person doesn't include actually include GPL'd stuff (even copied) into an application, or if the resulting app is never "distributed", then the GPL doesn't apply (?)
Am I missing something here?
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Your analogy-fu is weak, old man. Let's say you've written a program and placed the source code into the public domain. Someone takes it, adds to it, and releases their version in binary-only form. How have either you or your code been "locked up"? You haven't. You're free to continue writing, and your original program still exists in the public domain. Others are still free to take your version and continue to modify it. You have lost nothing. You're free, your code is free.
Now let's say that you've written another program and released it under the GPL. Someone takes it and incorporates it into their own program. Your code is just one small part of a much bigger program. According to the GPL, not only must this other person publish his modifications to your source code, he must publish all of his own original, completely unrelated code that makes up his program.
The GPL isn't just about getting back changes people have made to something you've written. If it were, then it should be sufficient for him to release his mods to your code but to keep his own code private. No, the GPL is about spreading the "code wants to be free" ideology. Which is fine if that's your intent, but please be honest about it.
To fix your analogy, which is more free? Being able to build on existing works if and only if you agree with the established dogma [=gpl]? Or being able to build on existing works in any way you wish, even to the point of heresy [=public domain]?
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
As I understand it, the 'consumer products' restriction was put in because of pressure from companies. Business wanted it that way. Saying yes to this request may count as anti-business in your reckoning, but not mine.
However, words like 'anti-business' are usually meaningless. Many would argue that GPLv3 is anti-consumer because it deprives consumers of the wonderful opportunities given by exciting new business models that are enabled by DRM.
IMHO 'anti-business' should be added to the list of meaningless slogans, along with 'intellectual property' and even, dare I say it, 'freedom'.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
some readers troll detection routines have problems.
Check your facts. Here's more info about the LGPLv3. The LGPL has gotten less discussion; it's based on the GPL, so once the GPL is changed the LGPL basically follows suit.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
So will a robot with GPL 3 code be a good idea, so Johnny can make his AIBO do anything he wants?
Has RMS discussed freedom to code and robotics?
Is there any more / less risk with free code than closed code with regard to robotics? Just like any technology in the wrong hands perhaps.
g8orade
As to your conclusion, identifying that an organisation is discriminating between commercial and non-commercial uses of products cannot be used to support arguments that the organisation is "anti-business" - unless you think that Microsoft are anti-business when they sell cheap "educational" licences to students, but not to businesses.
An interesting thing about all this is that GPL3 and DRM share at least one significant fault: they both make compliant use more burdensome than non-compliant.
I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
have to post as a ac because i am at work.
someone in the last post about this said they can't take his code away from him even if he puts it under the bsd license.
this is not correct, it's very simple to do.
company A is making project A and sees finds person's B code under the bsd license.
company A takes it, and integrates it into their project A. this code makes project A a hit but company A puts out a software patent on the bsd code they took and since company A has millions at it's disposal they grease the system enough to get their patent.
person B receives a cease and desist letter in the mail stating his code was copied from company A's project A. person B does not have the money to fight company A's claim in court.
Person B now has to delete his own code, and pay thousands in fines to comply or face a much more costly court battle.
company A now has successfully stolen person b's code at the fraction of the cost it would of taken company A to make similar code, ironically if the bsd zealot had put his code under the gpl he could of used the same system that company A abused to get it's way to counter it's attempt since the gpl is based on the copyright law it's self. putting your code under the bsd waves some of those rights.
I think he is saying that in practice, the freedom-denying effects of say Tivo (forcing DRM down your throat) are more serious than those caused by unmodifiable firmware in an Ethernet switch. I agree, ideologically it seems like an uncomfortable compromise position.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
So because they didn't speak with anyone that has a problem with it, they're willing to deny businesses the same freedoms they give consumers? Wow. I have trouble understanding why it works for businesses to be restricted and that's okay, but it doesn't work for consumers and that's bad.
This is what I'm seeing from the comments here about the problem of "Tivo-ization".
The current TiVo system is three components: Hardware - DRM - GPL OS and software. The box will shut down if the compiled binaries of any GPL programs are changed.
The GPL v3 says that's bad. The TiVo users should be able to change the binaries of compiled GPL software with different GPL versions of those software.
TiVo's obvious fear here is that new versions of the GPL components could be used to circumvent their DRM. Once the box is in the user's hands, it's only a matter of time before the DRM is hacked.
The GPL v3 promoters' response is that TiVo can customize their hardware and firmware instead of locking down the GPL binaries. So the future state Tivo components will be:
Hardware - DRM - Command Validating Firmware/Hardware- GPL OS and software
If the command validating Firmware or Hardware shuts the TiVo down when it receives an invalid command from the OS or software, then this is functionally no different than the original version of the TiVo. That will be unacceptable to the GPL v3 promoters. If the Command Validation does something more benign, then it's only a matter of time until the DRM component is circumvented. That will be unacceptable to the broadcast media companies.
Is there another option for TiVo to keep using GPL software while finding some way to protect their DRM component from being hacked by the user?
