Does GPL v3 Alienate Developers?

An anonymous reader writes "Via Wired, a blog post in which BMC Software's Whurley and Google's Greg Stein agree that the GPL v3 is currently on a path that will alienate developers. Stein has an interesting theory called 'license pressure' which is similar to 'pricing pressure'. 'Due to pressure from developers, all software is moving towards permissive licensing" translation, the GPL and developers are moving in opposite directions ... Developers care about the licenses on the software they use and incorporate into their projects, they like permissive licenses, and they will increasingly demand permissive licenses.'"

Comments

Impression

[Zironic]

I was under the impression that the GPL license is mostly meant for "hobby" developers that want to make sure no one abuses their code to earn money on time they donate for the good of mankind. Not industry developers that want to earn money from their code. I might just have gotten it all wrong though.

Any developers willing to comment on what they want out of a license?

Re:Impression

[jimstapleton]

Not quite - it's designed so that any contributions to it, if the result is distributed, are given back to the community.

I think this also includes contributions that would allow non-GPLed software to access it.

Selling the non-GPLed + GPLed = make money off of other peoples work.

Though, to my knowledge, there isn't an OSS license out that prevents making money off of other peoples work.

Re:Impression

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I was under the impression that the GPL license is mostly meant for "hobby" developers that want to make sure no one abuses their code to earn money on time they donate for the good of mankind.

Most hobbyist do choose the GPL from what I've seen, but I doubt they make up the bulk of GPL developers.

Not industry developers that want to earn money from their code. I might just have gotten it all wrong though.

Well, there are 50-100 developers in my office today and most of them work on GPL code at some point, paid by the company. I don't think we're unusual in that regard. When commercial developers release code as open source they do so with a motive of making money. You're not going to make money directly from OSS. You make money using OSS and getting free improvements from others and interoperability with other tools is the main benefit. The GPL insures you get those improvements and the competition does not grab all your code, and start a closed fork of it. The only time we use BSD licenses is when it is a vital infrastructure component we're trying to get widely adopted as a standard. In those instances, getting people to use and integrate it into closed software is more important than getting the improvements back.

Any developers willing to comment on what they want out of a license?

I think I just did. This is the situation as I see it and I think it has been stable for quite a while. I see more OSS development happening lately, but if anything it is code that old school people would release as BSD, now being released as GPL (and often failing to be adopted widely as a result). I guess I have to disagree with the article on that point (sort of). I see more code being released as GPL (both code that would otherwise have been less permissive like a closed license and code that would have been more permissive, like a BSD license). I see more LGPL code, which is a bit more permissive, I suppose, but I see that more as increased granularity rather than a move towards more permissive licensing in general.

Re:Impression

[Anonymous Coward]

Only company (employed) workers who want to benefit from open source more than they agree to give protest the change.
Greg Stein's view is maybe even not personal but Google's.
I am anonymous since I was flamed for having criticized Google's hand on open-source, who modify and tune up the linux kernel without giving back their optimisations to the communinity.... It was two years ago, no single Google critic was allowed. I never logged in since.

Re:Impression

[91degrees]

The FSF seems pretty clear that there's no problem with people selling free software or profitting from it in any way that doesn't restrict the freedom of others. Quite a lot of people use the code commercially. IBM has teams of developers improving it because they don't make their money on software.

Speaking for myself - I just want my code to be used. If I let people use it for free, there's still a decent chance that they'll offer any improvements back to the community. The free software concept is now sufficiently well understood that this tends to happen anyway.

Re:Impression

[fsmunoz]

Your post focus two points I consider important quite well.

"Business doesn't like the GPL": true when they are on the receiving end, but false when they are on the giving end. It makes all the sense for a company to realease its internal work as GPL and no, say, BSD, since they can always leverage any improvements made by others and avoid having other companies using their base code to get an edge.

"Not everything has to be GPL": quite true. Your example is dead-on: the FSF itself have recommended the use of BSDish licences when desimination is wanted. They said so, for example, in the OGG/Theora situations.

Re:Impression

[epiphani]

This is partly why I've tried to convert my projects to BSD licenses. I have a substantial amount of code that I've written GPL, and after working with people on these projects for several years, its hard to remember who wrote what. As a result, I don't use that codebase in any work that I do for my company that may be distributed.

I'm proud of the code I write, and a lot of it is portable - I know it inside and out - but other people have fixed, added on, improved and optimized my code. As a result of that happening under the GPL, I can't use that for other closed-source projects I work on. It's frustrating, I don't feel comfortable using my own code because its GPL'd.

Anything I work on in the last few years goes out BSD licensed, and I'm trying to convert my existing projects to BSD licenses as well. GPL has its place in core utilities, but I won't be GPL'ing my own code again for some time. BSD licensing is the way to go, imo.

Re:Impression

[Anonymous Coward]

You could actually probably use a Common Criteria license to prevent commercial usage of your code in a "derivative work". Of course RMS doesn't like this because preventing commercial use is bad (or so it sounds hearing him). Remember, the Free in FSF does not equal free of cost.

Re:Impression

[StripedCow]

In my view, the main reason people are writing code and donate it "for the good of mankind" is because they want to make a difference. Just that.

They think that by using GPL, their code will have the deepest possible impact in society.

However, and I think the author has a point here, they forget that by putting a restrictive license on their code, people will eventually move away from it, choosing another project in favor, which has a more permissive license.

Thus, simply put, if you want your code to live forever, become immortal, or how to put it, choose a permissive license (BSD or MIT or Mozilla or whatever)! :-)

Re:Impression

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL is designed to avoid this scenario:

1 - Community writes one million lines of code and release them publicly: everyone benefits.

2 - Corporate developer writes 100 lines of code, adds them to the community work and releses a closed product, actually taking credit and money, for a work consisting of mostly open source.

This is exactly why you see around many wifi routers and firewalls using Linux plus some closed source wifi card driver whose producer gives nothing back to the community that helped them to enter the market, while the community still needs reverse engineering to write open source drivers for the same wifi chipset.

The GPL is like a lock keeping closed a drawer containing a pair of handcuffs. It's somewhat a restrictive license, but what happens if we remove that restriction?

Re:Impression

[Znork]

"This is partly why I've tried to convert my projects to BSD licenses. I have a substantial amount of code that I've written GPL"

As long as you're the copyright holder you can change the license when you wish. Or put your contributions to a GPL project under revised BSD or even in the public domain.

"its hard to remember who wrote what."

Ah, there's the rub. That's hardly the GPL's fault tho, is it? That's copyright law and your failure to do what copyright makes it necessary for you to do. Join the crowd and work for copyright abolition if you dont want to bother with that part.

"I don't feel comfortable using my own code because its GPL'd."

You dont feel comfortable using _their_ code because it's GPL you mean. You could have asked for copyright assignment if you wanted to accept the patches in that case. This is not a GPL problem, this is a situation you've put yourself in.

Of course, if the license were not the GPL, or you required copyright assignment, then maybe those contributors wouldn't have contributed. I sure know I wouldn't contribute anything non-trivial under a non-copyleft (preferably GPL) license.

"BSD licensing is the way to go, imo."

Nah, seen too much BSD code get proprietarized and used to screw end users. Not with my code they dont. They can write it all on their own if they want power over others that bad.

Re:Impression

[J.R. Random]

I was under the impression that the GPL license is mostly meant for "hobby" developers that want to make sure no one abuses their code to earn money on time they donate for the good of mankind. Not industry developers that want to earn money from their code. I might just have gotten it all wrong though.

Yes, you did get it "all wrong". The GPL has nothing to do with preventing others from getting rich off the free labor of hobbyist developers. In fact, anyone who objects to someone else making money off his work should use some other license. The purpose of the GPL is to ensure that any downstream recipient of the software gets the source code in a form that actually enables him to make changes and distribute them. The restrictions on patents and DRM are simply consequences of that.

Re:Impression

[serviscope_minor]

I was under the impression that the GPL license is mostly meant for "hobby" developers that want to make sure no one abuses their code to earn money on time they donate for the good of mankind. Not industry developers that want to earn money from their code. I might just have gotten it all wrong though.

Any developers willing to comment on what they want out of a license?

Yes. I could be said to work professionally in software. My job isn't as a developer as such, but the software is a (well, the only) means to an end. The end in question being my real job.

I have no interest in trying to sell my software (that's not the point). However, there is no benefit to me in just giving my software away for nothing: improved software makes my life easier, so I use the GPL.

For libraries, I use the LGPL, since I figure this makes people more likely to use the library (and give me back improvements).

Finally, patents could make my area a real minefield (they have started to a bit already), so I'm all for the GPL3.

So, that's the opinion of just one professional who develops software.

Re:Impression

[B'Trey]

I'm proud of the code I write, and a lot of it is portable - I know it inside and out - but other people have fixed, added on, improved and optimized my code. As a result of that happening under the GPL, I can't use that for other closed-source projects I work on. It's frustrating, I don't feel comfortable using my own code because its GPL'd.

Horsefeathers. You can use your own code for any purpose you like, under any license you like. Releasing it under the GPL places obligations on others who acquire the code under that license. It doesn't place any obligation on you, nor prevent you from releasing your own code under multiple other licenses simultaneously. What you actually appear to be saying here is that you're no longer sure what code is actually yours in project X, and you're afraid of using other people's code, which they released under the GPL, in a closed source application. The real solution to that issue is good record keeping and an effective version control system, so you know what code is yours and what is not. Changing to a different license is a way to avoid the particular issue you're facing, but it's neither the only one nor necessarily the best one. If you've truly gotten lots of outside assistance on a project, the first question I'd ask is if the same level of assistance would have been available under another license. I can't speak for anyone else but I'm quite willing to help advance a project knowing that my efforts are protected by the GPL. I'm not so willing to pitch in and help out if I suspect that you're going to take the product of my hard labor, stick it in a proprietary application, and stuff the money you get for my labor in your bank account.

Re:Impression

[epiphani]

You dont feel comfortable using _their_ code because it's GPL you mean.

Well, yes. But at what point does a piece of code become tainted in that regard? Lets say I have a function that I put out, and then someone else fixes a few little bugs - an improperly initialized variable here, a null pointer check there... How does that impact the licensing of that code? Is that code now co-owned? Do I have to remove their fixes if I want to use it? They fixed bugs, things that I may have found over time. How does that legally impact that code?

If someone else releases some code, then I spend a few days fixing bugs in it, do I have copyright on those fixes?

The line is not so clear as one would like to think. And I tend to err on the of caution when it comes to these things.

Re:Impression

[TheRaven64]

Not quite - it's designed so that any contributions to it, if the result is distributed, are given back to the community. Not quite. It's designed so that recipients of the code receive the same rights that the person who created the modified version received from the person who wrote the original.

You don't have to give changes back to the community, you just have to give your customers the FSF's Four Freedoms. You can sell GPL'd code, and a few authors of bespoke software do; they base their code on GPL'd projects, add some value, and sell their customers the derived work. Their customers pay them because a big part of the value they receive is from having someone knowledgeable about the code able to add the features they want.

Most people who make money from GPL'd code do so by selling support. Support does not mean answering questions about the software, it means fixing bugs and adding features that the customer wants. The fact that it is Free Software means that there is no lock-in - the customer can always go somewhere else for their support - and so they have to compete on price and skill.

Though, to my knowledge, there isn't an OSS license out that prevents making money off of other peoples work. The CC non-commercial license does this, but I don't believe the OSI or FSF regard it as Open Source of Free respectively.

Re:Impression

[Znork]

'"Business doesn't like the GPL": true when they are on the receiving end, but false when they are on the giving end.'

I'd change that to "true when they are in the middle". Business on the recieving end _loves_ GPL code. It means they dont have to worry about a supplier going bellyup, it means they can change providers, it means they can hire outside help with the code, it means the software isnt going to fork into a bazillion proprietary incompatible versions and it means it's there long term, and that invested time and money isnt going to vanish.

It's the middlemen, who want to recieve freedom but not give it to anyone else who dont like the GPL.

That's something I can live with.

Re:Impression

[epiphani]

I'm not so willing to pitch in and help out if I suspect that you're going to take the product of my hard labor, stick it in a proprietary application, and stuff the money you get for my labor in your bank account.

For almost every major project out there, someone somewhere is making money off of it. Would you stop contributing to the linux kernel because you know there are a bazillion vendors out there using that code to make money on their product?

I don't care what people use my code for. What I do care about is if that code is improved or fixed - I would like those changes. But if they don't want to contribute back, thats their choice. People who don't give back in that context don't get the full benefits, because they aren't working to improve the very code they're using.

The lines arent as clear as one might think - see my other post for an explanation.

Re:Impression

[The_Wilschon]

So you'd rather not have the fixes, add-ons, improvements, and optimizations that others make, instead of having them and being able to use them for anything not closed-source? After all, by BSD licensing your code, you're depending upon the goodwill of others to give back their contributions (which even if they do give them back, their contributions might be under a different license). The BSD license in no way guarantees an improvement to your situation.

Perhaps in practice the BSD license does result in a better situation, but it could very easily result in a worse situation. Since I don't write any closed source code, the GPL doesn't harm me at all, and it guarantees something that the BSD license cannot.

Re:Impression

[huckamania]

I can tell you at what point you violate copyright... when a judge says guilty and the gavel bangs. If I were ever sued for something like this, I would definately have a jury trial. From my one time on a jury and code inspections past, I think I'd have better than pretty good odds of beating the rap.

I think General George Patton said it best "Software licenses are a monument to the stupidity of man!" or at least he would have. I think the main purpose of the GPLv3 is to keep RMS and company in the public limelight and perhaps weed out the non-believers. Tivoization is just a smoke screen.

What I can't understand is how 'GPLv2 or later' gets translated into 'GPLv2 unless GPLv3'. IANAL, thank god, but seems to me that those are not equivalent statements.

Re:Impression

[FireFury03]

(I should point out that I am a big supporter of Free software - I'm just playing devil's advocate here)

When commercial developers release code as open source they do so with a motive of making money. You're not going to make money directly from OSS. You make money using OSS and getting free improvements from others and interoperability with other tools is the main benefit.

This covers the case where you are taking an existing Free project and modifying it. What is the motivation between releasing a new project, that your business is responsible for creating, under a Free licence - there is no guarantee that you will receive any free improvements from others since noone may decide to take advantage of the Free licence?

The GPL insures you get those improvements and the competition does not grab all your code, and start a closed fork of it.

Lets say you are a start-up company trying to break into a market that's dominated by one or more well established propriatory companies. You base your product on Free software which allows a more rapid development and you release all your code and have a product that's much more advanced than the competition's.

How do you protect yourself from the competition taking your work and using it for themselves whilest using their established market position to maintain their large customer base - you have put development resources into the project and your competition is benefitting more than you.

Sure, you'll get any improvements they make, but they have a well established reputation and they have just delivered that shiny new product (which you wrote). From the customers' point of view, why would they buy their solution from a relatively unknown business rather than a more well established one that is offering a comparable (the same) product? When answering this question, remember that the customers may not know or care how the Free software system works.

There are tough choices to be made when balancing the wish to contribute code to the Free software community against the need to protect your business.

Re:Impression

[HermMunster]

NO, GPL V3 does not alienate developers. Developers are free to continue release under GPL v2.

Re:Impression

[plague3106]

I am anonymous since I was flamed for having criticized Google's hand on open-source, who modify and tune up the linux kernel without giving back their optimisations to the communinity

They ARE following the GPL. Did they distribute a binary of their code somewhere? Nope. So they are under no obligation to distribute the changes they made. You just want to benefit from their work (and cost).

Re:Impression

[boolithium]

Hobby developers? What do you think is running the intenet your on? The site your on?

Re:Impression

[sumdumass]

I don't think there is anything in any GPL license that says you cannot sell the work in question. it just says you have to give the code to whoever you distribute it to for not more then the cost of distributing that source code and you cannot stop them from giving it to anyone else. As for the product, There is nothing stopping me from taking GCC and selling it for $500 a pop as long as I abide by the rest of the GPL conditions.

Well, the probability of someone undercutting me ans distributing it free is a limiting factor, but nothing says I cannot sell someone else's work.

Re:Impression

[Wicked Zen]

So you don't care if your code is used to help track some minority a government hates and wants to exterminate? Yikes, where did that come from? You hear somebody trip-trapping across your bridge, troll?

Re:Impression

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

This covers the case where you are taking an existing Free project and modifying it. What is the motivation between releasing a new project, that your business is responsible for creating, under a Free licence - there is no guarantee that you will receive any free improvements from others since noone may decide to take advantage of the Free licence?

There is never a guarantee, just a good possibility. If it is software you are using, what is the drawback to opening it up and hoping for the best? Note, my company just developed a project internally and released it under the GPL. It is good for PR and our reputation and several smart people have already contacted the maintainer about contributing. We get to use those contributions without paying a dime in development fees for them.

Lets say you are a start-up company trying to break into a market that's dominated by one or more well established propriatory companies. You base your product on Free software which allows a more rapid development and you release all your code and have a product that's much more advanced than the competition's.

You've failed. OSS should never be your product only your tool. Selling OSS is not a sustainable business model.

How do you protect yourself from the competition taking your work and using it for themselves whilest using their established market position to maintain their large customer base - you have put development resources into the project and your competition is benefitting more than you.

You don't stop competitors from using it. You have reputation and prestige from having developed it, but the whole point is to get others using it so when they need an improvement they either hire you to write code for them (a service) or do it themselves, in which case you get the improvement for free to use yourself.

From the customers' point of view, why would they buy their solution from a relatively unknown business rather than a more well established one that is offering a comparable (the same) product?

Again, you should never, ever, ever open source your product and try to sell it. That does not work. You should open source tools and software outside your core competency. An OSS license is a feature of a product. Features benefit the user, not the developer. If you're contributing to OSS it should be because you're a user of the software or because you were paid to do the programming, not deliver the product. If you code OSS, expect to be paid once and make sure you don't publish until you're paid.

There are tough choices to be made when balancing the wish to contribute code to the Free software community against the need to protect your business.

Not really. If you're in the mapping software sales business, it is stupid to OSS your product and try to stay in the same business. It may, however, make a lot of sense to open the source to your map navigating and searching code and move into the map sales business (content) thus undercutting the costs of all the companies that are trying to be in the map software business and forcing them to try to quickly follow suit or die.

