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.
Richard Stallman has scrambled egg in his beard.
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?
Stallman is an idiot.
He likes to talk about "freedom", but at the end of the day, what he wants is everyone to play by HIS rules.
Freedom means being able to do what you want with a particular piece of code. Stallman wants us to believe that restricting our rights somehow enhances our freedom.
Most of the restrictions that the GPL imposes benefit the community at the expense of individual freedoms. That's a tradeoff that we can choose to make - in fact, it is a tradeoff that I have chosen to make in multiple cases with my code.
But don't think for one second that the GPL is about "freedom". Public domain is about freedom. To a lesser extent, so is BSD. The GPL infringes on our freedoms for very specific resons, and it does so with good intent. But it infringes upon them nevertheless.
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.
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.
Affero closes the ASP loophole.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
nt
By BSDI who seel of Wa7nut Creek,
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.
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.
>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).
Interesting point of view I never considered, also looking forward to see replies to this.
"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
if you can't see that RMS is fighting for what he belives in, perhaps it's because you can't or won't question the lies you've come to believe in
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 will happen with TiVo is that because they cannot build a business model out of Linux, they will move to another operating system; while none of the software they currently use is under the GPLv3, and they can continue to use their EXISTING software and codebase without caring about the author updating the license (this is a right given by the GPLv2 and v3), to add features and roll in new fixes from GPLv3 open source software will simply become a corporate nightmare of attempting to find a legal middle-ground
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. I think this caused some serious trouble with it's reliability and suitability in business.
So, by putting in a bunch of bullshit clauses about encryption, circumvention etc. they are setting up to go to court and see if they can solve out a legal win for GPL or at least some exposure. If this is not intended but even just a side-effect I think it's dispicable that they'd do this kind of thing.
Free Software is about empowering users, however with the FSF enforcing copyright transfer and shitting on business left, right and center, really what they will do is empower users to make do with nothing because nobody wants to deal with the issues surrounding a badly-understood licensing model. 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? How do you empower users and free up software when it is conceptually and legally ambiguous?
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
Because citizens have social-contract ( the commons ) "rights", but a business has only merchantile ploys. The 2nd are always alienable -- the 1st never.
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.
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.
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.
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.
...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.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
If they took over the FSF they could control the world!!!!
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
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
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.
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...
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?
"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.
"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.
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.
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.
"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?
> 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.
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.
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
A man's got to know his limitations.
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.
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?
"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.
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.