If his contribution is so tiny, you could have written it yourself. It is more likely that the contribution is substantial, which would present a major hurdle to rewrite. In this case, you simply want to exploit other people's work for your own gain only. How is that any better?
In addition, derivative works are not invented by the FSF for the GPL. It is an established concept of copyright law. The GPL just is a little different from proprietary software licenses in its treatment of derivative works. If you use a piece of proprietary software in your program, you would have to negotiate a license for redistribution, which would probably cost you money (maybe even a lot). The GPL on the other hand demands no money for your use of covered code. Instead, it demands the publication of derivative works.
Your "freedom" seems to be to deny other people theirs.Just like yours. The so called "freedom" provided by the BSD license is all about allowing people to deny freedoms to users of derivative works.
Grandparent:
Which is more 'free' a society where you can say whatever you like, and then someone in government can exercise their freedom to lock you up for ever. [=public domain] Or a society where you can say whatever you like, and the government is forced to protect your right to do so, even though you are infringing on someones freedom to lock you up forever. [=gpl]Parent:
To fix your analogy, which is more free? Being able to build on existing works if and only if you agree with the established dogma [=gpl]? Or being able to build on existing works in any way you wish, even to the point of heresy [=public domain]?This is an endless arguement about asking "which is more free?", because freedom means different things to different people.
Some people exclaim they need the freedom to develop a product which they can turn around to sell so they derive a financial benefit (I call people who would start with code written by others as their base (even BSD) greedy and selfish, but that is my own opinion and many would say I am wrong). Either way, this is "corporate freedom" because it is used to enhance business.
Other people need information to have freedom, so they can use, modify, and share it with others without restriction. This is a pie in the face of "corporate freedom", because it prevents the wholesale ownership of code. This is "individual freedom" because it is used to enhance the individual user of the codebase. Helping to enhance individuals has the added benefit of improving technological culture (and culture in general), because as more is added there is more that others can take away.
As far as business vs individual is concerned... as more GPL software is developed it competes more-and-more with stalwart businesses who historically had technological advantages that gave them huge pricing power so they can run their business. By itself, Windows wasn't treatened by Linux. But with OpenOffice, Firefox, GIMP, Apache, GCC, Eclipse, and others there is a strong threat to MS Office, Internet Explorer, Photoshop (yes, I realize is not MS), IIS, VisualStudio, and others). RMS, bless his soul, understood the threat of proprietary software very early on and using the FSF has fortified a strong camp to protect important freedoms of individuals. Using GPL, the corporate world doesn't have a prayer in the long term unless they add some truly VALUABLE FEATURES to their products that OSS cannot reproduce. This competition is good for everybody, but it is my opinion that this competition will ultimately strike a fatal blow to proprietary software shops and they will need to rethink their ways.
Microsoft understands this. Apple understands this better. Google understands this best. All three use different ways to protect their proprietary code. Microsoft has litigation and patents. Apple has valuable features and integrated hardware. Google has a webplatform that it doesn't distribute and offers strong support for OSS.
As far as business vs individual is concerned... I think a lot of people get pissed off because they feel that they need the "business" aspect to be there so they can earn a living. This is a flawed belief that highlights the fact that many people are too scared to think outside-the-box and imagine a different (better) way of living.
Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
"Freedom does not include the right to force somebody else to do your bidding."
Does that include requiring you to GPL your own software if a small portion of it used a GPL'ed library?
Funny, that's not my definition of "freedom" either. It's my code, the GPL portion is a small bit and doesn't represent what the software is about (major funtionality) in the slightest.
GPL is the same thing as proprietary (in terms of restriction) just on the opposite end of the spectrum.
LGPL and BSD like licenses carry less "political"-ness.
Yes, I will use something else, something that allows me to choose how I re-distribute my software, thanks. Something that doesn't force me to agree with someone else's politics.
Fortunately for you, Stallman does not have any say about this. Proprietary software won't go away because Stallman doesn't like it. It could theoretically go away for other reasons, but the probability is very low.
"No, MySQL believe that any program which uses their GPLed client library, libmysqlclient, to connect to the database is now under the GPL. This is obviously true, because one of the explicit purposes of the GPL is to require you to GPL your code if you distribute it linked against a GPLed library."
That's not the position of those who run MySQL when you ask them whether you need a license. Ask them yourself.
They will tell you: "We're not lawyers, but, to be safe, you need a license." (a paid exemption to the GPL).
Look at the whole FLOSS debacle with their licensing history. It's only compounded by things like JDBC drivers. Even if the driver itself isn't MySQL code, it could be under the GPL if you pass "non-standard" SQL queries through it. Look it up.
Or God-forbid... standards compliance.
I hear they patched that bug somewhere in Windows 2000.
Please don't put Linksys together with TiVo. Linksys might not have complied with the GPL immediately, but have since released the source code for all Linux-based devices that I know of. They actually appreciate the community surrounding their products, which is showed by the release of the Linux-based WRT54GL after the migration to VxWorks for the mainline WRT54G. They also seem to appreciate the community around the NSLU2.