You should never be a businessman wanting to contribute to OSS for altruistic reasons and trying to decide what you can afford. You should always be using OSS as part of your business plan in order to make more money, or kill the competition.

Re:Impression

[sumdumass]

What I can't understand is how 'GPLv2 or later' gets translated into 'GPLv2 unless GPLv3'. IANAL, thank god, but seems to me that those are not equivalent statements. It is a matter of basic building blocks and peer pressure. The FSF has the copyright on a good number of pieces of programs that are basically essential to linux and open source. They will release/conter these to be under the new license which means anyone working off the code from the new license has to become GPLv3 in order to do so. Short of replacing all the code they have managed to get the copyright on, it will just be.

Now, they are using this to pressure others into going into GPLv3 also. And once they do it, others will be pressured too. It seems strange that we are talking about pressure and manipulation in an area we normally save for closed source companies. I guess when in Rome, do as the Romans do. But I think this strikes at the heart of the article. When FOSS starts doing the things we resent proprietary companies for doing, the love affair is over.

Re:Impression

[sumdumass]

That would alienate them for the GPLv3. And the buzz is that everyone is going GPLv3. So why would you persist at something that is going obsolete?

I think the key is, the GPLv3 isn't alienating developers in purpose but it is becoming a side effect.

Re:Impression

[fitten]

I can't speak for anyone else but I'm quite willing to help advance a project knowing that my efforts are protected by the GPL. I'm not so willing to pitch in and help out if I suspect that you're going to take the product of my hard labor, stick it in a proprietary application, and stuff the money you get for my labor in your bank account.

I think this is the crux of this discussion though... I write something and put it out for GPL, my ONLY option if I want to continue to have any control is to require copyright assignment to me for any patches/etc. However, would YOU contribute to any such project knowing that the copyright owner could flip it to BSD or propietary on a whim? I'm guessing "no", so you want to retain your copyright on the portions you contribute, which in turn make the original person (like the poster) effectively unable to control their code. You can't even fork it without stripping out all the non-copyright-assigned code if you want to switch licenses, for example. So, once it's been tainted with non-copyright-assigned GPL code, your project is never your own again, which puts off people like the parent poster who want to retain the copyrights on their code.

Alternatively, put your code out for GPL and rewrite all submissions for incorporation into your code so you can make the claim that you accepted the contributions, then rewrote and overwrote all those tainted pieces with your own code.

Re:Impression

[Grishnakh]

Now, they are using this to pressure others into going into GPLv3 also. And once they do it, others will be pressured too. It seems strange that we are talking about pressure and manipulation in an area we normally save for closed source companies. I guess when in Rome, do as the Romans do. But I think this strikes at the heart of the article. When FOSS starts doing the things we resent proprietary companies for doing, the love affair is over.

And why would anyone, except for proprietary companies, resent the FSF for this? As an individual developer, and also someone that works on Linux device drivers full-time, I have no interest in patenting software, and I want to distribute my source code to those I distribute binary code to (and back upstream when appropriate). I have no interest in keeping customers from seeing my source code if they're using my code on their devices. So, I have no problems with either the GPLv2 or GPLv3. Why on earth would I resent the FSF for this?

Companies like TiVo might resent them for the GPLv3, but I really don't care about them. I have no desire to buy a Linux-based device that I can't modify.

Re:Impression

[B'Trey]

For almost every major project out there, someone somewhere is making money off of it. Would you stop contributing to the linux kernel because you know there are a bazillion vendors out there using that code to make money on their product?

Who's making money off the kernel? Red Hat, for example, doesn't make money off the kernel per se. They put a great deal of time and effort into creating a distro, adding value to it, and supporting it. That's what earns them their money. The kernel enables them to make money, but that's quite a distinction from taking my code and locking it up into a proprietary app and charging me if I want to use it. If I want the extra service Red Hat provides, I can pay them for the privilege. If not, I can download the kernel and any additions or changes they make to it without paying for their services. The GPL ensures that.

TiVo is arguably making money off the kernel, and arguably doing so in a manner that circumvents the intent of the GPL. Thus the GPL v3 and this article. So would I stop contributing? Probably not. But do I support a change to the license to eliminate the loophole? Absolutely.

Re:Impression

[Anonymous Coward]

Duh, ask for copyright assignment doofus.

Re:Impression

[WilliamSChips]

The OSI's definition prevents discrimination against specific uses. You can still make money off of GPL'd software, you just can't prevent your competitors from doing the same.

Re:Impression

[Mattintosh]

Two words: Public Domain.

The GPL isn't free. BSD isn't free. They're both "copyleft" licenses.

The public domain is truly free, and once something is there, it can't go back into the private domain without a damned good reason.

Re:Impression

[FireFury03]

You've failed. OSS should never be your product only your tool. Selling OSS is not a sustainable business model.

Indeed you are correct that Free software can't be a product in it's own right. You are selling the services that surround the Free software - for example, the service of providing a pre-installed server, the customer support, etc. However, my point is that you have developed a tool on which to base those services. But now your competition also has access to that tool, and can provide similar services to you. Yeah, their services may not be as good (maybe they don't bother bug-fixing and just leave that to you and then take your fixes, so their customers end up with slower responses to their problems), but if they are a well established company it may take a lot of disservice before their customers decide they need a better deal.

A good example might be an enterprise grade linux distribution. Red Hat, for example, provide RHEL. Their business model is selling the support contracts for RHEL, but in order to do so they must expend a lot of resources developing the underlying system that they are supporting, and thre is nothing stopping any other company - Oracle, for example - taking their work and selling support services for a slightly lower price. Oracle would have much lower running costs since they aren't having to do any real development work - they just take whatever Red Hat does and rebrand it. Maybe they do their own bug fixes, maybe they don't bother, but either way they can signficantly undercut Red Hat.

Of course, Red Hat is a well established company with a good reputation so most people would buy from them. But imagine if they were a small start-up - now the well established company can base the services it's selling on your work and they have the marketting power to retain their customer base since noone has ever heard of your company.

Re:Impression

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if I can make good money off of it. I feel that its the problem of the minority for not being armed to the teeth.

Re:Impression

[gral]

The GPL is designed that once I release my software, the playing field will always be as I originally released the software. A company should not be able to take the code, change something and release it without also making the changes they make available.

If this isn't a worry, then the BSD or Apache license would be "good" enough. With those licenses, a company could take the code, remove the right for a user to see the changes by compiling and not giving out the source code.

The idea is that GPL software is always on the same level. A company or dev can take code, make changes, and has to release those changes to their users. Those users are then able to take the code and redistribute it as they see fit.

Re:Impression

[TheLink]

Uh, copyright laws have made public domain stuff go back into private domain.

There have been retroactive extensions at least for the USA.

Re:Impression

[plague3106]

It is a serious question. I would certainly care if my software was being used to purposefully harm people, and its something I would put in the license. "This software may not be exported to ." I release enforcement would be difficult, but its better than saying I simply don't care.

Re:Impression

[Ash Vince]

So you don't care if your code is used to help track some minority a government hates and wants to exterminate?

The only way to avoid that is not release it in the first place. If you keep it just to yourself it should be safe, but once someone who wanted to do something like this with it got hold of it, they can providing they dont release a product to the masses. Selling that product to every corrupt nation on the planet would not be prohibited under the GPL3 as far as I am aware.

Re:Impression

[fyngyrz]

Speaking as a commercial developer (most of the time), and the owner of a very successful software firm, I don't like the GPL because the licensing opens the door to an additional legal minefield we'd just as soon avoid, makes distribution and maintenance more complicated, and poses linking issues, forcing decisions about embedded code vs. external libraries based on exposure of our own IP. Not saying the GPL is wrong or anything, by all means, if that's your thing, proceed — but that's why we won't touch it.

From where I sit, if you want your code to be used by the most people in the most ways, issue your code as PD. That's what I do when I code for the community. Also... Free means free. Not "restricted." At least it does to me. I never did like Orwellian double-talk. The GPL isn't about freedom, it is about restriction.

Re:Impression

[sumdumass]

Hmm.. forcing people to do things by pressure tactics. I don't know, why was it bad when proprietary licenses did this? And why did we resent them?

And the resentment isn't in using GPLed software. It is in being forced into using GPLv3 software. I thought that point was clear. I even quoted the only part of the post I was replying to. It said something like "What I can't understand is how 'GPLv2 or later' gets translated into 'GPLv2 unless GPLv3".

But seeing how the block quotes didn't end and the entire post ran together as if it wasn't separates, I can understand your confusion.

Re:Impression

[maxwell demon]

The GPL isn't free. BSD isn't free. They're both "copyleft" licenses.

No, BSD is no copyleft. You can easily take BSD code and release it under a different, even proprietay license. You just have to keep the copyright claim intact (and the original BSD license also had that advertising clause). In short, as long as you are not lying about who wrote it, you may use and relicense it any way you want.

Re:Impression

[Anonymous Coward]

The way that you say "the buzz is" and "something that is going obsolete" makes me doubt that YOU are a developer :-)

Hmm.. the astroturf feels nice and spongy today..

Re:Impression

[metamatic]

The GPL isn't about freedom, it is about restriction.

No, it's about my freedom, as a user of GPL software. As a user, I am utterly free--I don't even have to agree to the GPL to use the software!

However, preserving my freedoms requires restricting your freedom to take my freedoms away from me.

Re:Impression

[metamatic]

IBM has teams of developers improving it because they don't make their money on software.

Actually, IBM makes billions of dollars a year on software, and has done for years. It even makes money from open source and free software.

(Opinions mine, not IBM's.)

Re:Impression

[Anonymous Coward]

(same AC here) After reading more comments, I'd like to take back those insults. sorry. You can never be too careful these days..

A counterexample then: the libjpeg library's license hasn't changed since 1998 and is kind of loosely worded, but I don't hear anybody willing to dump libjpeg because the buzz is that it or its license is obsolete.

Re:Impression

[maxwell demon]

And the resentment isn't in using GPLed software. It is in being forced into using GPLv3 software.

Nobody is forced to use GPLv3 software. If your current GPLv2 software does everything you need, just continue using it. There's no termination (unless you violate GPLv2, of course). Of course should you want to have some of the features future GPLv3ed versions offer, then you'll have to decide if you change to the new GPLv3 version, or if you dislike the GPLv3 so much that you don't use that new version anyway. But it's your choice (you could even decide to make a GPLv2 fork by implementing those features yourself into the GPLv2 version).

Re:Impression

[chromatic]

If I were ever sued for something like this, I would definately have a jury trial.

What jurisdiction are you in that a copyright suits leads to a criminal trial?

Re:Impression

[B'Trey]

write something and put it out for GPL, my ONLY option if I want to continue to have any control is to require copyright assignment to me for any patches/etc.

So why, precisely, should you have control over the code that I write? If I offer up a patch to project X, my intent is to contribute to project X. It's not to add to your personal code library. You have control over your code. You have control over your project. (Someone else, of course, can fork your project and create a derivative project over which you have no control. That project, of course, must be released under the GPL, so you'd still have access to it, just not control over it.)

which in turn make the original person (like the poster) effectively unable to control their code. You can't even fork it without stripping out all the non-copyright-assigned code if you want to switch licenses, for example. So, once it's been tainted with non-copyright-assigned GPL code, your project is never your own again, which puts off people like the parent poster who want to retain the copyrights on their code.

Any developer worth his salt is going to have copies of his original code and the patches he himself wrote. That code is his and he has full control over it. The code in the project isn't his code. It's an amalgamation of his and others' code. If he didn't write it, and he didn't pay for it, why on earth should he have absolute control over it?

If you want to maintain absolute control over all code in a project, write it yourself or pay someone to assist you in writing it. If you ask for and accept the voluntary labor of others to advance your project, you lost the ability to have absolute control over all of the code in the project. That's the whole intent and purpose of the GPL. It isn't a bug. It's a feature. If you don't want to make that trade, don't use the GPL. If you can convince others to contribute code to your project under a BSD or other such license, then more power to you.

Re:Impression

[mrsteveman1]

"Would you stop contributing to the Linux kernel because you know there are a bazillion vendors out there using that code to make money on their product?"

No, because those companies are required to release the improvements. Do you really not get the difference here?

"People who don't give back in that context don't get the full benefits, because they aren't working to improve the very code they're using."

Yes they are, they are improving it themselves, internally, and then watching you make improvements, and continually taking them and using them with no obligation to you, because you used a BSD license. With GPL that wouldn't happen.

Re:Impression

[burndive]

This is partly why I've tried to convert my projects to BSD licenses. I have a substantial amount of code that I've written GPL, and after working with people on these projects for several years, its hard to remember who wrote what.

If you can't remember who wrote what, then you'd better not license anything under a BSD license, because one of the few requirements of the BSD license is that it contain a notice, which mentions the name of the copyright holder three times.

It isn't the license that requires you to keep track of who wrote what, it's copyright law that demands that you not represent other people's works as your own.

What you want is copyright assignment, in which other people who contribute to your code assign the copyrights of their modifications and enhancements to you, who can in turn license it however you want. But wouldn't it be simpler, if the code will all remain under the same OS license, to simply add author credits within the comments in the source files themselves? That's a sufficient method of keeping track of authors, and it gives credit/blame where it is due.

Re:Impression

[allthingscode]

"Free" in free software is used the same way free is used in democracy. I am a free man. But free does not give me the ability to rob another person. My freedom comes with the responsibility to do the right thing, and I get punished if I don't. The same with free software. You are free to do with the software what you will, but you are not allowed to steal it, or claim it as your own.

Why would some people choose the GPL over BSD? Because of what we see companies like Microsoft doing with BSD code: Let's incorporate all of this code into our product, sell it, and use the money as a monopoly to eliminate those who created the code in the first place. Would people still release the code under the GPL if Microsoft didn't exist? Sure, for the same reason the Constitution would still exist even if everyone did the right thing.

The last time "free" meant what you mean was in the time of the Greeks, when you were not truly free unless you could enslave someone else. That's not my kind of free.

Re:Impression

[Entrope]

Civil trials in the United States -- at least any that people bother about -- must give the option for a trial by jury, per the Seventh Amendment. Either side may demand that a jury decide the facts in question.

Re:Impression

[plague3106]

That's true to an extent, but you could license it in such a way as to forbid it (or derivatives) from being exported or sold to certain countries. Would it stop said countries? Maybe not, but it may slow them down, and you have a better chance then if you just threw it out there..

Re:Impression

[asninn]

The GPL *is* about freedom, but it's the freedom of the end user - the freedom of EVERYONE, not just yours. Maybe ask yourself this: in a democracy, should it be possible for people to vote for the abolishment of democracy - and if not, is it really a true democracy?

If you answered "no" and "yes", respectively (and there are good reasons for doing so), then you should also understand why the GPL is about freedom.

Re:Impression

[sumdumass]

But you see, you are being forced. Well that is the generally stated Idea behind the anti-Novell clause. The idea was that immediately, as soon as the GPLv3 became final, the FSF and several other projects were going to switch to the GPLv3 which would force anyone building from those programs to use the new license or be forever stuck with an unused outdated program. The actual stated goal was to either force Novell into dwindling into obsoleting their GPLed software offerings or forgo their deal with Microsoft and be good little subjects. Of course every time the option of maintaining the GPLv2 code came up, the opposition said it would be to cumbersome or practical to happen.

The anti-Novell clause has been modified to change the effective date so that Novell is grandfathered in. But nothing else concerning that clause has been. Now, if it was too cumbersome or practical for Novell to deal with the volume of license converts, maintain and develop forks, what makes you think anyone else will be able to do so? As a matter of fact, this is the primary reason people are still claiming the GPLv3 won't cause forks.

SO you can say we have all the freedom you want. The picture is clear though, we are being coerced into adopting the GPLv3 by tactics we once dreaded and despised from proprietary licenses. People speaking out about this is a sign. It is no different the telling a windows user who can barely change desktop settings that instead of complaining that something doesn't work, fix it so it does work. You know it is nothing but a tactic to stifle the complaining. You know that theory doesn't translate to practice and we know saying we have the other option is just the same.

If your ok with people getting canned answer like this to shut them up, the fine. If not, then you need to look at the problem a little better. At this point, I have stopped caring what the GPLv3 does and have started on a you deserve what you get track. And trust me, the fall out and problems will be larger then you are willing to imagine. They are probably larger then I can imagine. I don't think I'm alone in supporting the GPLv2 idea of free software and having problems with changing that just to punish companies and reach outside the scope of the license on a few issues.

Re:Impression

[Wicked Zen]

It certainly didn't come across as serious. The GP was obviously talking about whether the code would be used for others' financial gain. Your bringing up the irrelevant topic of racist oppression seems spurious.

Re:Impression

[__aayurq3262]

The GPL is designed to avoid this scenario: 1 - Community writes one million lines of code and release them publicly: everyone benefits. 2 - Corporate developer writes 100 lines of code, adds them to the community work and releases a closed product, actually taking credit and money, for a work consisting of mostly open source. That's not what the GPL is all about. You're missing the main point of the GPL. It's not about taking credit and money for someone else's work. It's about letting others use your work. The GPL basically says: "I'll let you stand on my shoulders, but you have to agree to let others stand on yours." The GPL cares nothing about "making money" and not much about credit. You are free to sell others work without adding anything of your own if you want to, and you don't have to tell anyone if you are just using someone else's work in your back office, even if that use makes you a fortune. If you are only adding 100 lines of code to a million line app (.01%) you probably won't add much functionality. If you add 0% (end user) the GPL doesn't even affect you. It's the guy adding 20,000 lines of code that the GPL really cares about. He's added just 2% and has probably made something of value that he's obligated to share under the GPL. The GPL acts like a progress ratchet. Each step forward becomes irreversible because anyone can use that step as a new starting point.

Re:Impression

[WGR]

You are missing the essential strength of the GPL.

When I, as a commercial developer, license software under the GPL, I am assured that my competitors will not take it and develop improvements that I cannot use. The GPL is much more corporate friendly than BSD exactly because it guarantees that the code remain open over any improvements. It means that the developments of any contributor remain available for all so that the software "evolves" and does not become proprietary and unavailable for the original contributors.