Meanwhile, TiVo is a totally different breed. They are unending in their efforts to lock "their" devices down to prevent people from exercising their rights granted by the GPL. If they are hard-hit by the GPLv3, so be it, they deserve it. They had it coming for a long time.
The FSF has some guidelines, but in the end what the FSF believes doesn't matter (except for potential damages). What matters is what a judge will consider a "derived work" according to copyright law.
My personal belief (which diverges from the FSF party line) is that the actual mechanism to communicate between the GPL'ed and proprietary code won't matter as much as whether the person distributing the proprietary code also distributes GPL'ed code.
That programs used over a network don't have to have their source released. However, the GPLv3 solves this by making itself compatible with the Affero GPL, which blocks the "ASP Loophole" so it really does fix it, albeit indirectly (i.e. you have to insert some Affero licensed software in there to close the loophole). After all, for many projects the "ASP Loophole" just isn't a problem in practice, and there's no sense in requiring it for every application.
>> I prefer to see the grandparent post as satire rather than FUD, but to each his own.
> Well, none of the moderators thought it funny...
Thinking about it, it was obviously both satire and FUD. The two often go hand in hand.
No it won't. The GPLv3 is not compatible with the GPLv2, and thus code licensed under GPLv3 cannot be rolled into GPLv2 code in any way. There is really no "middle ground" in this case.
one of the problems with the original GPLv2 license was it was NEVER effectively taken on in court and defined in legal concepts or precedent as most other licenses tend to have been. I think this caused some serious trouble with it's reliability and suitability in business.I guess you never heard of Daniel Wallace?
however with the FSF enforcing copyright transfer and shitting on business left, right and centerCare to back that up? Or I see, it is TiVo to the left, Microsoft in the center and Novell to the right?
nobody wants to deal with the issues surrounding a badly-understood licensing model.I don't think that the GPL is as badly understood by copyright lawyers as you might think.
If it is so easy to misinterpret the GPL that it needs to be reiterated and re-explained by Stallman and the FSF, then it really is not doing it's job, is it?The GPL is not updated because it have always been ambiguous, but because of ambiguities that have risen because of a changing legal landscape. Thus, to remove the ambiguities, the GPL need to be changed too. The GPLv2 has served its purpose well, but its time is running out and a new version is required.
How do you empower users and free up software when it is conceptually and legally ambiguous?Could you please point out those conceptual ambiguities that you allege that the GPL contains?
The more and more I read about the whole GPL thing the more I realize that it's not about freedom but more about control. If something is free then it is free, you have the freedom to do anything and everything to it without consequences from the originator, yet the GPL is hardly that. I think that the people in the GPL camp are trying to blur the distinction between freedom and control to make it sound like what is going on is good. No matter how you look at it the GPL is about control, the controlling of the object using a license and control is not freedom.
It's called sticking with their current codebase and growing from that, being careful not to look at any code submitted post GPL3 of a given codebase. It's a pain and becomes more so over time, but realistically speaking I doubt many new core platform enhancements are really significant for Tivo's functionality. They already constructed a hardware platform and set of running processes such that things run that meet real-time-like needs, therefore hypothetical scheduling improvements buys them nothing. Filesystem/storage device drivers are similarly moot, since they already work, and they don't intend on supporting more complex configurations that such featurs could help with. The fundamental utilities meet their needs today. The open network ports they have are likely controlled by their proprietary software, or if they do have some such software with a vulnerability fixed only in the GPL3 tree, then undoubtedly they could find an alternative project that didn't go GPL3 (even if it is a commercial product) to use.
If I had to make a decision with goals like Tivo's in mind, I probably would have gone for a BSD codebase. BSD explicitly aims for what the makers of Tivo would be comfortable with. Doesn't preclude them from giving back, but doesn't hold the accountable for not giving back either. Think GPL is great for the community, but a company looking to for all intents and purposes exploit free software developers may not be able to deal with GPL, and BSD developers welcome the opportunity to get their code wherever, so long as they get credit where it is due.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
I'm not sure how the AGPL precisely defines distribution
Well you can't define "distribution" as "non-distribution". Period.
Eben Moglen has stated as clear as daylight that the GPL is not a usage license. And he ought to know, even more strongly than RMS.
a possible view point would be that the hardware is broken.
:)
If it were simply broken then logically it should be both possible and legal to fix the hardware.
as long as the source code for the software is available, who cares?
The freedom to modify code is implicitly denied if the hardware won't run it.
"Ah, but you can run it on different hardware, hardware that *will* run it. After all you have the source code, right?" you might reply. And its true, but its a consolation prize at best, a slap in the face to everyone who contributed to the GPL source TiVo runs but who are now prevented from fixing their TiVos by DRM. Despite the fact that the TiVo software license specifically says users *are* allowed to modify it... its GPL after all.
But more importantly, the GPLv3 looks ahead, past the limited threat that is "TiVo". Its looking ahead to a possible future where Red Hat, Novell, and other Linux vendors decide to do the same thing.... a world in which corporations lock you to their flavor of linux, and the hardware ensures you don't switch or modify it. Sure the source code is all sitting there where you can look at it, but what good does it do you, unless you work for the right corporation your modifcations can't be run, because *all* the hardware locks you out.
Sadly there is nothing that can force hardware vendors to continue to release hardware that can run code that isn't 'blessed' by the government, or a handful of corporations if the world goes that way, but at least the FOSS can draw a line in the sand and say its not going there, that its not going to contribute to building its own coffin.
And the best way to ensure that hardware vendors continue to release hardware that can run our code is to ensure their is as much demand for that kind of hardware as possible. Ensuring that our code requires such hardware helps ensure there will be a solid demand. Otherwise what's to stop Dell from releasing Ubuntu PCs that will only run Dell-signed Ubuntu. What if IBM follows suit. Then Novell. Then Sun. Then Red Hat...
And once most of the hardware is DRM/TPM enabled, its really only a short legistlative hop for corporate interests to insist that all hardware sold legally be required to only run code they've signed... 'for the children'. The only resistance at that point would be a fringe of code hackers... who likely will be portrayed as mostly criminals.
End result we'll have all this GPL code we have the right to modify, but nowhere to run any code we modify.
The world of TPM and DRM is literally toxic to the freedom to modify that the GPL stands for.
just don't buy the broken hardware. what would happen if motorola released the complete source code for their linux phones but without a means to flash the memory?
I dunno, they'd have incentive to get the phone firmware right the first time?
Seriously though there is a big difference between hardware that lacks software update features, and hardware that not only prevents you from modifying the software, but criminalizes you for modifying it. Despite the fact that its software ironically (even hypocritically) comes with a license that SPECIFICALY ALLOWS YOU TO.
With the former, there is no hypocrisy. All you need is a soldering pen. Its inconvenient, sure, and beyond a lot of peoples technical ability, sure, but its not illegal. You still have the freedom to do it.
"The more they over think the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain."
Actually, creating derivative works of a copyrighted work is an activity covered by copyright law, so you *may* need some permission from the copyright holder in order to make nontrivial modifications to the work (even if you don't distribute them to anybody else!)
I seem to recall that the GPL says its fine to do this (in GPLv3, do they do it by excluding such activity from the definition of propagation?)
Which raises an interesting question: if the activity in question IS covered by copyright law, and you didn't agree to the terms of the GPL (or had violated the terms), would it still be legal?
[But don't think for one second that the GPL is about "freedom".]
Yes it is. Free licenses that are copyleft are about giving and protecting freedom. Free licenses that are not copyleft are about giving but not protecting freedom.
What freedom, that in your view a copyleft license denies you is an essential freedom for you? One which you must have in order to be free?
all the best,
drew
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
> The writer is aware of
You misspelled invented an. Only the first step has any relationship to reality.
> I still remain suspicious.
Not just suspicious, you feel both fear, uncertainty and doubt about the future of the GPL, which was exactly the intention behind the satire.
Now let's say that you've written another program and released it under the GPL. Someone takes it and incorporates it into their own program. Your code is just one small part of a much bigger program. According to the GPL, not only must this other person publish his modifications to your source code, he must publish all of his own original, completely unrelated code that makes up his program.
If his program is so large that the GPLed code is just a tiny part of it, and he doesn't want to release it under the GPL it shouldn't be that much effort to just re-write that GPLed part himself. Its not like there is anything making him use my GPLed program, nor am I 'springing the GPL' on him when he's not looking.
The GPL isn't just about getting back changes people have made to something you've written. If it were, then it should be sufficient for him to release his mods to your code but to keep his own code private.
Actually lots of projects do manage to pull this off. I've used lots of closed source software that required I install ghostscript. I've got a Go game that required I install an OSS Go Engine. You are allowed to do this, provided an adequate level of separation exists. Its ok for a closed source package to depend on a GPL package provided they aren't integrated.
The GPL sets a clear line of what amounts to "integrated" to help people like you determine where the line is. This enables proprietary software to be written *for* Linux. This enables proprietary software to be written *using* linux. If you want to release mods to my code and keep your code private you can do that provided you keep them separate enough.
I concede that the requirements of that separation are more than you might -like-. For example you might think dynamically linking to a GPL library isn't 'integrated', while the GPL indicates that for its purposes it is. But really, whats the *real* difference between dynamically linking, statically linking, and just copying and pasting the source code directly into your application??
Of course, then again, for people who want/need that's precisely why we have the LGPL.
No, the GPL is about spreading the "code wants to be free" ideology. Which is fine if that's your intent, but please be honest about it.
Yes, GPL code is designed to remain free, and it deliberately avoids letting itself get wrapped/trapped into proprietary hardware, and proprietary software. To refer to my previous analagy it is a 'free man' that specifically avoids going into rooms without doors and windows.