The problem of who contributes what is less of a problem, since one agrees to the GPL when you start using software with that license. Unless you re-create all the GPL'es code, your code will also be under GPL.

BSD type licenses allow a company (Apple, for instance) to start with code developed by a community of developers and then privatize it with no compensation to the originators, not even giving them the improved code.

Re:Impression

[WNight]

Pressure tactics? Stallman is trying to make *you* use the GPLv3? Or just suggest that in-his-o everyone should? All of my v2 code seems fine. Is he going to remotely disable it?

As for "...being forced into using GPLv3 software...", do you honestly think users need to even know about the GPL?

The GPL is a distribution license, no user ever has to ever know about it, let alone read it.

Re:Impression

[chromatic]

Oh, yeah. I've never heard of it in a copyright case, so I forgot that was even an option.

Re:Impression

[init100]

You could actually probably use a Common Criteria license to prevent commercial usage of your code in a "derivative work".

You must be referring to the Creative Commons family of licenses. Common Criteria is an international standard for computer security.

Re:Impression

[PitaBred]

Hell, there aren't even any usage restrictions with GPLv3. It's all in redistribution and modification. So use it to your heart's content... but if you change it or adapt it to your needs, you get to compensate the community by opening up any "IP" you may have included.

Re:Impression

[plague3106]

Sorry, I guess I'm just one of those people that believes 'say what you mean, and mean what you say.' I don't care is a pretty broad statement to make..

Re:Impression

[WGR]

You dont feel comfortable using _their_ code because it's GPL you mean.

Well, yes. But at what point does a piece of code become tainted in that regard? Lets say I have a function that I put out, and then someone else fixes a few little bugs - an improperly initialized variable here, a null pointer check there... How does that impact the licensing of that code? Is that code now co-owned? Do I have to remove their fixes if I want to use it? They fixed bugs, things that I may have found over time. How does that legally impact that code?

If someone else releases some code, then I spend a few days fixing bugs in it, do I have copyright on those fixes?

The line is not so clear as one would like to think. And I tend to err on the of caution when it comes to these things. The great advantage of the GPL is that you have the right to use those fixes and expand them even if you didn't make them. If the code is GPL, then anyone who uses the code is required to extend the privilege of modification and use to any fixes that they make.

    This is the real value of the GPL, in that, although your improvements also become GPL code, other's improvements are also available for you to use. You contribute only a part, but you get to use the whole on same basis as everybody else. The viral nature of the GPL is what makes it commercially appealing to those who want to use software rather than sell software. Improvements from others become available for you to use, rather than being hidden in proprietary code.

Re:Impression

[init100]

The GPL isn't about freedom, it is about restriction.

If the GPL is about restrictions, then what are proprietary licenses about? Enslavement?

Re:Impression

[bentcd]

Not quite - it's designed so that any contributions to it, if the result is distributed, are given back to the community. To my disappointment and surprise, I am coming to the conclusion that GPLv3 may be too open to coopting (via the much debated IBM exception) to be of interest to me. It's basically becoming a "BSD lite" license. This, of course, is a vindication for the "GPLv2 only, none of that GPLv2 or later crap" crowd. (Of which I have been a proud but silent member.)

Here's for hoping that Someone will eventually write a proper Free license that does not have an IBM exception clause - but which does address the googlification and tivoization issues.

Well, a man can hope :-)

Re:Impression

[mindstrm]

Yes, and if you look deeper, many OSS projects require copyright assignment. This is a sleeping giant that's been around for a long time I think.

It's not that the license requires it.. but if you me to put your patches in the version of my project I distribute... I want the copyright.

You are free to distribute your own version with your own code of course.

Re:Impression

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up!

I was previewing a reply (yes, I'm new here) on another tab when I saw your post. You said everything I was going to say and more. Thank you.

Re:Impression

[Grishnakh]

You sound like someone who feels the world owes him something.

If you don't like the GPLv3, you're perfectly free to not use any GPLed software. No one's forcing you to buy it, and there's not even any monopoly pressure forcing you to use it. Don't like it? Go buy a Dell with Vista, or a Mac. Or better yet, write your own software. Then you can put whatever license you want on it.

What a whiner.

Re:Impression

[Plekto]

If you want to maintain absolute control over all code in a project, write it yourself or pay someone to assist you in writing it. If you ask for and accept the voluntary labor of others to advance your project, you lost the ability to have absolute control over all of the code in the project. That's the whole intent and purpose of the GPL
****
I'd have given you points for this, but I'm out for today. This is exactly the point of GPL.

See, it comes down to the problem of people taking code that isn't their creation and using it as theirs. In journalism this is called plagiarism. You are stealing intellectual work from others.

IME, people in corporations turn to these vast libraries to solve a problem precisely because they are either too lazy, too time constrained, or too dumb to figure it out themselves. They cheat and use other people's work and hope nobody will notice. Then they bitch when they get found out, like the original person is doing on his site in this posting.

You *could* always write that piece of million dollar proprietary code in C++, you know - O'Riley has great books on it over at the local Borders.

Re:Impression

[Anonymous Coward]

"As long as you're the copyright holder you can change the license when you wish."

Actually, once something is GPL'd it's always GPL'd, so you can never change the license of a GPL'd work.

Re:Impression

[fyngyrz]

You are free to do with the software what you will, but you are not allowed to steal it, or claim it as your own.

This is not true. The GPL isn't about giving credit or "stealing" something that is being given away. I am more than happy to give credit where credit is due and desired. In fact, although I wrote most of the code in the product, my name isn't even on that list, because I don't care about credit personally. The GPL has nothing to do with "claims of work as one's own", nor does such a thing present any kind of a barrier. What the GPL restricts is the ability to use that code without exposing your own IP or complicating distribution issues, while adding a layer of legal concerns that represent a looming potential liability which a real company, doing real work under real constraints which it is duty and honor bound to consider because it affects the company, the company's shareholders and/or owners, employees, customers, and of course the product itself. We can't just go dancing off into the night willy-nilly when something has a restrictive license; it has to go to lawyers, everything has to be examined to the last detail including what is a library, what is compiled in, where the source code will be, what provisions for maintaining access to it will be set up, and so on. The GPL sets up barriers to commercial use, intentionally so, and that - not anything to do with "credit" or "theft" - is the sum total of the problem.

The last time "free" meant what you mean was in the time of the Greeks, when you were not truly free unless you could enslave someone else. That's not my kind of free

Again, not so. I can release something PD and you can do anything with it. The fact that it is PD and public sets the lower bound, and it becomes impossible for anyone to say "that isn't PD anymore", while there is no upper bound, no need to be concerned about source code, compilation, libraries, modification, etc. And you can still acknowledge the author(s) (give credit) and you are not in any way "stealing." The "right thing", as you put it, is anything you would like to do. If the ability to do this ever went away, it would be a tragedy. And it certainly hasn't gone away at this point in time; I use PD for my community minded works and I would never choose the GPL because it restricts what people can do with my contribution, and I am not interested in restricting them. Plus, look at it the other way: You can use my PD code in your project just as easily - no, more easily - than you can GPL'd code. Because there are no concerns beyond those you would have for code you wrote yourself. I don't demand recognition, I don't demand exposure of your (or my) code, I don't demand you do - or don't - change it, I don't impose "responsibilities" on you, I don't demand anything. I'm just saying, here's this code, I wrote it, it does thus-and-such, and if you'd like to use, modify, or ignore it in whole or in part, you're free to do any combination of those things without any additional concerns imposed by me, whether in my direction or anyone else's.

As I said initially, if you want to use GPL, by all means, please do. But don't go imagining that the GPL is the bottom line in freedom. It isn't. PD represents freedom. GPL is just a license that isolates use that is restricted to a subset of the choices one could make were the code PD or one's own. Choosing the GPL is choosing restrictions. Choosing the GPL is fine, but pretending that the GPL is definitive of "freedom" or even just "free software" is misleading at best.

Also - and this is so obvious I can hardly believe I have to say it - When I give you my code, you are not enslaving me. I wrote the code, I made a choice about what to do with that work product, and I was the one who set the limits

Re:Impression

[sumdumass]

No, don't mistake my resentment for the FSF attempting to do exactly what I stopped using proprietary software for as the world owes me something. You can continue to live blinded or in your little fantasy world. But when the dat comes and you wake to realize this free movement isn't what you think it is, I will be there laughing and saying I told you so.

And yes, You call it whining, I call it bringing it to people attention. The difference is I'm raising concerns and you are ignoring them. And I don't think I'm along in this either. One say when you look around and everyone is gone, don't wonder why.

Re:Impression

[sumdumass]

lol. Now it is no body is forcing anything/ before, it was that no one could fork and switching as much as possible would force novel to go under to change their ways. Well, others are involved too. And when the other software switches, it effect mor ethen just that software, it effect all the software that works with that and so on. It is a domino effect of sorts. In the end, people are being forced to do something they didn't other wise want to do. And why? to punish NOvell and Tivo?

Playing stupid and acting like you didn't know the playbook that was bing used before the situation go turned againts others shows how arrogant the debate has become. Well you personally could have been camping under a rock somewhere and actually not know. some how I suspect this not to be the issue and this is another canned response to attempt to make one side look better then another.

And in case your were actually hiding under a rock somewhere, th idea was to switch everything to GPLv3 to force everyone else to goto it and eventually overwhelm Novell into dumping the Microsoft deal or closing the linux shop. If that isn't forcing, I don't know what is. And if Novell didn't have a future sticking to GPLv2 software, I don't see how any one person could be expected do the same. Didn't you read the article?

Re:Impression

[fyngyrz]

If the GPL is about restrictions, then what are proprietary licenses about? Enslavement?

No. Just different restrictions and different currency. The GPL's currency is limiting one's behavior on the one hand, and expecting certain behaviors (such as returning modifications) on the other. Either you pay in these currencies, or you can't use the product. A commercial product (generally) expects money as payment, which is an abstraction of work product in general, meaning, you can pay by selling your body, renting your garage, from your normal income, or from your birthday money. In many ways, it is a lot less restrictive than the very specific behavior exchange demanded by the GPL.

No one can "enslave" a (potential) customer if a license is clearly written. We can accept it, or not. If I don't accept the terms, I'll take the product back and get my money back. No harm, no foul. I have my money, they lost a sale. That's my choice. Slaves don't have choices. They take orders. No one can order me to buy a product with my funds that I are unwilling to buy. If, on the other hand, I buy it with the intent of not accepting the terms the seller has laid down, then I am abusing the seller. I am the problem. Mind you, not all licenses are clearly written, and that is a universally bad thing.

I'm not against the GPL or any other transactional release mechanism. What I object to is seeing it mischaracterized as the epitome of software freedom. It isn't. PD represents software freedom, because PD has the absolute minimum of restrictions and makes the absolute minimum of demands. A single demand, an inherent one, and that is simply that the code that is released is PD, and it can't become "not PD" by any action anyone takes. It is an infinitely available gift.

I'm not against any other release scheme either, transactional or otherwise, as long as it is clearly set forth so no one is confused. I am against the misrepresentation of any scheme because people are misled by such actions.

Re:Impression

[fyngyrz]

However, preserving my freedoms requires restricting your freedom to take my freedoms away from me.

Really? Then explain how PD does less for freedom than the GPL. Explain how you have to agree to the idea of PD, or even be aware of it, to use PD software. Explain how you are not free when you are using PD software. Finally, explain how when you use PD software, you have "take my freedoms from me." I'm all ears. Eyes.

Then explain how PD does not do more, by being able to be used in more software with less trouble and legal hoops to jump through. PD can be enhanced and returned to the pool, just as GPL'd software can be. PD can be acknowledged, just as GPL'd software can be. In fact, PD is superior to GPL in every way I am aware of except for the case where a software developer really isn't interested in giving the code away, but instead, expects something in return - the GPL specifies what those returns (as well as some limitations) must be.

The premise that the GPL is more free than PD software is bankrupt. Not for developers, and not for end users. These assertions are propaganda; no more. You can't successfully defend these ideas and you can't justify them on that basis (freedom.) And this is why I say the GPL is about restrictions, not freedom. Not that I mind in the least if you choose the GPL. I don't. I just mind when people define "freedom" by a set of transactional restrictions that while they may have benefits, certainly are not required in order to ensure maximum range of action with software, something most sensible people would agree pretty much describes "freedom."

Re:Impression

[Grishnakh]

Fantasy world? You're the one living in the fantasy world, chicken little.

What "concerns" are you trying to bring to peoples' attention? That distributing GPL software carries certain requirements and restrictions? No shit sherlock. It's copyrighted software, owned by people other than you. Since it belongs to them, they're allowed to set restrictions, just like MS puts restrictions in their EULA saying you can't reverse-engineer their software or criticize it.

If you don't like the GPL restrictions, you're free to not use it. Do you actually have a problem with this?

As I said, write your own software if you don't like it, and then you can set whatever restrictions you want. The rest of us will happily use GPL software since we're not out to sue people over software patents.

Re:Impression

[fyngyrz]

The GPL *is* about freedom, but it's the freedom of the end user - the freedom of EVERYONE, not just yours

By definition, "everyone" includes giving me freedom, but the GPL doesn't do that, it specifically restricts me. So we're not talking about "everyone" and with the GPL, we never were. That's just for starters. Next, PD offers more freedom than the GPL does. All end users, all developers, people writing books, website code aggregators, blog publishers, the public sector, government, foreigners, aliens, Bonobo apes, etc. Maximum freedom, minimum restrictions. The GPL does not offer this. The more people use the code, the more people are restricted to specific behaviors defined by the GPL, and forbidden other behaviors. The reasons are irrelevant; the point is, the GPL is less free than PD is. By a significant degree.

You want to use the GPL, great, have at it. But PD is considerably more free, and nothing you can do or say will change that; and nothing you can do or say would make me opt for the restrictions of the GPL for my community projects when I have a considerably more free alternative to use. That alternative is PD. I am unaware of a more free, more open and more flexible release mechanism. I am aware of the GPL, and one thing I can tell you for certain is that the GPL isn't a candidate for such an exalted characterization.

As for your sally with regard to democracy, I don't think the word means what you think it means. But that's entirely another discussion.

Re:Impression

[Draek]

the GPL isn't the most free license there is, that's obvious, but it's the one that *promotes* the most freedom. I don't want to give my code away, I want to help people the most with my code, and by making sure any improvement done to my software is given to the community just like the original was, I'm doing them a much bigger favor than just throwing them a .zip with some source files and saying "there, go and do whatever you want with it, I don't care".

ohh, and most sensible people wouldn't describe "anarchy" as the only free system, so I don't see why it'd apply to software... the GPL is a free license, it's just less free than BSD or Public Domain.

Re:Impression

[metamatic]

Then explain how PD does less for freedom than the GPL.

PD doesn't make sure that when I get a copy of program X that was released as PD by its author, I can (if I choose) modify program X and run the modified version. Nor does it ensure that I can redistribute my modified version.

This is all explained in the FSF's FAQs. Look up the four freedoms.

Re:Impression

[bnenning]

No. Just different restrictions and different currency. The GPL's currency is limiting one's behavior on the one hand, and expecting certain behaviors (such as returning modifications) on the other. Either you pay in these currencies, or you can't use the product.

That's just wrong. You don't have to do anything to use GPLed software. You do have to abide by its conditions if you want to modify or redistribute it, but you typically can't do that at all with proprietary software, even after you've paid for the ability to use it. Your rights under the GPL are a strict superset of your rights under normal copyright, and your rights under proprietary licenses are almost always a strict subset.

Re:Impression

[sumdumass]

Lol.. Keep it coming, I'm writing a book.

What "concerns" are you trying to bring to peoples' attention? That distributing GPL software carries certain requirements and restrictions? No shit sherlock

Well, no, I thought I made it clear in the other posts. Why is it you are either too stupid to see that or that you are purposely attempting to bury the issue? The issue is that the new GPL is being forced onto us. It is being forced in a concerted effort to force as many people as possible to use it in order to be under the new obligations.

well, there is another problem with it, and that is how microsoft is going to use the Anti-novell clause to invalidate a good amount of people's ability to use the GPLv3. Nut I never brought that up here.

t's copyrighted software, owned by people other than you. Since it belongs to them, they're allowed to set restrictions, just like MS puts restrictions in their EULA saying you can't reverse-engineer their software or criticize it.

You must be blind or really daft. It has nothing to do with restrictions. We, it will but not at this stage, it has everything to do with the tactics that are employing to force the adoption. And you were right, it is just like Microsoft's. Just I'm not talking about license restrictions, I'm talking about over bearing forcing while pretending there is another option that doesn't exist.

If you don't like the GPL restrictions, you're free to not use it. Do you actually have a problem with this?

I think you are the only one to bring this up.

As I said, write your own software if you don't like it, and then you can set whatever restrictions you want. The rest of us will happily use GPL software since we're not out to sue people over software patents.

Yes'm maser. lol.. You are missing the entire point. and I'm not going to mention that point about not being able to use it at all, the point I was making is that the FSF is acting just the same way as the proprietary companies and doing the same things we rail against them for. If they keep this up, it will be only you and the FSF using the GPLv3. This love it or leave it attitude isn't going to float with a lot of people. They can stick with MS and at least has usable software for the most part. so there you will be, all your prestigious developers using each others software and you are the only users to boot. Meanwhile, everyone else will be forking the GPLv2 software that switched to v3 and that means half your developers will be gone or distracted. But hey, it's your code, at least somebody will be using it right? Even if it is you and your brother right?

Re:Impression

[fyngyrz]

the GPL isn't the most free license there is, that's obvious

Right. PD is.

I don't want to give my code away...

Which is exactly what I said in the first place. You want to restrict people's use of your code, and that's perfectly fine. What isn't fine is calling the imposition of such restrictions as the condition of the transaction "freedom." It is the polar opposite of freedom.

...and by making sure any improvement done to my software is given to the community just like the original was, I'm doing them a much bigger favor than just throwing them a .zip with some source files and saying "there, go and do whatever you want with it, I don't care".

At the very least, your assertion is debatable. PD software can be changed and returned as new PD. Or not. Either way, some additional end users can get to use those changes, because return to the pool of changes has no effect upon distribution of any derivative product. So the end users clearly benefit greatly in this regard from PD. There certainly isn't anything about PD that is stopping a PD change from returning to the PD pool of art.

On the other hand, GPL software can be improved and not returned, simply by not distributing the improvements beyond the person doing the improving. This actually causes those improvements to reach fewer end users, and so this disadvantages the users. Furthermore, the GPL provides a motivation to not distribute such changes - it creates extra work and liability for the developer, and so some developers - us, for a concrete example - refuse to do any such changing or distribution.

This causes GPL'd works to exist outside the stream of developers who consider such liabilities and/or workload increases to be unacceptable. For example, Apple doesn't include, or improve, Midnight Commander in OS X because of the license; we don't include, or improve, Gimp filters because of the license; the list of similar non-distributions is probably immensely long. From where I sit, the user community loses, and the GPL developer community gets to sit there and go "nyah nyah" to no apparent gain at all. On the other hand, PD materials are valid candidates for our (and anyone else's) inclusion, consequently the odds of an end user benefitting from PD code are much better.

ohh, and most sensible people wouldn't describe "anarchy" as the only free system, so I don't see why it'd apply to software... the GPL is a free license, it's just less free than BSD or Public Domain.

Giving software source code away isn't anarchy any more than giving $50 to a cat shelter is anarchy. Both can promote uplift, both hand off power unselfishly and by choice, neither say "but you must do what *I* want you to do or you can't have the money / source code" and neither are antisocial or self-destructive by any stretch of the imagination. You're conflating a grasp at power - controlling other people's actions - with the idea of freedom. I don't buy it. Also, if "less free" is to be your metric for acceptability, then I presume you'd have no objection to jail, right? After all, jail is simply less free than not being in jail. It certainly could be a lot worse; you could be in an iron maiden, or murdered. Personally, when it comes to issues of freedom, I'll opt for the maximum that is compatible with the good of the community, and it seems very clear to me that in the case of donations of infinitely re-distributable work product, the less restrictions put on said donations, the more freedom everyone involved, including me, will enjoy.

When I'm not outright donating work product (time, advice, executables, source code, materials), I prefer to specify that the exchange be made for money. This is the most flexible form of compensation, and no one is under any illusion that I am asking for an excha

Re:Impression

[fyngyrz]

That's just wrong

No. I'm talking about source code here when I say "product", and in that context, it is precisely accurate. GPL with regard to use of a compliant executable is, at least as far as I know, irrelevant. It is when a developer, by manipulating the source code, does something forbidden (like mix proprietary code with GPL'd code) that restrictions upon the developer come into play.

You do have to abide by [the GPL's] conditions if you want to modify or redistribute [GPL'd software], but you typically can't do that at all with proprietary software, even after you've paid for the ability to use it.

But that is a developer's choice, and it isn't by any means a defining characteristic of commercial software. For instance, it isn't true of ours: See here. Specifically, you can redistribute our software. Even if you haven't paid for it. Or in other words, you are free to do so. Freedom springs up where you least expect it sometimes. Funny old world, isn't it?

Re:Impression

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't read his post properly...

he said library A released with GPL, was contributed to by other developers who released modifications under the GPL, thus meaning he can't include said library with a commercial product because of the contributed GPL code.

then he said libraries B, C, D etc he's released under BSD, so then any contribution made by other developers means he can still include it in a commercial product... likewise, said contributors are likely to contribute under a BSD license because they also can include his code in a commercial product.

now, you can argue that the GPL enforces a return of contributions to the library, but this is at the expense of commercisation - for all practical purposes unless your whole business model embraces copyleft. BSD encourages a return of contributions to the library specifically for commercial or non-commercial purposes regardless of business model.

it's amazing how permissive licenses allow you to live of community contributions, contribute to the community and rape and pillage all at once.

Re:Impression

[Plekto]

Yet exactly how often is commercial software available with the source code as well?

The issue of proprietary drivers alone is a major reason many people look for GPL version if they exist. This ability to go in, dig around, fix a couple of variables or lines of code and make it work is huge.

Yes, the commercial companies could do this. They never, ever do. That all are asses about it.

fyngyrz, your view of freedom is backwards here, because real life situations almost never involve a user nerfing other users. It's always the corporation who wants to take advantage if they can. The developers of GPL saw this a long time ago. They saw that one day companies would copyright everything in sight, even down to trying to patent life itself. This required aggressive action on their part to KEEP it from happening.

Yes, it's not as "free" as PD, but it's far more protected from being abused as well.

Re:Impression

[slycrel]

The trouble I have with this is that it cuts both ways.

At work in our closed source application we are allowed to do a "secret about box" where we can pretty much code whatever we want. I had some cool ideas and knew of some "open source" code that would get things done the way that I want... however it's difficult if not impossible to legally use anything GPL'd in this case as the entire product would then need to be GPL'd.

In this case I'd love to use someone else's code to make something cool, yet I am not "free" to do so because the entire body of code I am working with is not also GPL'd.

I felt pretty restricted in my freedom in this case, and there are other (probably better) examples of this out there. There is probably some license out there that would do what I'm looking for here (requiring the code I actually modified from someone else to be re-released without requiring the entire codebase to be released), but if so I've not seen it yet.

Re:Impression

[fyngyrz]

PD doesn't make sure that when I get a copy of program X that was released as PD by its author, I can (if I choose) modify program X and run the modified version

PD source code does, and that is what we are talking about here. You can't win the argument by moving it to a new venue. However, since you brought it up, PD executables ensure that you can run the program and you can give it away; you don't have source code, so freedom to do things with said source code is entirely irrelevant. You don't have freedom to use resources on the author's computer, either, but again, such freedom wasn't offered, so it isn't relevant. And wouldn't you know it, the freedom to choose how to release a product rests with the author of the product. How weird is that?

Nor does it ensure that I can redistribute my modified version.

Again, PD source code does ensure precisely that. And again, that's what the discussion is about.

This is all explained in the FSF's FAQs. Look up the four freedoms.

I am aware of, and am not interested in being limited to, the FSF's four freedoms. With PD, I have more than those four offer, and the experience is broader, more empowering, less controlling of others, and of greater value to the end user community, in my personal opinion.

But for fun, let's look at 'em. 1 - "The freedom to run the program, for any purpose." Yes, PD source code gives me that. Only "any purpose" includes in aid of, or within as a part of, a commercial product without any restrictions or legal hurdles, so really, PD source code is a lot better than GPL'd source code here.

2 - "The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs." Yep, PD source code gives everyone that, too, and I'd say both PD and GPL source code do just fine in this regard.

3 - "The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor." Yep, PD source code gives me that as well. But I can distribute them commercially without restrictions, so GPL'd source code doesn't measure up here - you can help more than your GPL-compliant neighbors with PD source code.

Lastly, 4 - "The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits." And of course, PD source code gives me this too, only I can give it to a far wider audience, because I don't provide limitations with my offer. So the definition of "whole community" is a lot more accurate for PD source code than it is when considered in the limited context of the FSF's use of the term.

So as we can see, PD source code also offers everything in the FSF's fab four, while doing a better job of achieving the stated goals than GPL'd source code does at the same time.

But, wait, there's more! PD also offers the ability to embed that source code in a commercial app. It offers the ability to link it any way you want. It offers the ability to mix it with proprietary techniques. It offers considerably greater ability to avoid legal entanglements. You can make libraries, applications, distribute fragments, improvements, neglect to distribute them, put the code in a book... this is why PD source code is superior in every way unless your objective is not actually freedom, but a specific set of goals that you will accept as compensation. Which is what the GPL exists to do.

Re:Impression

[Anonymous Coward]

"I don't feel comfortable using my own code because its GPL'd."

Sorry but not. You know you can relicense your own code under any license you see fit at any time. The problem is not on YOUR code, but on the code OTHERS ALLOWED YOU TO USE under their own license terms.

So you feel uneasy using others' code in a way those "others" didn't mean. That's just OK to me.

"I won't be GPL'ing my own code again for some time. BSD licensing is the way to go, imo."

Since it's your code I can only be glad you choose the license you better see fit. On the other hand, you can bet that being your code BSD, I won't be one of those that "fixed, added on, improved and optimized" your code knowing you can use my effort as a jumptable for your own privative projects. Maybe others will think the same. But again, since it's your code, it's your decision.

Re:Impression

[FutureDomain]

Mod parent up!

That's exactly why I like to release my free code under a permissive license. I don't subscribe to the particular ideals of the GPL movement (but I still like their software), and I want to be able to freely distribute and have others freely distribute and use my code without any usage restrictions. I don't want others stealing my code and claiming it as theirs, so that's why I included a clause in my Xenon Freedom License requiring them to include a little attribution note in the source code.

Re:Impression

[fyngyrz]

Yet exactly how often is commercial software available with the source code as well?

(a) We're not talking about commercial software vs. the GPL, we're talking about PD source code vs. GPL'd source code. (b) Commercial software may offer no source, some (as we do, for instance for scripts, for plugins) or all; again, this is entirely up to the developer, but in no way does this relate to PD offerings.

The issue of proprietary drivers alone is a major reason many people look for GPL version if they exist. This ability to go in, dig around, fix a couple of variables or lines of code and make it work is huge.

And PD source code for drivers as opposed to GPL'd source code for drivers would hurt or diminish this ability, exactly how?

Yes, the commercial companies could do this. They never, ever do. That all are asses about it.

Nope, not all of 'em. Many are pretty myopic, certainly, but not all. For example, we released the entire mechanism for our plug-ins (essentially, plug-ins are drivers for our image and animation manipulation engine) free of charge. You can use that mechanism to write stuff for our app, or, for instance, you could take the code and jam it into the Gimp and thus make the gimp run our plug-ins. No restrictions. The code and details are online, and begin here. Previously, when we were doing hardware, we coded up an entire paint program and handed out the source code - essentially a specialized driver for the graphics hardware. You're not going to get me to argue that holding back driver details for software or hardware targets is the socially best-scenario move; clearly, it isn't, and we don't go that way ourselves. Nor do we find that we need the GPL to get us into, or keep us in, the proper mindset.

fyngyrz, your view of freedom is backwards here, because real life situations almost never involve a user nerfing other users

No? Where are all these viruses and worms coming from, then? Why do I see perfectly good and on-topic posts on slashdot being crushed by moderators, who are really (usually) just other users? Why is it that a bunch of users will promote a product based upon familiarity or looks when functionality is far superior in another product? I'll tell you why: Because people "nerf" other people all the time. Some people don't, and those drive the community forward. You can't legislate or bind by rules when it comes to behaviors that cannot be controlled; you can't impose your opinions on people who will not listen, and it doesn't matter if you're right or not, you simply can't do it. Those people who wish to contribute, or do business in a manner that benefits the community in ways that may not lead to direct profits, will do so regardless of rules. They aren't doing it because they were told to. They're doing it because they want to.

The developers of GPL saw this a long time ago. They saw that one day companies would copyright everything in sight, even down to trying to patent life itself. This required aggressive action on their part to KEEP it from happening.

It hasn't been prevented, or even slowed down. That's a fact. On the other hand, the GPL has served to prevent ideas from reaching large numbers of people by making the task of including GPL'd source code in commercial products much harder than it needs to be. Conversely, PD source code can't be glommed by a company any more than GPL'd code can, and this brings up the question, why use GPL at all if your goal is to get ideas in at the "you can't isolate this idea" level? Put the idea in PD source, distribute it reasonably well (trivial to do), and that's it - it'll never be non-PD, it can't be patented because the PD is prior art, it can't be copyrighted because the PD is

Re:Impression

[turbidostato]

" It is being forced in a concerted effort to force as many people as possible to use it in order to be under the new obligations."

OK, let's pay into your armaggedon scenario. Let's imagine the FSF already published the GPLv3; it already moved all its codebase to the new GPLv3, and it already "won the battle" and most GPL-liken developers are using it on their own developments. Now what? What is the real problem now?

There's certainly no problem to me. My software production/usage is terribly outbalance to the side of the usage. What are my new concerns regarding the use of GCC, Emacs, Subversion, etc.? Maybe I'm ill-informed but I really don't see any problem on this side. On the other side, for the short part of the software that I develop I know I can produce it under GPLv3, GPLv2, BSD or even a Microsoft-like EULA. Even more, I'm not planning development of any "DRM-powered", patent encumbered or "hardware usage-limiting" software, so I really can't see how the adoption of the GPLv3 for my own software (*even* if I were really obliged to use it, which I'm not) would badly affect myself. And even-even more, since I'm quite worried about where the devolpment of "DRM-powered", patent encumbered or "hardware usage-limiting" software can affect me as a software "consumer" I can only see advantages if your armaggedon scenario really came into live.

But surely I'm missing something. I hope you can enlight me -for all I've seen from you till now is nothing but hand waving, bruhaha, and unspecific claims about how bad will be the new GPLv3 that the FSF will impose over us by force in order to achive some dark and dirty... unstated whatevers. That's nothing but FUD on my book.

Re:Impression

[turbidostato]

"Actually, once something is GPL'd it's always GPL'd, so you can never change the license of a GPL'd work."

Well, the "problem" with this is that "source code" means two things at the same time: it's an abstract concept (like in "the source code of Emacs 11" which is the abstraction of all the copies ever made and those that could possibly be made -or the archetype of Emacs 11 if you are platonicly inclined), and it's a concrete thing (like the very CD I pass to you that contains a copy of the source code or the physical paper and ink of an impressed version).

It is true that the copy (the concrete thing) of a program you distributed to me under GPL terms is forever mine under GPL terms and the author can do nothing to revert this. But it is true too that -being the author and only copyright holder, he can make *further* copies of the source code and distribute those under any other license he deem apropiate, just like Stallman (provided he retains copyright of all the codebase) can tomorrow start distributing copies of Emacs 11 under a Microsoft-like EULA -that, of course, doesn't mean your already owned copies of Emacs 11 are anyless GPLed than before. So where previously there were only one archetype of the Emacs 11 source code, now we have two, one under the GPL and another under el Ms-like EULA.

Re:Impression

[FutureDomain]

because one of the few requirements of the BSD license is that it contain a notice, which mentions the name of the copyright holder three times. Where does it say that? The old version used to require you to include a notice in all advertising that it was developed by the University of California. The problem was that programmers would modify it to include themselves, and products would have an acknowledgement clause for each of these developers in their advertising which took up a lot of room. That's the biggest reason why they removed the clause in 1999. The new version doesn't have that clause, so it's not an issue anymore.

Re:Impression

[Pav]

I'm an evil multimillionaire genius who wants to screw the users and developers of said PD code.

1) I hijack the project by embracing and extending it so end users will prefer my fork. I distribute it for free, but under a license which prevents anyone else from redistributing it.

2) I create a paid version offering a sweetener (support and/or more functionality etc...) and then do a frog boil by letting the free version fall behind (no bug fixes or functionality extensions etc), and because I'm the only one with redistribution rights I can kill it completely at my whim. (I'll probably keep in around though because it will suck people into using my product, and when they become frustrated with limitations they'll pay me for the real thing).

3) If you try to extend the PD product to match mine (mine MINE!!! ahahaha!!!) I open up with my patent and/or copyright war chest and sue your arse back into the nerd hobbit-hole you came from.

4) Profit!

Re:Impression

[Draek]

I'm not calling the GPL license "freedom", I'm saying it *promotes* freedom, because it protects the code licensed under it from being incorporated into products by people who would deny me the right to study, modify, extend and distribute such software in the manner I see fit.

and well, yes, I do think that ensuring modifications are given back to the community helps them, since I believe that for any company who would release their modifications as PD there are at least two that wouldn't do so and keep theirs closed-source, and that for any such example of code not being used in a company for being "too restrictive", there are at least two that contribute their code to the community knowing that their competitors can't just take it, incorporate it into their products and sell it without giving anything back to them, therefore both the user and developer communities benefit, othewise I'd guess the BSDs would be more popular than Linux, which doesn't seem to be the case.

Re:Impression

[sumdumass]

There's certainly no problem to me. My software production/usage is terribly outbalance to the side of the usage. What are my new concerns regarding the use of GCC, Emacs, Subversion, etc.? Maybe I'm ill-informed but I really don't see any problem on this side.

You not ill informed, your just not anticipating the dangers. So we are going to assume that with the It already won comment that developer's are moving the the GPLv3 and not splitting with half sticking to gplv2 forks and the other half going v3. That in itself is a big problem because of compatibilities and such.

Now, because of the switch, and the pressure for everyone else to switch, if you use any of the libraries covered under the GPLv3,your going to have to move your projects to remain compatible or rewrite those libraries. You might find someone else already in the same boat and attempting to do just that but the Already won is asuming no one else held out. This was the obvious path, you are now going to be in the GPLv3. BUt here is the trick,

All someone has to do is create a license that protects you or me from lawsuit when distributing anything and get us to make payment for it. This kicks the anti novell deal thing in and boom. But this seem like it isn't going to happen. Well, what if I told you that Microsoft was going to place in it's license an addon that say they promise not to sue you or me over any project we distribute that has their IP in it as long as we seem to have a right to it and as long as you didn't place that offending code into that program or code.

So now your probably thinking well, you need to get the promise base on your extent of distributing covered works and you need to make apyment for it. This is the trick, it covers anything you distribute but not who you distribute to of their actions when distributing it. So when you at your leisure decide to distribute GPLv3 code, now it covers our extent in distributing a covered work. 2 out of three here and I bet your wondering how MS is going to get you to make a payment based on that.

They add it to the normal windows license and everything they distribute and then offer the same thing sans the license for ten time the cost. So now you have to either pay more for any microsoft programs or you will buy the lower regularly priced version and lose your ability to distribute GPLv3 coverd work. And because it was forced on everyone, your going to run into problems with OEM distributing stuff, others distributing stuff and so on. and because it is a blanket statement, it doesn't matter what covered work your intending to distribute, when you do, and assuming you had purchased some Microsoft program without paying the extortion, then you cannot even distribute your own GPLv3 covered program. Well, you can but not under the gplv3 which will get problematic for you.

It isn't some big inside conspiracy thing either. They can word the covenant not to sue so that it doesn't cover your own actions of placing the problematic IP in the code yet still works if you decide to distribute anything GPL. And when that GPL is GPLv3, you cannot distribute the program.