To fix your analogy, which is more free? Being able to build on existing works if and only if you agree with the established dogma [=gpl]? Or being able to build on existing works in any way you wish, even to the point of heresy [=public domain]?
The former gives EVERYONE else more freedom, as they can modify the new work, as well as the existing works, at the expense of your freedom to prevent them.
The latter gives YOU one extra 'freedom': the freedom to prevent them from building on the new work, but this comes at the expense of everyone elses freedom to modify it.
What's more free? I think the former.
What if I'm the writer of the (new) code? The only freedom (as in option) I'm allowed is to either make it public or to keep it private. I no longer have the option to distribute it and keep it private. That's fewer choices that I'm allowed... which means less freedom.
That's the only "freedom" though. "Freedom" would mean that he could do whatever he wants with it. Your "freedom" is limited to only two choices instead of many choices.
Ultimately, the beneficiaries of GPL are the original authors of whatever they started. All proponents assume that the majority of the work is done up front and only bug fixes or minor changes are made down the line. This is NOT what project starters hope. I could put something similar to "Hello World" out and, several years from now when the program has evolved into some huge popular project, reap all the rewards when my contribution was minimal. I put it out and as everyone fixes it and adds to it, I just learn from their work and my support company (about the only way to make money from it) keeps benefiting from their work. You're doing my work for me for *free* and I'm getting the rewards and laughing all the way to the bank. AND, to top it off, YOU'RE the one who is *fighting* practically a religious battle to be able to do continue working for me for free so that I can make money off of your work.
Some very smart people thought up the GPL, but not in the way that you're led to believe.
In other words, society, in order to promote commerce, has created these entities and specifically denied them certain key human rights. So, denying to businesses certain rights that you grant to individuals is a reasonable thing to do, and certainly *not* evidence that you are "anti-business".
I think that you're starting from the view that the FSF is "anti-business", and seeing everything they do as evidence that supports that view, rather than examining each action in its own context. In this context, it's up to you to prove that it's for the good of society for businesses to have the same "tivoization rights" as individuals. Until you've done that, you can't claim that it's "unfair" for the FSF not to extend that right to businesses.
It's kind of insane to think that this will stop anything. The PS3 runs Linux (a generic PPC Linux no less) with no problems at all. It sure as hell does not mean you can access the proprietary portions of the PS3 that Sony don't want you to see. Why? Because Linux is running over a virtualized set of hardware. I'm sure if push came to shove that Tivo would do exactly the same thing, ensuring whatever code or functionality they wished to hide stayed hidden.
the freedom to tinker is one right the gpl grants. personally, i find enough software i can tinker with without going out of my way to find more, but there must be people who want to tinker with the software on the tivo and are prevented from doing so by the hardware.
for me, having the source code makes it more likely that many eyes can check it to see what's going on. not having the ability to change the code running the device does however tend to lessen interest in the device, so reducing the number of eyes checking for problems. how are you to know that the sourcecode distributed with tivo is the same code as that compiled on the device? what are the chances of being able to compile the software and install it and have the tivo run afterwards? the manufacturer could always say "we just compiled it with different flags and cut some of it out afterwards, so that's why you can't get it to work", at which point, there is no way in hell of knowing what the tivo actually does. that is the situation i personally find worrying and the point where i put my foot down: when a piece of equipment in my home is attached to the internet without me being able to know what it does.
on some days, the vision you describe does appear exageratedly apocalyptic to me. free software has made great strides in the past few years and what with dell going ubuntu, 2007 is the year of linux on the desktop. but then one reads about microsoft word xml format being fast-tracked for certification as a standard and microsoft practically giving away their software in the third world and you think "we're not out of the woods quite yet". losing the capability of doing whatever you want with the hardware you own is also worrying. the whole thing just makes me appreciate sun microsystems et al. more.
having said that, i don't see the huge threat from treacherous computing. maybe i'm an optimist here, but i think linux and the various bsds are now so important that corporations and government would have to be pretty stupid to switch this treacherous computing stuff on.
And this is a bad thing?
It is bad thing if others in the consumer market space follow TiVo's example.
First, *code* is an inanimate object and, as such, has no freedoms.
Second, the freedom of a person to modify the code is in no way hampered in GPL or BSD. However, your freedoms to do what you wish with the modifications to the code are quite different under each.
Under BSD, your freedoms to do what you wish with the (now modified) code are completely open - you may do with it what you wish.
Under GPL, your freedoms to do what you wish with the modifications are restricted to a binary choice - you may either never let anyone else have it outside your organization (which may be only yourself in the case you are not a business with employees) or you must make it available through GPL itself.
So, let's tally the choices... under BSD, your choices are infinite. Under GPL, your choices are two. The last time I checked a math book, infinite is more than two. There is no question as to which license gives more freedom to developers over the code that they produce.
The question comes from the originator of the unmodified code. In this case, the GPL is very much like DRM (which so many are so fired up about). The original producer wants to maintain control over what is done with the original code. In this case, the original producer wants to restrict the use of the body of work to be used only in ways that the original producer desires, this includes further use and licensing as dictated by a licensing agreement (is this DRM or GPL? sounds like both are the same here). In another case, consumers of that original body of work desire to use, modify, and otherwise "do what they want to with" the original body of work (are we talking about those who are against DRM or the BSD license?).
So, those who are against "Tivoisation" typically want to modify the Tivo to do various things like remove DRM, but they want the GPL to force Tivo to allow them to do it by dictating what rights they have over the code used in Tivo devices... I believe there are words used to describe this kind of mindset/behaviour...
I actually don't believe this is true. If you can reference a small section of the GPL that makes any demands on monetary exchanges not taken place, please reference it.
What I believe to be true is that you can distribute GPL'd code for any value between $0 - $10,000,000,000 (with $10 Billion being a practical maximium, since that's what Microsoft and Google seem to be playing for sw advertizing firms these days).
The caveat of GPL distribution is that you must provide a written offer to provide source code and buyer would have a right to publish the source code online and offer it for free. This makes selling software as GPL very hard for a business to pull off successfully, but other than the logistics (which makes perfect sense because GPL explicitly states that no warrenty is provided, so the developers can't be sued) there is nothing to prevent you from selling GPLd software.
In this way, you could fix bugs in the Fedora 7 distribution and name your price, to see if Red Hat can be extorted for the cash.
Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
First, *code* is an inanimate object and, as such, has no freedoms.
Yes, and a park is a public space that anyone can use. It has no "freedoms" either, but is carefully protected so that it REMAINS a public space.
So, those who are against "Tivoisation" typically want to modify the Tivo to do various things like remove DRM, but they want the GPL to force Tivo to allow them to do it by dictating what rights they have over the code used in Tivo devices... I believe there are words used to describe this kind of mindset/behaviour...
Not at all. TiVo is welcome not to use GPL code in their product.
People against TiVoisation typically simply want the rights the GPL confers to them as *recipients of GPL code*. If TiVo doesn't want to confer the rights of the GPL they shouldn't be distributing GPL code.
Tivo is selling you code that explicitly confers to you the right to modify it, but is locked in a box you aren't legally allowed to open. That's not a situation anyone who contributed code to a GPL project wanted. They wanted the reciepients to be able to modify it, that's WHY they was released under GPL.
Consider the mirror image - people who write free proxy servers for per-seat/per-connection/per-cpu licensed proprietary code (certain databases come to mind...). The proxy server runs on one seat, uses one connection, on one cpu. Technically it adhered to the license. But it utterly VIOLATED the spirit of the license which intended to collect a fee from everyone who accessed their system.
So what did those corporations do... they rewrote their licenses to either incorporate proxy servers into the license and demand their pound of flesh regardless of whether the connection was direct or indirect, or they prohibited proxy servers outright.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
If the Proprietary software movement rewrites licenses that are toxic to their way of thinking, why shouldn't FOSS.
There is no question as to which license gives more freedom to developers over the code that they produce.
No. I don't need to license the code I produce.
If I produce the code I can release under any license, or as many licenses as I like.
If I choose to release under the GPL because I want to ensure that anyone who receives my code is free to modify it then I am free to do that. If I choose release under the BSD because I want to ensure that it can be integrated into closed source projects I am free to do that. I can even release the same project under both licenses.
If I choose to release under the GPL then I can draw upon any other GPL project out there and integrate it with my project. That is the benefit of choosing the GPL. But I'm free not to draw on that pool, and not to release under the GPL.
The *only* thing the GPL prevents me from doing is taking SOMEONE ELSES CODE and overriding their licensing choice.
Haa-haa.
You guys in the US are royally screwed by your legislation sometimes.
So by law when congress changes the tax levels you have to buy new software?
I use one of the more prolific accounting packages in the UK (SAGE, a PITA if ever there was one, it's the worst designed software I've ever used and if I had half a clue about accounting when I got it I wouldn't' have!!) and you just have to go in and change the settings for the different tax codes. You can buy an update that does it too. Tax legislation is in constant flux, buying upgrades all the time? Is that for real??
It seems that Digital Millenuium Copyright Act repels Richard Stallman so badly that he cannot even spell it right!
this post contain no useful information, no need to mod it down
You are restricted from locking up code, you are restricted from giving others less freedom than you received. This way the original freedoms are always preserved.
As long as the original code is available, others have the same freedom you do.
If you copy an mp3 and do whatever you want with it, you haven't deprived the RIAA of a song. If you copy code and modify it, you haven't deprived anyone of any code.
Freedom means being able to do what you want with a particular piece of code.
This is the usual troll interpretation. An intelligent person knows that freedom can only be seen in a context. The BSD license might give a developer/company greater freedom, but allows to take freedom from the end user. The GPL limits more the freedom of the developers/companies, but makes sure that the end user's freedom is not further limited.
"Freedom = no limitations" is a troll? Funny, I always thought that's what most people thought it meant. You really need to be drinking the right Kool Aid to think otherwise.