You might be thinking wait, I don't use any MS software, I'm all Foss. But your users aren't, other developers aren't. cross platform applications will need MS licenses for compatibility and QC checking. Bean counters at companies will buy the license because it is cheaper and it avoids litigation. Now you have companies using FOSS that cannot contribute back if they made changes to it or patched something. Doesn't really sound like the intentions of the GPL does it?

And even-even more, since I'm quite worried about where the devolpment of "DRM-powered", patent encumbered or "hardware usage-limiting" software can affect me as a software "consumer" I can only see advantages if your armaggedon scenario really came into live.

This would be if there were enough users left that could make use of it. You see, the

Re:Impression

[fyngyrz]

I'm an evil multimillionaire genius who wants to screw the users and developers of said PD code.

Huh. Pleased to meet you.

I hijack the project by embracing and extending it so end users will prefer my fork

Um, no. You can't "hijack it." It's yours. You know, PD = Public Domain. You're the public. It's yours. But thanks for improving it. That's great. You say users prefer your version? Because it's better? Maybe users are smarter than some people give them credit for. Good for them. And good for you!

I create a paid version offering a sweetener (support and/or more functionality etc...)

...and users can buy this if they choose to, right? But you've gone out of your way to give them a reason. Well, again, good for the users who make a trade of money for your offering and good for you for increasing your multimillionaire situation. Still looks really good all around to me. Outstanding!

...and then do a frog boil by letting the free version fall behind (no bug fixes or functionality extensions etc),

Um... so something you didn't ask for payment for, you're not going to choose to spend more time on? Ok, that seems like a perfectly reasonable choice. After all, no one paid you, so no obligation has been established. The producers of the original PD work might have made the same choice, in fact, perhaps that's why the project was PD in the first place. Of course, that's just speculation and in no way impugns what you've done.

and because I'm the only one with redistribution rights I can kill it completely at my whim.

Well - let's be clear here - you can kill your enhanced free version (and/or your paid version), but you can't do anything about the actual PD project, of course. It's still out there, and it's still PD, and anyone can still do anything with it that doesn't infringe on any IP you may have invested into your version. Now that your free version is discontinued, you've even provided an incentive to begin extending the PD version in new directions. Just so you know.

.(I'll probably keep in around though because it will suck people into using my product, and when they become frustrated with limitations they'll pay me for the real thing).

So what you're saying is that the free version really did add value, or else people would be using the PD one. In fact, it added enough value to serve as a "get them in the door" tease for an even more advanced product. This is sound, smart business, and does no harm whatsoever to the PD project, plus, all of your customers will benefit, plus, you'll pay more in taxes, people will be employed, society gains ground because your product adds efficiency and/or cheer to people's lives and/or businesses undertakings, and all because you were a good citizen and took the gift of a lowly PD project and moved us all forward. This is simply wonderful. I'm going to speak to the mayor and nominate you for the keys to the city. Seriously.

If you try to extend the PD product to match mine (mine MINE!!! ahahaha!!!) I open up with my patent and/or copyright war chest and sue your arse back into the nerd hobbit-hole you came from

Well, of course. You didn't release your improvements as PD, did you? So why would anyone allow your stuff to be stolen, just because you accepted a freely offered gift? That'd be like me giving a bicycle to my kid, he goes out and creates a paper route business with it, and then I try to take his paper route, reasoning that because I gave him the bicycle, he somehow owes me something. But the bicycle was a gift; that route is his, and his alone. As are your improvements. Unless he, or you, choose to do something along those lines. You know, choice...

Re:Impression

[turbidostato]

"I don't like the GPL because the licensing opens the door to an additional legal minefield we'd just as soon avoid"

Probably you are right here. By letting your clients see your source code they could see, for instance, you are illegally including third party code without rights to do so. If you don't let them see, they won't discover. It's just I don't see it quite a fair thing to be done.

"makes distribution and maintenance more complicated"

How can be distributing and maintaing code *any* more complicated or any more *anything*? On one extreme scenario how can distribution be any easier than "here it is: go download it yourself"?; on the other extreme, whatever your distribution and maintenance model currently is, how changing your distribution license into the GPL would force you to change them the least bit?

"poses linking issues, forcing decisions about embedded code vs. external libraries based on exposure of our own IP"

Do you mean that distributing your products under a restricted EULA doesn't pose linking issues and forces decisions about embedded code vs. external libraries based on exposure of your own IP? The only way I can imagine for this to be true is by you knowlingly violating copyright laws, and I don't think this to be the case, is it?

Re:Impression

[the_womble]

So what you want to do is to take other people's contributions to an open source project and include them in proprietary software?

The point of the GPL is to give all contributors a guarantee that their work will not be used in that way. Maybe some of them would not have contributed if they expected you to use it in closed software?

I think the lesson here is that contributors to BSD licensed projects should be aware not only that third parties might create a proprietary fork, but that the original developers might do the same.

Re:Impression

[turbidostato]

"Really? Then explain how PD does less for freedom than the GPL."

That has already been explained to the nausea. Here comes again:
Let's compare with slavery in the USA of old days. Public domain (or BSD-like licenses) is like being a southern landowner that takes the decision to free their own slaves; GPL is like organize an army to fight against slavery.

Now you can think about it and end up saying that the former is the "freer" option because you don't force other landowners' freedom about having slaves. Or, you can end up saying that the later is the "freer" option because it ends up slavery and it's no freedom the "freedom to enslave".

Now, it's your choice.

Re:Impression

[WNight]

People are putting Novel and Tivo into a position where they might be unable to continue using their business plans with future versions of a certain software package, unless they respect the distribution requirements.

I'm still not seeing how this is forcing.

I do GPL my software, but I don't see this *forcing* you to do anything. It doesn't force you to release GPLed patches, it allows you to release legal patches at all.

If I give you free food, am I forcing you to go hungry when I decline to share another meal with you unless you wash the dishes first?

Re:Impression

[fyngyrz]

Let's compare with slavery in the USA of old days

Let's not, as it is completely, utterly irrelevant. There is no one, and no thing, suffering under oppression, denial of free will, etc.

Public domain (or BSD-like licenses) is like being a southern landowner that takes the decision to free their own slaves;

PD source code is like a phrase in a sentence, given freely, yet still usable by the originator, now also usable by the listener, who can share it further without concern because it was given freely. It can be incorporated in a diary for nothing, in a newspaper article, in a book for profit, or in a great speech. Regardless of how it is incorporated, it remains usable, and interesting, and unaltered, in its original form, for everyone to use. PD source code is nothing like, and has nothing to do with, the concept of slavery.

GPL is like organize an army to fight against slavery.

GPL is like an army that says "You can't use that phrase in a book, because we don't like that kind of use." I have no use for such an army, and consequently, I don't have any traffic with the GPL. PD doesn't need anything that the GPL has to offer, because it is better on every front. There's nothing you can do about it; jumping up and down and making up really bad analogies won't change anything. PD is superior on every front and particularly with regard to freedom to use the source code in question as explained elsewhere in the thread (please read before firing off duplicate arguments.)

Now you can think about it and end up saying that the former is the "freer" option because you don't force other landowners' freedom about having slaves. Or, you can end up saying that the later is the "freer" option because it ends up slavery and it's no freedom the "freedom to enslave".

Thinking about it makes me shake my head at your slavery comparison. As if the source code was deserving of humanitarian consideration. Source code is a thing like a brick or a pencil, except that, if people like the GPL'ers can be kept away, everyone can use it any way they want, while pencils and bricks don't offer this benefit. When GPL'ers get in there, then the number of uses available decreases; ergo, GPL source code is not an improvement over PD source code.

If you want to try to make an analogy that has a chance of succeeding, pick a domain where the characteristics are at least similar to source code. Slavery - and human conditions in general - aren't going to produce a reasonable comparison.

Re:Impression

[fyngyrz]

I'm not calling the GPL license "freedom", I'm saying it *promotes* freedom, because it protects the code licensed under it from being incorporated into products by people who would deny me the right to study, modify, extend and distribute such software in the manner I see fit.

And what I am telling you is that source code that is PD is also protected just as well, plus it is useable by many more developers, regardless of people's prejudices for or against how they choose to develop, and that it in no way denies you the right to study, modify, extend and distribute the PD code itself. What it does not do is magically give you the right to person B's invention, just because person A decided to put out their invention. It leaves decisions in the hands of the inventor at every level, instead of taking those decisions and pre-determining what they must be.

In the meantime, my PD code is available to you without any conditions at all, and your GPL code is not available to me unless I toe some very specific lines that I am entirely disenchanted with. So where does the maximum promotion of freedom really reside, eh?

Re:Impression

[fyngyrz]

Probably you are right here. By letting your clients see your source code they could see, for instance, you are illegally including third party code without rights to do so

Look up ad hominem, a grade school level failure of argument style. Then try again. If you can mange to rise to the level of normal courtesy, I'll respond. Good night.

Re:Impression

[xanalogical]

> The issue is that the new GPL is being forced onto us. It is being forced
> in a concerted effort to force as many people as possible to use it in
> order to be under the new obligations.

I think you're greatly abusing the word "force", and should use another word.

Imagine you've been invited to a party at John's house. It's free, you arrive and have a great time. Now around midnight some people suggest going over to Mary's house to continue the party. You balk, saying that you don't want to go to Mary's house. We say, fine, you can stay here. But, you say, if enough of you go, this party will die and become boring. That those who are going are "forcing" you to go to Mary's house when you don't want to. We say, no one is forcing you -- you can stay here at John's and you can leave and go home. And in fact, if you insist that we stay here at John's, you are indeed "forcing" us, by your definition, to not go to Mary's house. And that is unfair to those of us who like Mary and want to go see her.

The GPL is about choice. It is about the right to collaborate with those of like mind, and not to collaborate with those who don't share our values. You can say that being picky about collaborators impacts IT, impacts society, impacts corporatism, perhaps in a negative fashion. We say nevertheless, we have the right to make that choice for ourselves, and no one should make it for us.

We're going down the street to the GPLv3 party -- come along, it's going to be a blast!

Re:Impression

[sumdumass]

I'm still not seeing how this is forcing.

Then your will still be confused when people stop supporting the GPL. It isn't a matter of what you see, it is a matter of what others so. And it isn't a situation were you give something away and they have to like it. They like it for other reason. Right now, one of those reasons is because FOSS doesn't do what propriatary vendors do. When the GPLv3 is out, and if they continue along the path they claim, that reason is gone.

If I give you free food, am I forcing you to go hungry when I decline to share another meal with you unless you wash the dishes first?

This isn't really the case. Instead of washing the dishes, your are placing an experimental drug into the food and watching our reactions. Sure we won't go hungry, but we have to take the drug if we don't want to starve. And in order to make sure no one can avoid taking the drug, you placed it in the water, flour, and covered all the cooking utensils with it. Sure, I can still go buy my own food, But if that was possible in the first place, then why was I dependent on your soup kitchen?

I'm glad you brought this up. This is exactly what is going on. There is an idea of choice but when a large company is supposed to not be able to make those choices, how is an individual. And I'm not talking about the choice of buying Microsoft either. I'm talking along the same lines as some newbie complaining that something doesn't work and getting the canned response of "It's open source, fix it yourself" when you know full well he couldn't program his name into a password promt.

Maybe the problem is that the more people want to get away from forced upgrades and such the more dependent on gpled products they become. Now that the GPL is doing the same stuff, they are feeling betrayed. And the worst part is the when they say something they are told it isn't their program and the developers have the right or it isn't any of your business and so on. So, now, they/we are second guess this choice. and that is the point.

Re:Impression

[sumdumass]

Imagine you've been invited to a party at John's house. It's free, you arrive and have a great time. Now around midnight some people suggest going over to Mary's house to continue the party. You balk, saying that you don't want to go to Mary's house. We say, fine, you can stay here. But, you say, if enough of you go, this party will die and become boring. That those who are going are "forcing" you to go to Mary's house when you don't want to. We say, no one is forcing you -- you can stay here at John's and you can leave and go home. And in fact, if you insist that we stay here at John's, you are indeed "forcing" us, by your definition, to not go to Mary's house. And that is unfair to those of us who like Mary and want to go see her.

That while close isn't an accurate analogy. You see, going to Mary's house to continue the party wouldn't mean a fundamental change in the party. The Location doesn't stop the party from happening. So lets add some details and stuff to make it more accurate to the analogy. Lets say that at Mary's you won't be allow to smoke or drink alcohol because she is a real religious nut. So only the religious nuts want to go because they don't drink or smoke and a few others think those things are bad anyways so they go to. Well, Mary is displeased because a lot of people wanted to remain there. So she looks around and sees that the music that is playing is hers, the bowl containing the munchies is hers and And the cards people are playing game with are hers so she takes those with her. And then after realizing that not everyone wanted to goto her house, she notices MR Novell and Mr Microsoft in the corner sucking on a crack pipe and threatens to call the cops.

It isn't that the party is moving, it is all about why it is moving and the tactics being used to get everyone there.

The GPL is about choice. It is about the right to collaborate with those of like mind, and not to collaborate with those who don't share our values. You can say that being picky about collaborators impacts IT, impacts society, impacts corporatism, perhaps in a negative fashion. We say nevertheless, we have the right to make that choice for ourselves, and no one should make it for us.

We're going down the street to the GPLv3 party -- come along, it's going to be a blast!

If it was about choice then why are people being dragged into the new one. Can you really say choice when the essence of forces compliance to unstated rules are being used? I remember when the tag line was the GPL is about freedom. It is nice to see that this has at least changed it a little when the scene went from you have a right to software to we have that right.

You may not see anything wrong with it. And if it was framed any other way with the circumstances and motivation being something other then attempting to punish companies I might be in the same boat. The problem is that underlying motivation is greed and deceit and the road they are using to implement this is by means of forcing the new license into everything. To me, this is no different then the religious right getting a law passed saying all businesses have to shut down on sunday and you have to goto some church on sunday. And this doesn't violate any separation or freedom because you can chose your own religion and church. It isn't right and many people are going to jump ship over it.

Re:Impression

[mattpalmer1086]

The GPL has nothing to do with "hobby" developers or whether anyone makes money out of the code. Commercial organisations are free to make money out of GPL code. Commercial organisations are free to contribute to GPL code. They are free to create GPLd code from scratch. A lot of GPLd software out there is written by paid developers in commercial organizations right now.

What commercial organisations (or anyone else, for that matter) cannot do under the GPL is to modify the code and distribute the resulting software, but to not pass on those code modifications to everyone else.

This makes the "our secret code is our secret sauce" software business model impossible for GPLd code, but the GPL does not prevent you from selling GPLd software. But since your users could get the same software for free, you might find you have very few customers! Which is why most commercial organizations dealing with GPLd software sell support and other value-add on top, not the code itself, although they can do that if they wish.

Re:Impression

[mitch0]

Thank you fyngyrz (and others in this thread). This was one of the best discussions I've read on /. in the last year or so.

Making the decision about software licenses is not an easy one, but I agree with you (fyngyrz) on the part that if you want to give it away for free, PD (or BSD) is the "sane" choice. Anything else, and you're not exactly giving it away for free. (BSD is not "giving away for free" in this strict sense, as you ask for a mention of your name, but this restriction is really a lot easier to fulfill than the restriction(s) posed by the GPL).

Well, I can't add much to the discussion really, just wanted to thank you for it :)

cheers,
mitch

Re:Impression

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

By definition, "everyone" includes giving me freedom, but the GPL doesn't do that, it specifically restricts me.

Freedom is not unlimited. Your freedom does not trump the freedom of others. Thus when I'm free to walk down the sidewalk and you're free to walk down the sidewalk, there needs to be mediation for when we meet. A law that says when we meet the older person goes first, is not removing your freedom, it is mitigating the conflict of two people' individual freedoms.

As for the GPL, it does not restrict you in any way. Copyright law restricts your actions. The GPL offers to remove some of those restrictions in exhchange for something else.

So we're not talking about "everyone" and with the GPL, we never were.

Freedom applies on more than an individual basis. Should one person be free to enslave and remove the freedom of another? After all, if I'm free, why can't I beat the snot out of you and put you in chains and beat you if you don't serve me? From the point of view of the the individual, that is freedom for me. From an objective point of view, that is not freedom overall. Not having a law to stop me from enslaving you is more freedom than having such a law, from my point of view as an individual. It is not more free from the perspective of a society. The GPL is designed to grant some freedom in exchange for a promise from the individual to grant freedom to others, thus it serves societal freedom above individual freedom. Without it, however, you have less individual and societal freedom, so it serves both more than the lack of it does.

Next, PD offers more freedom than the GPL does.

PD offers more freedom to an individual, but less freedom to society as a whole.

Maximum freedom, minimum restrictions.

Your definition of freedom is too narrow, or perhaps your perspective is too self centered. The rest of your post is simply repeating what you already said, so I shall not address it specifically.

Re:Impression

[mitch0]

I've just read your page on priacy, and I must say, I'm really impressed with your attitude. May I ask how well it actually works? I know I'd feel bad about "redistributing" it, even to my friends, and rather I'd persuade them to actually buy the product, but I'm not the typical warez kiddy either...

cheers,
mitch

Re:Impression

[BLKMGK]

So others have patched your code and because of the license being GPL you're not comfortable using it in a commercial product. Has it occured to you that if it were BSD you might not have ever seen those patches? Folks could patch your code and release binaries without ever having to submit them to you - in commercial products too! Not sure I'd be happy about that if it were me but apparently at least some people are okay with it

Re:Impression

[Old time hacker]

What I fail to understand is why this is such a terrible thing. These vendors (Tivo, various wifi vendors etc) sell cheaper products (perhaps were enabled to enter a market) based on the existence and use of GPL code. The market gets a product at a lower price than it would have done if the vendor had been forced to build this code from scratch. The community wins.

Note that the size of the community that wins from the existence of Tivo is *much* larger than the size of the community that wrote even a single line of code that went into a Tivo. Say the cost of a Tivo is $10 less than it would be if it used all proprietary software -- thus the use of GPL code in the Tivo has saved me (personally) $20. This is not a good ROI for my linux kernel contributions, but it is better than nothing! Note that it profits me less (by $20) for them to use proprietary software.

You might argue that the community would win *more* if the vendor was more open, and it *might* be true (though I suspect in the Tivo case, they would be required to use proprietary code in order to get CableLabs certification).