As for taking freedom from the user... in what other industry do you expect a manufacturer to provide the full source to their products? You don't expect your car or refrigerator to come with the details to create your own replacement parts from scratch, do you?
When you buy a car, do you expect to be given the specifications to manufacturer a new engine identical to the original? Or the other parts of the car?
Do you expect your home electronics to come with circuit diagrams detailing every part and connection?
Do you expect your CPU to come with the code used to create it?
Do you expect your music CDs to come with sheet music?
A man's got to know his limitations.
Or unless you would like to sell per-seat licenses, like RedHat, or dual-license your code, so fools can contribute to your project for free, giving away their copyright to you, while you can make a nice buck selling a proprietary license.
Yeah, the GPL is all about freedom.
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
The poster must have copied that from some other decades old post and forgot to remove mention of "tokenring", "ext2" and "defragment".
Friggen idiot.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Complaining to nVidia does no good. Never buying their hardware again and trying to tell others about their business practices is the best most of us can do.
"You are restricted from locking up code, you are restricted from giving others less freedom than you received. "
Interesting. One can "lock up" software, but can't "lock up" music, movies, or other IP. I'll have to remember that next time we have a RIAA/MPAA slashdebate.
As I understand it, the only part of Tivo's software than is GPL is the Linux Kernel. I doubt that the code that does the interesting things like record shows or (not) skip commercials is GPL. What kind of interesting things would people actually do if the hardware would run modified code?
Yeah, well then you end up with ati. Might as well just run integrated video rather than that.
The Farewell Tour II
I don't mean to be a party pooper but Stallmans suggestion to "release a program under "GPL version 3 or any later version".", sounds precisely like "changing one master for another", what freedom is there in turning your software over to a license that you've never read and which you won't be involved in creating? Other than that I applaud the intention though I'm incompetent to judge the implementation.
Oh wait, what am I saying, of course I do. I expect exactly this when a manufacturer voluntary committed himself to do exactly that. And this is what each manufacturer does, when he uses GPL code. This is not acceptable? No problem, but hands off from GPL code.
Name one. I expect all industries to do so, when a contract exists, which entitles me to get the sources. When it is software and they use GPL software, they have a contract with the copyright holder to provide full sources. If they don't want to do this, they have to code their own stuff.
You are definitely and without a doubt a troll. But fine, have it your way. You know that PostgreSQL is BSD? Most BDS is free? No free enough? Public Domain? Ok, from now on all public domain software belongs to me. Noone is allowed to use any public domain software withougt paying me $$$$. Noone is allowed anymore to say that there is a single piece of public domain software, which was not written by me. I can not do this? Hey, public domain limits my freedom. You call this 'free software'? Ridiculous.
I'm sure I'm being trolled here, but what are you rambling about? What that supposed to mean anything, or be in response to something? Did you have a little too much to drink or something?
Name one. I expect all industries to do so, when a contract exists, which entitles me to get the sources. When it is software and they use GPL software, they have a contract with the copyright holder to provide full sources. If they don't want to do this, they have to code their own stuff.
Now you're are least speaking coherently, but not really paying attention. That has nothing to do with the conversation here. No one is disputing what the GPL says.
The claims being made are:
1) The definition of "free" used in "free software" isn't a definition most people would expect (as evidenced by the fact that any introduction to free software has a length intro on how they define the word free)
2) The free software movement is based on the idea that anyone receiving software should inherently be entitled to the full source so that the software can be recreated exactly, however, there is no justification as to why software should receive this treatment when there are no expectations that other types of products should.
Your post, when readable, is simply setting up some pretty bad strawmen to tear down.
Oh wait, what am I saying, of course I do. I expect exactly this when a manufacturer voluntary committed himself to do exactly that. And this is what each manufacturer does, when he uses GPL code. This is not acceptable? No problem, but hands off from GPL code.
Hey, over here you're making sense. But again...
The point of this has nothing to do with enforcing the GPL. If you're working with GPL'd code, of course you should abide by the GPL.
The FSF acts like "free software" is a moral issue, with key rights at stake. They believe all software should be GPL, and we are losing our freedom otherwise. However, they do no provide any justification as to why software should be treated any different than anything else, nor do they provide any reason to believe that they think their rules should apply to anything but software.
The point where the GPL kicks in is the point where you could be sued for violating copyright law if you had no license at all. And you are distributing software if a court says you are. It's really that simple (and, depending on copyright law in your jurisdiction, that complex).
:)
The GPL basically exists to provide you with a limited defense against copyright suits--as long as you comply with its terms. Like "fair use", the GPL is simply a defense. You don't get sued for violating the GPL; you ask for a suit to be dismissed because, even though what you did is normally forbidden by law, you have this license which allows you to do what you did. For any behavior that is not normally forbidden by law, the GPL is pretty much irrelevant, since you don't need a special license for such behavior. And if you're not sure where the line is, then maybe you should stick to the terms of the license just to be safe, eh?
So you're now trying to claim that everything copyrighted (not just software) should come with all the information necessary for you to exactly duplicate it? At least it's consistent, unlike the FSF. Again though, you haven't really given a reason why this should be so, considering copyright law is designed completely counter to that.