Of course, it is entirely up to the individual developer what license they stick on their software. They just need to be aware that the choice of license is important if they want their code to be widely deployed. Also, how many developers actually get to choose a license anyway -- rather than contributing to a project with a pre-existing license?

Re:Impression

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Well, yes. But at what point does a piece of code become tainted in that regard?

Apply the abstraction, filtration, and comparison test.

Re:Impression

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

What "IBM exception clause"?

Re:Impression

[greginnj]

Alternatively, release your code under GPL, and assign the copyright to the FSF, and require all contributors to do the same. Problem solved.

Re:Impression

[greginnj]

Giving software source code away isn't anarchy any more than giving $50 to a cat shelter is anarchy. Both can promote uplift...

Whaa? Promote UPLIFT ?? Is that what my donation to the cat shelter is doing? I'd better get my money back right away!!

Re:Impression

[greginnj]

Please stop posting dupes of recent Slashdot stories as comments in other threads, thanks!

Re:Impression

[bentcd]

Under "6.[3] Conveying Non-Source Forms.", there appears to be considerable freedom granted to manufacturers of non-"User Products". While it is unclear to me exactly what that language means, it appears to be saying that if IBM wants to coopt GPLv3 code and sell it as (part of) a proprietary solution to their business customers (i.e. not as a "User Product"), they are quite free to do so and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

I still have some hope that I am wrong in this regard - I expect the answer will fall out of the debate up till and immediately after the final v3 release.

Re:Impression

[WNight]

I'm still not sure what the problem is. At any point there are companies like IBM who contribute to open source because it suits their needs momentarily, and there are companies like Tivo who leech everything available. The IBMs will never go away - it will always be in many people's best interests to avoid monopolies, even if they didn't want the open source solution itself. They'll fund the Apaches and PostgreSQLs, if indeed, any funding is needed.

At some sign of difficulty in leeching, they will start to complain about leaving. It looks like users are leaving in droves but really it's just leeches falling off. The exact same number of real contributors remain.

And as for your poisoned food analogy, that's just daft. GPLed code can always be reimplemented to avoid any licensing issues - in fact with the GPLv3 using GPLed code will be safer because it will include a patent indemnity. Anything else, BSD, etc, is a patent land-mine waiting to happen. Further, code is only as important as food when you need it that badly - if you need it that badly, does it make sense to complain simply because you don't own 100% of something you wouldn't have had at all otherwise.

You can't overcome the basic facts. The GPL grants distribution rights, it doesn't even attempt to govern usage. It may grant less total rights, but is still far more free than almost any other license. Further, you can ignore the rampant growth of Linux and say that people really prefer the BSDL, but I think history shows otherwise.

Re:Impression

[turbidostato]

"Look up ad hominem"

Where is the 'ad hominem' here? I can't see it anywhere. It is you the one making vague assertions about the GPL "licensing opens the door to an additional legal minefield we'd just as soon avoid". The only one situation I can come with that genuinely makes a difference regarding management of code and/or third party licensing between open and closed source programs is the one I outline -that is, that there's illegal distribution of third party code which can be easily covered in the case of closed source but not in the case of open source, wich is independant whoever the source comes from (so no 'ad hominem': my argument is not based upon being you the one I'm answering to).

Re:Impression

[turbidostato]

"Let's not, as it is completely, utterly irrelevant"

Then you already made your choice.

"As if the source code was deserving of humanitarian consideration"

You decided to take my comparation purposedly in an unintended way. That's OK to me but it doesn't invalidate it. It's just you didn't want to play by the rules.

"Slavery - and human conditions in general - aren't going to produce a reasonable comparison."

That's your opinion, not mine. Both cases are about "objects" (either [people] or [copyrighted code]) burdened under limiting circumnstances (regarding [free will] in one case, regarding its [redistribution abilities], in the other). Both proposed situations manage with the problem at hand on a similar way 'mutanda mutandi' (freeing your own slaves goes to distributing your code under Public domain as making war against slavery goes to distributing code under the GPL since you can in both cases substitute the changing part [the one within brackets] without altering the meaning of the resulting situation: you gain [free will]/[redistribution abilities] for [people]/[copyrighted code] either only [within your property]/[your own development] or [within labour hands at a whole]/[within code world]).

The fact that you don't want to pay attention to any comparation or reasonement that obtains a different output than your prejudiced one doesn't make those comparations or reasonements any less reasonable.

Re:Impression

[turbidostato]

"That in itself [breaking open source comunity at both ways of the "license fence"] is a big problem because of compatibilities and such."

Yes it is. But is a problem no bigger than current way: there are a *lot* of open source licenses that are not compatible with GPLv2. So your "armaggedon scenario" is no worse than current one regarding this point. And please remember that this could only affect those projects that stick with the "GPLv2 only" stanza; those that use the "GPLv2 or higher" cannot affect third party users or developers since they are free to use, modify and redistribute such code either under GPLv2 or GPLv3 at will.

"All someone has to do is create a license that protects you or me from lawsuit when distributing anything and get us to make payment for it. This kicks the anti novell deal thing in and boom."

It is both against the spirit of the GPLv3 (as stated in its preamble: "the GPL assures that patents cannot be used to render the program non-free.") and the letter of it (paragraph#10: "Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and propagate that work" and paragraph#11 "Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and propagate the contents of its contributor version."). So there's no way that under the GPLv3 CompanyA grants usage of a patent to CompanyB but not to CompanyC,D and E or, in fact, to any third party that (legally) puts its hands on the source code.

"This is the trick, it covers anything you distribute but not who you distribute to"

That's not what the GPLv3 explictly states: by adding code that might be covered under a patent of yours you already gave me -and anyone else I might distribute to, "a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license" covering such patent claims. And you are not allowed to modify this by means of an "additional term" since patent claims is excluded from paragraph#7. Did you really read the GPLv3 draft?

"They can word the covenant not to sue so that it doesn't cover your own actions of placing the problematic IP in the code yet still works if you decide to distribute anything GPL."

No, they can't. That's exactly what the GPLv3 is for. What you are presenting as GPLv3 problems are, in any case, problems on the GPLv2, so the fastest the GPLv3 is in use, the least the menace from GPLv2 holes will be.

Re:Impression

[nurb432]

"Nah, seen too much BSD code get proprietarized and used to screw end users. Not with my code they dont. They can write it all on their own if they want power over others that bad."

Or they can just use it and not release it back so no-one knows. Personally, all this license nonsence is just that, nonsence. Its out there so its free to use, or learn from with no strings attached.

Re:Impression

[sumdumass]

Yes it is. But is a problem no bigger than current way: there are a *lot* of open source licenses that are not compatible with GPLv2. So your "armaggedon scenario" is no worse than current one regarding this point. And please remember that this could only affect those projects that stick with the "GPLv2 only" stanza; those that use the "GPLv2 or higher" cannot affect third party users or developers since they are free to use, modify and redistribute such code either under GPLv2 or GPLv3 at will.

I don't think you understand the severity of it. The GPLv3 will be able to go in directions the GPLv2 cannot. And unfortunately, resentment will probably set in and there will be widespread use of the GPLv2 only clause. From a personal perspective, Would you really be happy if because of some clause in an open source license and how your were tricked into a deal, forbid you from using the new version that has all the cool things in it? Would you really be willing to allow that license to suck up all the improvements you have added but not return anything to your versions?

And this doesn't really touch on the division we would have between the two groups. You would have a GPLv2 as it is now and everyone using it agrees with it. And you would have the GPLv3 as it is tomorrow and whoever agrees with it enough to switch. And that is if they aren't forcing you to switch by moving a ton of other programs and code to the new license making it impossible for you to maintain everything needed. This is a little more serious then you think.

It is both against the spirit of the GPLv3 (as stated in its preamble: "the GPL assures that patents cannot be used to render the program non-free.") and the letter of it (paragraph#10: "Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and propagate that work" and paragraph#11 "Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and propagate the contents of its contributor version."). So there's no way that under the GPLv3 CompanyA grants usage of a patent to CompanyB but not to CompanyC,D and E or, in fact, to any third party that (legally) puts its hands on the source code.

Well, lets look at it a different way, This license, lets call it a support contract instead. And lets assume it is similar to the ones Microsoft and Novell has because of their agreement. I used the term license because the GPLv3 groups the paten protection or covenant not to sue into a "patent license deal". So now lets assume the IP owner who makes the claim doesn't use the GPL on anything the claims are over and doesn't distribute GPLed software or sticks with GPLv2 only software. So you have a third party not effected by the GPL offering indemnification over IP they claim ownership on and they themselves aren't limited to the GPL of any version in how they can make those claims (microsoft).

In this case, you have companyA distributing GPL covered software to companyB or userB. Now companyZ who is so far removed from the software in itself and the licensing of it lays claim to IP in the software that it didn't place into the covered works and offers companyA and B protection from lawsuits but not C,D,E or anyone else. And they do this in anything companyA touches which includes GPLed products if companyA distributed them and userB received them. It presents a situation were companyA doesn't place the IP in the software so it isn't extending any permissions, B is only receiving what A gave them and can only extend the permissions in the same light. Z who isn't connected with A or B directly sees a claim in the software that company A,B are using/distributing and promises not to sue them for a payment in connection with that IP.

that's not what the GPLv3 explictly states: by

Re:Impression

[turbidostato]

"The GPLv3 will be able to go in directions the GPLv2 cannot"

Like... what? I don't see any direction GPLv3 can take that cannot be taken (or better said *expected* to be taken) by GPLv2 at least as their originators (the FSF) wanted it.

"resentment will probably set in and there will be widespread use of the GPLv2 only clause"

More handvawing? There will be a widespread usage of the "GPLv2 only" caveat *or* the FSF will win its "battle for control" with its GPLv3; it cannot be both ways, as it can't be that even projects that will go "GPLv2 only" *after* GPLv3 is published will avoid their previous "GPLv2 or higher" from being forked by "our new GPLv3 overlords".

"From a personal perspective, Would you really be happy if because of some clause in an open source license and how your were tricked into a deal, forbid you from using the new version that has all the cool things in it?"

Like... which case? for the software I just *use* there won't be any usage limitation on GPLv3, no more than in the GPLv2, and this means *noone*: neither GPLv2 nor GPLv3 are even user licenses at all. From the developer perspective I've been quite aware of the difference between "GPLv2 only" and "GPLv2 or greater" so there's no way I can be "tricked" one way or the other.

"And this doesn't really touch on the division we would have between the two groups"

Se my previous paragraph. Malign FSF either wins its battle on the GPLv3 issue, in which case there won't be "two groups" (not at a significative degree, at least) *or* it doesn't win it so your armaggedon scenario doesn't become to live (you will have a situation more or less like current one at most). It can't be both ways.

"I used the term license because the GPLv3 groups the paten protection or covenant not to sue into a "patent license deal"."

Repeat with me: such "patent license deal" is NOT the GPLv3. On GPLv3 licensed software, such an agreement will have no impact (since it means just "current agreement and then a bit more", so by GPLv3 I'm bound not only not to sue *you* due to our "non-beligerant agreement" but not sue anything else) *or* will impact those with such kind of agreements (like Novell) and then it's *their* problem, nor mine, since will be *them* those with problems due to the widespread usage of the GPLv3.

"So you have a third party not effected by the GPL offering indemnification over IP they claim ownership on"

Which is *exactly* the current situation. Do you think that Microsoft can't look for patent fees on both users and developers of GPLv2 software *NOW*? The difference will be that at least under GPLv3 one won't be able to release software *and* look for patent fees after the fact. So those living in the older "GPLv2 world" will be exposed to absurd patent claims where those living on the "GPLv3 world" will be safe. What that means to me is "the sooner the GPLv3 world, the better".

"In this case, you have companyA distributing GPL covered software to companyB or userB. Now companyZ who is so far removed from the software in itself and the licensing of it lays claim to IP in the software that it didn't place into the covered works and offers companyA and B protection from lawsuits but not C,D,E or anyone else."

Hell, HOW IS THIS ANY DIFFERENT FROM GPLv2 SOFTWARE!!! Please state THIS. You are talking about a "new world of terror" regarding GPLv3 but you are failing to substiantate how GPLv3 will be ANY WORSE than current situation. At least, under GPLv3 noone wil be able to seed minefields within the code (under current GPLv2 is perfectly possible for companyA to introduce code under their own IP protection, wait for widespread usage and then ask for patent fees to any third party -or at least, try for it: a different matter will be to see if any judge will support such bastardized claims. At least GPLv3 insures by explicit wording within the license that if anyone wants to make patent claims, it will have to be on *other's* code, not their own! And they wil

Re:Impression

[sumdumass]

Like... what? I don't see any direction GPLv3 can take that cannot be taken (or better said *expected* to be taken) by GPLv2 at least as their originators (the FSF) wanted it.

Not the license, the software using the license. GPLv3 software can take any addons and improvements from GPLv2 or later software but it can't go the other way.

Like... which case? for the software I just *use* there won't be any usage limitation on GPLv3, no more than in the GPLv2, and this means *noone*: neither GPLv2 nor GPLv3 are even user licenses at all. From the developer perspective I've been quite aware of the difference between "GPLv2 only" and "GPLv2 or greater" so there's no way I can be "tricked" one way or the other.

Lol.. It isn't tricked. It is that you would/could be forced to maintain a fork or switch to the new GPL. It will come down to a matter of how much can you take on your self and how much you need from other developers. It your software depends on other software like libraries and such, if they go GPLv2, your GPLv2 isn't compatible and you or someone will need to maintain a fork or switch up too. And this isn't hand waving, it is reality. That it the purpose of making them incompatible.

hich is *exactly* the current situation. Do you think that Microsoft can't look for patent fees on both users and developers of GPLv2 software *NOW*? The difference will be that at least under GPLv3 one won't be able to release software *and* look for patent fees after the fact. So those living in the older "GPLv2 world" will be exposed to absurd patent claims where those living on the "GPLv3 world" will be safe. What that means to me is "the sooner the GPLv3 world, the better".

What I described that you seem to constantly over looking is the Novell Microsoft patent deal extended to include ever user of Microsoft products. The GPLv3 would outlaw from using the GPLv3 after a certain date. What good is the GPLv3 going to be when a third party can basically force the same patent deal onto people and stop them from using the GPLv3. What part of free is there then? How is the Idea of free software that the GPLv3 is supposed to be protecting going to happen when No company or user who has ot use MS product can use the GPLv3 with a covered work?

The part in the GPLv3 specifically says,

A patent license is "discriminatory" if it does not include within the scope of its coverage, prohibits the exercise of, or is conditioned on the non-exercise of one or more of the rights that are specifically granted under this License. You may not convey a covered work if you are a party to an arrangement with a third party that is in the business of distributing software, under which you make payment to the third party based on the extent of your activity of conveying the work, and under which the third party grants, to any of the parties who would receive the covered work from you, a discriminatory patent license (a) in connection with copies of the covered work conveyed by you (or copies made from those copies), or (b) primarily for and in connection with specific products or compilations that contain the covered work, unless you entered into that arrangement, or that patent license was granted, prior to 28 March 2007.

This specifically says that you cannot partake in then rights guaranteed by this license if you are part of an arrangements or deal as I described. And when MS or anyone MS is in bed with makes this part of their software license while offering the same sans the deal for more money, you are either going to have to pay more or drop the rights the license is supposed to be protecting. I though you read the GPLv3 final draft? This is the problem I am talking about.

Hell, HOW IS THIS ANY DIFFERENT FROM GPLv2 SOFTWARE!!! Please state THIS. You are talking about a "new world of terror" regarding GPLv3 but you are failing to substianta

Re:Impression

[turbidostato]

So, all in all, what you say is:

Microsoft holds a lot of patents.
Microsoft can ask for patent fees to whomever is using its software at its will.
Microsoft signs an agreement not to ask for patent fees on its own software to whomever uses Novell software too.
This can lead to Microsoft Word costing X to Novell clients and X*2 (numbers out of my ass) to non-Novell clients.
In order to avoid this, there is a clause within GPLv3 that forbids GPLv3 distributors to entry such an agreement.

I can see how can this affect Novell which will have to decide to break its deal or be damn sure it is not distributing GPLv3 code.

How this will affect say, Debian, since it didn't sign such kind of agreement? Microsoft can certainly decide to ask for a special patent fee on Microsoft Word to users of Debian GNU/Linux, since a patent holder can always decide who to license its patented IP and how much for but, again, that's no news: Microsoft can do exactly the same right *now*, as it can do it regarding, for instance Autodesk's users (Microsoft Word for registered AutoCAD users will cost X; Microsoft Word for non-AutoCAD users will cost X*2). Even more, Microsoft doesn't need any special agreement with AutoDesk for such a policy (and, at least, GPLv3 *forbids* such kind of agreements to GPLv3 *distributors* -it does say nothing about GPLv3-covered software *users*). So *again* what does make GPLv3 so special that such patent fees will arise more easily/more frecuently/more gravely once it is published?

"You think locking people who need or desire to use MS software out of the freedoms the GPL protects is a positive situation?"

Frankly, I don't give a damn about Microsoft users -that's a problem between Microsoft and them. But anyway, it will be Microsoft, not the GPL producers, the one that will try to extort its own user base -in a way Microsoft can go *today* without GPLv3 being neither a deterrent nor a helper (except for the fact that *maybe* it will help it not to happen: probably AutoDesk in my previous example could sue Microsoft if it tried a different license fee for their own products with regards of AutoCAD usage without a previous agreement with AutoDesk because of the impact on AutoDesk's corporate image). Maybe we should even hail Microsoft to go that path: it would be so bizarre and such a blatant extortion on their own userbase that would push more and more users out of its products or even push for a change on current patent laws.

Re:Impression

[sumdumass]

Wow, Just Wow. every time you post something you get so much closer to the point but still seem to miss it entirely. I seriously don't understand why this is. I have asked a few others who I havn't discussed this view with because they don't use OSS or GPLed software to view our conversation while telling them not to comment untill all the way through. They knew exactly what I was saying after the first post and saw the repetition up to now.

I guess this is going to be my last comment on the subject. If you still don't get it then you never will until it sneaks up on you and knocks you out.

Microsoft holds a lot of patents.
Microsoft can ask for patent fees to whomever is using its software at its will.
Microsoft signs an agreement not to ask for patent fees on its own software to whomever uses Novell software too.
This can lead to Microsoft Word costing X to Novell clients and X*2 (numbers out of my ass) to non-Novell clients.
In order to avoid this, there is a clause within GPLv3 that forbids GPLv3 distributors to entry such an agreement.

Yes, but that isn't what I am talking about. And the clause doesn't prevent people from entering the agreement, it prevents them from using the freedoms the GPLv3 is protecting and stops them from distributing the software if they do enter an agreement like that. What it is meant to do isn't what it says it does. But I would agree that what it does has the effect of what it was meant to do.

Keep what you posted into consideration but assume MS has created a deal included into their product license you have to agree with which in effect makes you novell when you purchase and use a product from Microsoft. Now imagine the alternative to becoming novell is to pay $1000 extra for a license that doesn't create the effect that puts into the same boat as novell.

Now you will have a lot of little Novells running around or as a few non Novells who have a lot of money. Most companies won't increase their per seat costs for software so you can assume that every company who uses microsoft product will become a little Novell too. How long will this take before the vast majority of people are little Novells and cannot partake in the freedoms the GPL is supposed to be protecting. The clause as currently worded is a self destruct button waiting on a third party to press it. People and companies won't have a practical option other then taking the deal.

I can see how can this affect Novell which will have to decide to break its deal or be damn sure it is not distributing GPLv3 code.

This will end up affecting anyone who buys a license to use software from microsoft. Because it can place the wording into the license that would make them part of the same type of deal Novell is in. In order to satisfy all the requirements of the GPLv3 clause, MS will offer the same software sans the agreement for an elevated fee which will take it out of the practical reach of most. This causes the deal to become something where you make payment for. They will do this because the users of freedoms the GPL offers is what makes free software the most effective and dangerous competition microsoft has seen. They need a way to deal with it and taking the freedoms away by creating a deal like this while all along blaming it on a viral license of the GPLv3 is that way.

How this will affect say, Debian, since it didn't sign such kind of agreement? Microsoft can certainly decide to ask for a special patent fee on Microsoft Word to users of Debian GNU/Linux, since a patent holder can always decide who to license its patented IP and how much for but, again, that's no news: Microsoft can do exactly the same right *now*, as it can do it regarding, for instance Autodesk's users (Microsoft Word for registered AutoCAD users will cost X; Microsoft Word for non-AutoCAD users will cost X*2). Even more, Microsoft doesn't need any special agreement with AutoDesk for suc

Re:Impression

[sumdumass]

It didn't look like that when I previewed it., Here is how It should have looks. The highlights parts are important so take this into considerations.

Wow, Just Wow. every time you post something you get so much closer to the point but still seem to miss it entirely. I seriously don't understand why this is. I have asked a few others who I havn't discussed this view with because they don't use OSS or GPLed software to view our conversation while telling them not to comment untill all the way through. They knew exactly what I was saying after the first post and saw the repetition up to now.

I guess this is going to be my last comment on the subject. If you still don't get it then you never will until it sneaks up on you and knocks you out.

Microsoft holds a lot of patents.
Microsoft can ask for patent fees to whomever is using its software at its will.
Microsoft signs an agreement not to ask for patent fees on its own software to whomever uses Novell software too.
This can lead to Microsoft Word costing X to Novell clients and X*2 (numbers out of my ass) to non-Novell clients.
In order to avoid this, there is a clause within GPLv3 that forbids GPLv3 distributors to entry such an agreement.

Yes, but that isn't what I am talking about. And the clause doesn't prevent people from entering the agreement, it prevents them from using the freedoms the GPLv3 is protecting and stops them from distributing the software if they do enter an agreement like that. What it is meant to do isn't what it says it does. But I would agree that what it does has the effect of what it was meant to do.

Keep what you posted into consideration but assume MS has created a deal included into their product license you have to agree with which in effect makes you novell when you purchase and use a product from Microsoft. Now imagine the alternative to becoming novell is to pay $1000 extra for a license that doesn't create the effect that puts you into the same boat as novell.

Now you will have a lot of little Novells running around or as a few non Novells who have a lot of money. Most companies won't increase their per seat costs for software so you can assume that every company who uses microsoft product will become a little Novell too. How long will this take before the vast majority of people are little Novells and cannot partake in the freedoms the GPL is supposed to be protecting. The clause as currently worded is a self destruct button waiting on a third party to press it. People and companies won't have a practical option other then taking the deal.

I can see how can this affect Novell which will have to decide to break its deal or be damn sure it is not distributing GPLv3 code.

This will end up affecting anyone who buys a license to use software from microsoft. Because it can place the wording into the license that would make them part of the same type of deal Novell is in. In order to satisfy all the requirements of the GPLv3 clause, MS will offer the same software sans the agreement for an elevated fee which will take it out of the practical reach of most. This causes the deal to become something where you make payment for. They will do this because the users of freedoms the GPL offers is what makes free software the most effective and dangerous competition microsoft has seen. They need a way to deal with it and taking the freedoms away by creating a deal like this while all along blaming it on a viral license of the GPLv3 is that way.

How this will affect say, Debian, since it didn't sign such kind of agreement? Microsoft can certainly decide to ask for a special patent fee on Microsoft Word to users of Debian GNU/Linux, since a patent holder can always decide who to license its patented IP and how much for but, again, that's no news: Microsoft can do exactly the same right *now*, as it can do it regarding, for instance Autodesk's users (Microsoft Word for registered A

Re:Impression

[metamatic]

Right now I have GPL code running on hardware I own, which I am prevented from modifying.

That's the scenario GPL 3 is trying to prevent. PD does nothing to prevent it, contrary to your assertion.

On the other hand, I have no desire to take open source software and turn it into restricted software, give or sell it to other people, but stop them from modifying it. So that's not a freedom that matters, as far as I'm concerned.

Hence for me, GPL is better at protecting the freedoms I care about; i.e., the ones outlined by the FSF. Hence, it is more free than PD software.

The key point here is that unprotected freedom is not a stable situation. Freedoms need to be protected from those who would infringe upon them. The founders of the US understood that one, why do so many PD/BSD advocates not?

Re:Impression

[Anonymous Coward]

"Since it belongs to them, they're allowed to set restrictions, just like MS puts restrictions in their EULA saying you can't reverse-engineer their software or criticize it."

Yes, I agree. There's little difference between what the FSF is doing and what MS is doing.

Re:Impression

[Grishnakh]

Is this supposed to be some kind of flamebait or something?

There's a world of difference between the overall actions of the FSF and MS. The only commonality is that they both have a license for the software which they own (under copyright law), and that license has certain restrictions attached. In the FSF's case, the license compels you to distribute the source code for any modifications you make to those to whom you distribute the software in binary form, in order to preserve the freedom of end-users. In MS's case, there's all sorts of restrictions to deny you freedom, such as preventing you from publishing benchmarks, reverse-engineering, distributing to others, keeping your firstborn, etc.

Re:Impression

[Hal_Porter]

Your bringing up the irrelevant topic of racist oppression seems spurious.

Lighten up Francis. This is Slashdot, not the Oxford Union Debating Society. The difference is like that between kicking a rabid squirrel to death in back alley after a miserable, inebriated night and a Queensbury rules boxing match.

Re:Impression

[Hal_Porter]

If you assign your copyright to them, are they under some Power of Attorney like duty to act in your best interests? If you want to switch to a BSD license, are they allowed to say no?

Re:Impression

[Wicked Zen]

Lighten up Francis. You must be joking. Either that, or you didn't follow the conversation, in which the GGP was modded "off-topic" and "flamebait" (perhaps you didn't see it?). It was in fact the person I was replying to who was taking something too seriously. Your reference to the Oxford Union Debating Society makes about as much sense as his post. Your Stripes reference was mildly amusing, though.

Re:Impression

[greginnj]

If you assign your copyright to them, are they under some Power of Attorney like duty to act in your best interests? If you want to switch to a BSD license, are they allowed to say no?

You ask a fair question, but it sounds like we're losing track of the initial issue. The GP to your post asked:

I write something and put it out for GPL, my ONLY option if I want to continue to have any control is to require copyright assignment to me for any patches/etc. However, would YOU contribute to any such project knowing that the copyright owner could flip it to BSD or propietary on a whim? I'm guessing "no", so you want to retain your copyright on the portions you contribute, which in turn make the original person (like the poster) effectively unable to control their code. You can't even fork it without stripping out all the non-copyright-assigned code if you want to switch licenses, for example.

So my response was meant to solve the problem of 'how to attract contributors to a project currently under GPL'. By assigning copyright to the FSF, you are effectively making sure that the entire project is, and will always remain, GPL'd. If the project creator's intention is to have a GPL'd project forever, and reassure contributors that he will not incorporate their work into a future closed-source commercial product, he can provide that reassurance by demonstrating that the copyright on the project has been assigned to the GPL, and requiring contributors to do the same.

Allowing all contributors to keep their copyrights creates exponential complexity; assigning them to the project creator is risky. Since the goal of the FSF is to defend the GPL, assigning copyright to them guarantees that the project is GPL.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'act in your best interests'. My understanding is that Eben Moglen and the FSF have acted to defend copyright of GPL'd projects, both those that are official FSF projects, and those that have assigned copyright to the FSF. Their interest in doing so, I imagine, is to demonstrate the strength of the GPL as a license, and prove that it can 'stand up in court'. As Eben Moglen notes, defending the GPL and going to court are two different things; precisely because the GPL is so well-written, violations don't go as far as court cases.

So: if your 'best interest' involves keeping your code free forever, in the GPL sense, then assigning it to them will do that, and they have better means to do that than you do. On the other hand, you cannot re-release GPL'd code as BSD-licensed code, but as discussed above, that's not the problem this thread was addressing. As the initial creator, you can dual-license the initial release, but that creates a massive PITA for everyone involved, because then all patches have to be either dual-licensed, too. Bottom line, if you ever imagine that you'll want to release a closed-source 'premium' version, go with BSD; use GPL if you're a True Believer.

Re:Impression

[Hal_Porter]

Allowing all contributors to keep their copyrights creates exponential complexity.

Yeah, I guess it's like the Soviet Union in the 1930's. Keeping private ownership caused problems under the NEP (GPLV2) , so the Party collectivised everything under the Five Year Plan (GPLV3-5). This was because Kulaks (the Soviet version of Tivo Inc) were hoarding rather than sharing. Clearly the Kulaks could not be trusted, all resources had to be owned by the Party under the infallible Comrade Stalin (Richard Stallman).

Once the policy of collectivisation had been completed it had a dramatic effect on agriculture in places like the Ukraine, that much is clear. But in the long run collective ownership proved to be a disappointment economically.

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25991,filter .all/pub_detail.asp

Nope

[jshriverWVU]

Because as a developer we can always choose. GPL2, 3, BSD, Mozilla, MIT whatever we want. We are the ones in control. It's the users that can get annoyed when a package they could normally use can't after a license shift.

Re:Nope

[crath]

As a "hobby" type developer (to use terminology suggested elsewhere in postings to this topic) I have elected to revise the licensing of all of the software I maintain to specifically be licensed under GPL version v2.1.

From my perspective, GPL v3 is overly restrictive and imposes too many limits upon those using my software; that is, v3 released software is no longer "free", it is instead burdened with a lot of FSF philosophy.

Re:Nope

[Goaway]

Only if you are the kind of developer who write everything from scratch.

If you're looking into reusing code somebody else wrote, or contributing to somebody else's project, you're stuck with their license.

Re:Nope

[jellomizer]

So if the GPL is to Developer Unfriendly then Developers will not use GPL 3. Thus the Users will not benefit from GPL 3, because little software will be made using GPL 3. RMS needs to realize that Developer and User Rights needs to be balanced in order for it to succeed. If the users have to much rights then the developers looses their rights, so Developers will not go in that direction. If the Developers have to much rights then the Users loose out and will not use the developers product.

I know good intentions are made to protect the user, but in reality if the other side gets screwed then the other side will do something else. It is like Taxing the Rich if you tax them to much then they will just move out of that high Tax area and the poor people in that area will get poorer because the services and jobs that the rich people own will no longer be there, and less tax revenue means less money for social services to help them out. But not Taxing the rich or Taxing them at the same rate as the poorer people will not overly benefit the poor because the rich will get get richer from the extra stored income. So there needs to be a good balance where Taxes are high enough for the service they need to get paid for but low enough to keep them there. The Same with GPL Developers need some rights to protect their use of their work and to have some protection from other code they may use so their product is used in a way they attend it to be used, but open enough for the user community to use the product the way they want to use it.

Re:Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting that a license (GPL3) which gives you more freedoms (i.e. freedom from worry about patent infringement) and which has additional provisions to ensure that your code remains free has been labeled as more restrictive... words do have a way of getting perverted.

GPL3 is only more restrictive to people who want to steal and lock up your code.

Re:Nope

[Lockejaw]

Unless it's a BSD/MIT-style license, where you only have to credit the developers for their work, but can do pretty much whatever you want with derivative works (even make them closed source).

Re:Nope

[Simon80]

For the purpose of this discussion, there are two kinds of developers, the initial authors that pick the license, and the developers reusing that code under license. The second kind obviously would prefer to have as much freedom as possible to do what they want with the code, so if they got to choose, the license would be more permissive. On the other hand, the first group may not want the second group to take their code and sell it, or deploy it on a device like Tivo, so the GPLv3 might be exactly what they want. You seem to be confusing these two groups, since it's only the second group that is getting screwed.

Re:Nope

[burnin1965]

It's the users that can get annoyed when a package they could normally use can't after a license shift

I haven't noticed many users posting blog articles or sending letters to the U.S. Congress complaining about a software license. It appears to me that the GPL, due to its popularity and the massive amount of code released under it, has generated rants, propoganda campaigns, and even a letter from a CEO to the U.S. Congress explaining how it will be the end of the free world, and why? Before the arguement was always that it wasn't as free as it should be, at least in this latest rant the truth is used, because its not as permissive for businesses and software developers who would like to take the GPLed code, use it, and not have to give anything back.

I agree, developers are in control, and far from being idiots choosing a license under peer pressure and in dire need of direction from lawyers, CEOs, or even Congress, we use a license because it serves our needs.

Re:Nope

[TheRaven64]

For the purpose of this discussion, there are two kinds of developers, the initial authors that pick the license, and the developers reusing that code under license I think this is a false dichotomy. I write Free Software, but I don't write everything from scratch. I use libraries written by other people. Some of the code I've released is in the form of libraries that will be used by others. Which kind of developer am I? I pick the license for my own code, but I have to ensure that the libraries I use are licensed under compatible licenses.

Re:Nope

[burnin1965]

there are two kinds of developers, the initial authors that pick the license, and the developers reusing that code under license. The second kind obviously would prefer to have as much freedom as possible to do what they want with the code, so if they got to choose, the license would be more permissive. On the other hand, the first group may not want the second group to take their code and sell it, or deploy it on a device like Tivo, so the GPLv3 might be exactly what they want.

Its not that simple.

In fact there were comments earlier from a developer who wanted to change the licensing on his original project code from GPL to BSD so he could take the modification of the secondary devleopers and implement them in his proprietary release of the software. The desire to screw developers works both ways. (and to think that developers are often portrayed as undesireables;)

Re:Nope

[crath]

But I'm not worried about what is done with my code; which is why I'm not moving to v3. If I was worrying about it then I wouldn't be labelling myself as a hobbiest.

The tagging of my original post as flamebait supports my position: the FOSS fundamentalists think that anyone who doesn't kowtowing at the FSF temple must be flaming and isn't rational.

Here's a more detailed description of my logic:

• Public Domain (PD) -- the least restrictive license because there are no strings attached
• GPL v2 -- more restrictive than PD because GPL v2 does place some limits on what someone can do with your code
• GPL v3 -- more restrictive than GPL v3 in terms of what someone can do with your code

As a developer releasing code, GPL v3 doesn't give me more "freedom", it gives me more "control". It offers sommeone using the code less freedom, because the developer has place limits on what may be done with my code.

I am not interested in controlling my code any more than v2 already controls; hence, my remarks.

Regarding your comment about freedom from patent worries... I am already free of such worries. Patent law already allows me to code anything I want for my own use; regardless of what has been patented. Again, as a "hobbiest" I don't need v3.

Re:Nope

[maxwell demon]

But I'm not worried about what is done with my code; which is why I'm not moving to v3.

Well, if you don't care what is done with your code, the BSD license is probably your best option. The advantage over public domain is that it explicitly disclaims any warranty (i.e. if someone tries your code and it doesn't work as expected and causes damage, they can't successfully sue you).

As a developer releasing code, GPL v3 doesn't give me more "freedom", it gives me more "control".

That's because GPL is not about the freedom for the initial developer (the copyright law already gives the initial developer all freedoms he ever needs; except that patents may undermine them, but there's nothing a license can change about that), the GPL is about the freedom of those who receive the code.

Re:Nope

[sumdumass]

So if the GPL is to Developer Unfriendly then Developers will not use GPL 3. Thus the Users will not benefit from GPL 3, because little software will be made using GPL 3. RMS needs to realize that Developer and User Rights needs to be balanced in order for it to succeed. If the users have to much rights then the developers looses their rights, so Developers will not go in that direction. If the Developers have to much rights then the Users loose out and will not use the developers product.

I think the entire problem with the GPLv3 can be summed up with intent. Why was it changed, We the changed were placed in to punish some companies and stop stuff that wasn't specifically outlawed in the previous license.

As far as I know, the sole reasons for the other changes were to clarify existing freedom and strengthen the wording. There aren't too many changes differences between versions until now. So while the intent f the license has been changed, even though it is supposed to do the same things, it will undoubtedly do others as well. This is what we are seeing, the fear of what else it will do or does so. I know of a way that this license as it is currently written can seemingly be used to stop a good majority of people from using GPLv3 code when distributing it. It involves a proprietary vendors making the license of their products include provisions to kick the anti-Novell deal into play. but I won't boor anyone with details. I have explained it enough in the past and people are too stuck to acknowledge it or accept it as a necessary side effect. Get ready for a lot of things to pop up. This intent is specifically how laws get loopholes and unintended side effects.

Re:Nope

[crath]

...the GPL is about the freedom of those who receive the code. You're right, but not the way you think you are. GPL is about limiting the freedom of those who receive the code.