Free Software generally means GPL. Doesn't have to, but the FSF (you know, the people who invented the term and got all this started) would prefer anything other than the GPL didn't exist, and generally imply not GPL = not free unless they have to admit otherwise.
That's all fine and dandy. And still completely in agreement with what I've been saying. You keep arguing with me, but not actually responding to my points. Again... the free software movement as a whole, and especially the FSF, acts as if it is a basic human right that all software should be free software, and anything else is a severe rights violation. That's the fundamental idea that drives the entire free software movement. Why should software be treated differently than anything else? Shouldn't it be that the author gets to choose whatever terms they want, and everyone respects that?
"You have to provide your own hardware to do it but that's true of every piece of GPLed software that RMS ever provided! "
This story is off the main page but the above is a very valid point that most miss. Is the "first" freedom really legally defensible? Apparently with GPLv3 we may find out. Assuming someone really wants to go to the trouble instead of simply going with non-GPL licensed software.
Sounds a lot like DRM.
Sounds a lot like DRM.
The GPL prevents you from taking something someone elses code in the same way, oh, copyright law does. Is copyright law "DRM" too? Do you even know what DRM is?
Additionally, seeing as the GPL gives you several additional rights to code you receive that copyright law DOESN'T. And the only privilege it restricts (that being the license you use when you re-distribute) is a priviledge you don't even normally get, I think comparing the GPL to DRM is about as ignorant as you can get.
The GPL only requires that you give the source code to the people you give the binaries to.
If you never release the binaries publicly, you never have to release the source code. PERIOD.
So you are an idiot with an idiot lawyer or you wrote that little piece for a certain company up in Redmond, Washington. But since you are anonymous Coward, I guess we'll never find out.
I actually don't believe this is true. If you can reference a small section of the GPL that makes any demands on monetary exchanges not taken place, please reference it.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I meant that the GPL places no demand on money changing hands to use the covered code. I did not mean that the GPL demands that no money changes hands to use the covered code.
I'm not going to criticize you for bad reading comprehension, since the mistake may very well be mine. While I consider myself fluent in the English language, it is still my second language, and I'm not going to compare my comprehension with a native speaker.
Thanks for clearifying what you meant. I'll meet you halfway and say that you didn't phrase what you said originally as well as you meant to, but that I should have thought more before deciding what you were trying to say.
I will say that many people don't understand the business aspects of the GPL license (whereas the business possibilities of BSD are easy to grasp). This misunderstanding could lead to FUD that running a business based on GPL code is impossible. The fact is that it is extremely possible to have a GPL business, but the business needs to add significant value to the community to stand a chance (whereas Microsoft adds negligible value to the proprietary world, except when it comes to being a de facto standard).
Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
So... taking, say, a song that is licensed to me for money, making an mp3 of it, overriding/ignoring that license agreement I made when I purchased said song license and passing that mp3 all over the place isn't like taking GPL code, ignoring the GPL licensing part of it, and then treating the code as effectively BSD aren't similar?
GPL isn't about maintaining/preserving the licensing rights (at least, I thought that was the "L" in GPL) of 'stuff' (content/IP)?
So...
DRM is a TECHNOLOGY to physically ENFORCE copyright. Moreover DRM in actual practices is a defective technology that has in every implementation prevented or burdened legal/legitimate uses while simultaneously failing to prevent widespread copyright violations.
The GPL is a LICENSE (not a technology at all), so right there the comparison between the GPL and DRM is completely flawed.
Furthermore, the GPL is a license that EXTENDS not enforces copyright. It grants the recipient additional rights that they do not have under copyright.
Comparing the GPL to DRM is about as sensible as comparing a vehicles owners manual to photo-radar.
Its sounds like you want to compare the GPL to Copyright, not DRM. And if you want to compare it copyright, ok, that's fair. Copyright gives you a very limited set of rights to redistribute protected works without permission under 'fair use' outside of that you have no permission to redistribute at all. The GPL merely gives you that permission to redistribute with a couple restrictions on how. I can't see how anyone could find getting permission to do something you couldn't otherwise do offensive. Its absurd. It takes NOTHING away from you, and if you don't want to exercise that permission you don't have to.
Now BSD *ALSO* gives you permission to redistribute copyprotected works. The principle difference between the BSD and the GPL is that the GPL requires that any derivative works that are created AND redistributed be released under the GPL. At first blush this appears to make the BSD license more permissive.
And in the short run it *IS*. But that permissiveness, though greater only lasts one generation. The first user to derive from the work is free to re-distribute under the most closed source per-cpu/per-seat/per-user/per-hour license he wants, and the person who gets THAT work has NO permission at all to anything. Period.
While the first user to derive from the GPL project, must release under the GPL, and the person who gets that work as all the rights and permission to further redistribute that that the original authors granted when they released the original. So the permissiveness of the GPL license is perpetuated to ALL end users of the code, even if it has been derived from or extended to.