Re:Nope

[mpe]

Because as a developer we can always choose. GPL2, 3, BSD, Mozilla, MIT whatever we want. We are the ones in control. It's the users that can get annoyed when a package they could normally use can't after a license shift.

Except that either version of the GPL is utterly irrelevent to users in the first place. These are not EULA and thus only apply where copyright law requires permission to be given by the copyright holder. Thus it is distributers who may be affected by such changes.

Re:Nope

[pilot1]

No, the GPL is about guaranteeing users' freedom. It does this by taking away their "freedom" to make the code unfree for other users.

The plural of anecdote?

[scribblej]

I'm a developer, and I like it more than the GPL2. It seeks to do the same things, but it does them better. If I had a philosophical problem with the GPL I'd use a BSD license instead. I think it's vital that both types of license are out there.

Re:The plural of anecdote?

[burnin1965]

If I had a philosophical problem with the GPL I'd use a BSD license instead. I think it's vital that both types of license are out there.

Same here. I have no idea what all the controversy is about concerning the GPL. If people don't like it then they shouldn't use it. There are open source licenses out there to fit everyones needs. And if a developer doesn't like what's out there they can make up their own. The only reason I can think of for all the attacks on the GPL is that there must be some desire to pull developers away from GPLed projects that compete with open source projects which are released under a permissive license which allow proprietary use of the code without giving anything back.

Re:The plural of anecdote?

[Anonymous Coward]

Same here. I have no idea what all the controversy is about concerning the GPL.

Welcome to the world of media campaigns. Here's how it works: some group with money wants to spread an idea. They use the money to pay industry groups and PR firms to produce press releases, sponsor opinion pieces in industry magazines, write blogs, crate fake grassroots movements ("astroturfing"), etc. When there's enough critical material published out there, the rest of the industry picks it up as legitimate talking points.

Like any artificial idea, it sinks when there's no longer any money behind it to push it into the public consciousness. This usually occurs after a few weeks, a month or two tops.

Open source developers should ignore it: it's just users (both companies and people) arguing pointlessly between themselves about an issue which isn't theirs to decide in the first place. What developers should do is pick whatever licence they like based on what works for them, period.

This would be "Then they fight you".

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, large evil software company. We like the GPL just fine.

Signed,
The developers whose software will still be around 10 years from now.

Re:This would be "Then they fight you".

[Anonymous Coward]

What is this "source code" thing, and why are we giving it away to anyone who asks?

Signed,
Your clueless boss

Nobody HAS TO use GPLv3

[Anonymous Coward]

I encourage everyone to disable Javascript for slashdot.org in his settings
and to disable the loading of images from other servers than slashdot.org as
long as that FUD spewing loser is wasting our precious time here.

The name of his own site says it all:

http://www.randomdialogue.net/
[...]"I have random things to say."[...]

That is what I get when I read Zonk's articles. Random
sensation about bullshit only Zonk cares about. I guess
as a kid Zonk watched too much CNN where every sack of
rice in china is a important and threatening story.

I would rather read the whole duped SCO and Jack Thompson bullshit AGAIN
than any new Zonk story.

Forget it... it's TOO LATE! The market has already decided:

http://www.google.com/trends?q=slashdot%2C++digg&c tab=0&geo=all&date=all

I respectfully disagree

[CodeShark]

That is not to say I don't think that there is a place for other OS licenses. But like most of the laws (whether administrative, statutory, or case) here in the United States, there is still an overriding set of rights written into the Constitution, and in many ways I consider the GPL including amendments like the "constitution" which supports Open Source.

As an "open source" developer for some time now, I disagree. In fact, once I am ready to release I doubt it will be under any version but the GPL v3. Why? Consider one question: Does the FSF and EFF back most or indeed any of the other versions of an OS license?

Because only the GPL has the full faith and backing of the FSF and the EFF. In the era of expensive patent and "anti patent" litigation, I want those organizations on my side for the same reason that --though I consider myself quite conservative in most political positions --, I don't automatically dismiss the ACLU as a leftist liberal organization. They have a good track record of protecting the important parts of our "electronic civil rights."

Pffft.

[morgan_greywolf]

So what you're saying is that people with a vested interest in making money on other people's code are demanding that code move to a more 'permissive' license like BSD instead of GPLV3? Because I've seen more projects move in the opposite direction -- moving away from BSD-like and into GPLV2 rather than the other way around. But, for the most part, projects that have BSD-like licenses and those with GPL-like licenses tend to either stay with the same license or move to a dual-license scenario. OTOH, I see more new projects going with GPL-like licenses over BSD-like licenses.

Whatever. I don't see GPLV3 causing any major shift in the open source/free software community

Re:Pffft.

[fsmunoz]

Exactly. It's the permanent whinning of those that are only favourable of "open source" when it means that they can reduce the headcount by using it. I am still waiting to hear someone who actually used the GPLv2 come up with this kind of speech: until now the only voices against the GPLv3 are from quarters that are against copyleft and are scared that the loopholes will be closed. They disliked the door in the first place and now their complaining about the fixing of the holes with vague talks about "the developers want this and that". It all translates into

We would really like to get all the code with no strings attached so we can add our own strings to it. We dislike the GPL as is and really dislike the new one since it focus on fixing some clever ways we had of bypassing the spirit of the licence. Ideally we would like to get all the code - doesn't matter that we didn't wrote it or that we don't share it ourselves. GPLv3, BAD!

Re:Pffft.

[DaveCar]

"Developers are still the heart of the open source community"

Well, this guy is clearly talking about the wrong community. I think in the free software community it will get a lot of support from developers.

If you want an Open Source license, then use one. If you want a Free license then use one of those instead.

Crisis averted.

Re:Pffft.

[DragonWriter]

So what you're saying is that people with a vested interest in making money on other people's code are demanding that code move to a more 'permissive' license like BSD instead of GPLV3? Because I've seen more projects move in the opposite direction -- moving away from BSD-like and into GPLV2 rather than the other way around.

Isn't a lot of the movement from BSD, etc., to GPLv2 to enable incorporating existing GPLv2 code? Whether that kind of pressure exists to move to GPLv3 is going to depend on how popular GPLv3 is on its own.

Re:Pffft.

[prelelat]

I don't understand I thought that if you didn't like the GPL v3 you could still use the older version. I thought v3 was for people who wanted something different like between a BSD and GPLv2?

Re:Pffft.

[Kjella]

Because I've seen more projects move in the opposite direction -- moving away from BSD-like and into GPLV2 rather than the other way around.

Perhspa something to do with ease? BSD to GPL:
1. Start including GPL code. Done.

GPL to BSD:
1. Make a complete list of all your contributors, ever
2. Try to contact everyone, moved, missing, dead, whatever
3. Pray really hard everyone will want to relicense
4. Check all libraries and see that they're not GPL
5. Whatever code and libraries you can't relicense, rewrite

Of course, the BSD camp will take this as proof that BSD is "freer" than the GPL. And the GPL camp will take it as proof that exactly what's wrong with BSD/free is how easy it is to make it not BSD/free. To me it seems counter-intuitive to promote the ten freedoms of open source as means when the ends typically is software that has none (i.e. proprietary, source-less derivates). It's like a living tree that spawns dead branches, does that make sense to anyone?

Re:Pffft.

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer the LGPL. While doing commercial development, oftentimes an open source component or library is not only a free choice, but the best choice from a software perspective. You have the code, you can actually debug issues and NOT simply do typical Windows guess-the-problem coding b/c you don't have the source to any of your third party components. However, the GPL makes things difficult here for me in a professional setting. My company's software is NOT going to be released under an open source license. Regardless of whether I think they should, I cannot integrate any GPL components into my application.

So while I agree with people's posts that it is easy to take advantage of BSD code by "adding strings" (and this is a valid concern for sure), I prefer BSD/LGPL in OTHER PEOPLE's software so I can integrate it into my code at work. LGPL still protects the component, if I find a bug or fix or feature it I'll send a patch to the original developer.

I don't think there are many reasons to choose GPL over the LGPL in fact. Why hinder an entire set of potential developers? I mean I'd love to code more in my free time, but the fact of the matter is I do 99% of my coding in a professional setting, and have gotten permission a number of times of posting bug fixes back to BSD projects, or adding a small feature to an open source component. I'd wager a lot of people are similar.

Ironically I think some companies actually use the GPL TO MAKE MONEY precisely for the reasons I described above -- when they dual-license their software (GPL for free, money for a BSD like license, or at least non-GPL). It's their way I suppose of trying to get the best of both worlds -- free development/testing from people working on their own time, and corporate licensing fees for the software.

Interesting questions for you all:

How much of your time coding is at work vs. on your own time?
Why would you use GPL over the LGPL?
What do you think of companies that dual license their software, i.e., pay money for a non-GPL version, free GPL version?

Re:Pffft.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am still waiting to hear someone who actually used the GPLv2 come up with this kind of speech

And Linus doesn't count?

Re:Pffft.

[fsmunoz]

Linus has "this kind of speech" against almost anything, so in reality, not really. But even then Linux has complained both generally and specifically, and in the latter case his comments - as others - were taken in consideration and the draft changed. He ackonwledge that much when he reluntantly said that the new draft was something that he didn't object to strongly.

Re:Pffft.

[fsmunoz]

See, your points - which are valid - apply in general to the GPL, not particulary to the GPLv3... This is part of the "problem" in this discussion: we all know that the GPL isn't liked by everyone and that a plethora of reasons are given to not use it (your points are a good example of the ones made by the BSD/MIT camp). But this doesn't apply to the GPLv3, nothing really meaningful changed in GPVv3: those who were against copyleft will still dislike it, those who support it will use it. So, apparently the GPLv3 will allienate developers that would't even use the GPLv2 in the first place.

Re:Pffft.

[init100]

I don't understand I thought that if you didn't like the GPL v3 you could still use the older version.

You can, unless components (e.g. libraries) critical to your project move to the GPLv3. In that case, you have two options: Moving to the GPLv3 or forking those critical components and maintaining them yourself.

Re:Pffft.

[prelelat]

Would it be possible to release different parts under different licenses? thought that sounds pretty stupid.

Re:Pffft.

[dkf]

I think in the free software community [GPLv3] will get a lot of support from developers.

But the free software community is comprised of people who have already bought into the GPL; that they'll support the update is not surprising. (For the FSF to have created an update that largely alienated their own supporters would have been unexpected, especially given the years of consultation and socialization of the update that they've been doing.)

The more interesting cases are whether there are people in either the wider open software community or the non-open (and non-free) community who will be either attracted in or repelled (in the case of the non-open folks, repelled from either free or open licensed software) by the GPL update. I suspect that v3 probably won't bring many new people into the free community in itself - most of those who get excited over licensing have already nailed their colours to the mast - to get substantially more devs in the v3 space will require the creation of one or more new "must develop with" codebases using the new license.

[Declaration: I develop BSD software. I do so because it suits me philosophically, and because I like the community I'm part of. I know people are building commercial products on my code. I don't mind, since I know they're having to put lots of their own effort in to make it worthwhile; they've earned their crust.]

Re:Pffft.

[DaveCar]

Fair enough, but point being that the FSF is not going to say "oh yeah, we'll compromise this or that principle of freedom that we have always espoused to appease some nebulous group of developers who don't share the same interests as we do".

It's not some license popularity contest, they just want to make sure that those that incorporate free software understand their responsibilities and can't sneakily duck them with some loophole.

I've generally used LGPL or Artistic License myself. Horses for courses :)

Interesting "theory"

[fsmunoz]

Quite. Whishful thinking on the part of those who are scared of the GPLv3. If it will "allienate" developers (who exactly nobody knows since ratio of bitching about the GPL is always inversely proportional to the actual coding in free software projets) then it will be great, nobody will use it, there are other licences out there and everything will be perfect for the anti-copyleft camp.

The "problem" with the GPLv3 isn't that it will allienate developers, it's exactly the opposite: most people against the underlying principle of the GPL - and especially those who have been relying on loopholes created by the changes in technology and society - are scared that it will actually be adopted - which I think it will, replacing the GPLv2 in new projects as the "de facto" copyleft licence. Don't like it, don't use it, but especially don't bitch about others using it, fell free *not* to use the code in the first place.

Projection

[Todd Knarr]

I'm sure certain companies would like GPLv3 to be alienating open-source developers, but frankly I don't see that happening too much. The only people it's alienating are people who would never use the GPL anyway. I've heard this tune sung before, when GPLv2 was being introduced: all those unrealistic, idealistic, totally unneccesary changes RMS was introducing would completely destroy the license and developers would abandon the GPL as unworkable. We can see how accurate that prediction was.

Re:Projection

[everphilski]

The only people it's alienating are people who would never use the GPL anyway.

False. TiVo. And any GPL-based entity that wants to do a Novell type deal in the future. (You may not agree with either, but they are people who are using the GPL.)

Re:Projection

[morgan_greywolf]

TiVo is not a GPL-based entity. Just because they use Linux as the base OS of their otherwise closed-source, proprietary, DRM-encumbered, locked-down product, it doesn't mean that they have a business model based on GPL. The next thing you'll say is that Microsoft is a GPL-based entity because they provide GPL code in Services for Unix.

Re:Projection

[DragonWriter]

TiVo is not a GPL-based entity.

TiVo, since they in fact use the GPL, is not, an entity that wouldn't use the GPL anyway.

Since the claim was that the only people driven off would people who wouldn't use the GPL anyway, TiVo is a valid counterexample which disproves the claim.

Re:Projection

[morgan_greywolf]

Okay, then so is Microsoft.

Re:Projection

[SinaSa]

TiVo is not a GPL-based entity. Just because they use Linux as the base OS of their otherwise closed-source, proprietary, DRM-encumbered, locked-down product, it doesn't mean that they have a business model based on GPL.

So why did Tivo report to the SEC that GPL v3 will hurt their business?

Re:Projection

[maxwell demon]

The next thing you'll say is that Microsoft is a GPL-based entity because they provide GPL code in Services for Unix.

Hey, I didn't know that! Of course this means that Microsoft is bound to the GPLv2 terms (esp. the patent clause!). It also means that MS might be directly affected by GPLv3 in the future (of course that's not automatic; they could simply avoid any new versions of GPLed software and just maintain their own GPLv2 fork).

Re:Projection

[An Onerous Coward]

TiVo is a great example of why GPLv3 is needed. I mean, look at the situation under GPLv2 (which TiVo is perfectly happy with): TiVo takes the Linux kernel so it can run their black box. TiVo makes changes to the code so it will run on black box. TiVo dutifully releases those changes to the world at large, because GPLv2 says they gotta. The world at large does not benefit, because the hardware the changes were meant to support will only run official TiVo-signed binaries.

The loophole in v2 frees hardware manufacturers from the burden of "giving back" in any meaningful sense. If they find the idea of giving back so irksome, let them switch to Windows CE.

Re:Projection

[DragonWriter]

TiVo is a great example of why GPLv3 is needed. I mean, look at the situation under GPLv2 (which TiVo is perfectly happy with): TiVo takes the Linux kernel so it can run their black box. TiVo makes changes to the code so it will run on black box. TiVo dutifully releases those changes to the world at large, because GPLv2 says they gotta. The world at large does not benefit, because the hardware the changes were meant to support will only run official TiVo-signed binaries.

So? If there is anything inherently useful in the software changes, it is available to the rest of the world, so they do benefit.

If there isn't, they don't, but that's not because of a lack of openness, but because there is no benefit to be had from the source code modifications, either. (Really, TiVo its no different than the situation under the GPLv3 for an online service provider who has modified code to run on their custom hardware but is compelled to release it to the public under the new clause dealing with that kind of use: if you accept that TiVo type situations are a problem, GPLv3 has just pushed it around.)

Really, the TiVo "problem" could have been dealt with more consistently with the structure of the GPLv2 and the idea of freedom it incorporates by requiring release and open licensing of hardware designs where hardware is released as an integral part of the same product as a piece of GPL-licensed software (sort of a hardware extension to the the linking provisions in the GPLv2), rather than specifying functionality of GPL hardware/software combos as the GPLv3 does.

The loophole in v2 frees hardware manufacturers from the burden of "giving back" in any meaningful sense.

Only if they aren't doing software innovation in any meaningful sense.

If they find the idea of giving back so irksome, let them switch to Windows CE.

Presuming that everything available under the GPLv2 now shifts over to the GPLv3, many manufacturers that otherwise would have chosen GPL probably will (or to open source alternatives under BSD-style licenses, etc.). How will that advance the goals of supporters of the GPL?

Re:Projection

[An Onerous Coward]

Presuming that everything available under the GPLv2 now shifts over to the GPLv3, many manufacturers that otherwise would have chosen GPL probably will (or to open source alternatives under BSD-style licenses, etc.). How will that advance the goals of supporters of the GPL?

The goal of the GPL is to promote the creation and adoption of freely modifiable, freely redistributable software. If the software running on that little black box underneath your television cannot be modified, then the GPL is no more serving its intended purpose than if the box was running something entirely proprietary.

What you have to understand is, if the corporate bastards have their way, the same "feature" that prevents you from running unsigned software on your TiVo will be coming to every computing device you buy, rendering the whole concept of open software irrelevant. TiVo is just a scouting party in advance of the main invasion. That's what the GPL3 is designed to counter.

GPL2 was great for its time, but since then loopholes have been discovered that undermine the whole concept of freely shareable software. If businesses only jump on the bandwagon because they find those loopholes attractive, then we're better off without them.

Re:Projection

[DragonWriter]

The goal of the GPL is to promote the creation and adoption of freely modifiable, freely redistributable software. If the software running on that little black box underneath your television cannot be modified, then the GPL is no more serving its intended purpose than if the box was running something entirely proprietary.

That would be true, if the software could not be modified. However, in the real world, that is not the issue: the software can be modified, but modified software can't be run on the little black box. That is a different issue than the one you paint: the software is freely modifiable, and freely redistributable. The hardware is selective about what software it will run. As the authors of GPLv3 apparently recognize, there are good reasons why users might want hardware that is selective in that way, and tamperproof, and allowing such hardware to exist does not impinge on the purposes of the GPL.

However, the authors of the GPLv3 choose to recognize that fact trough a freedom-denying, inequality-creating distinction between "consumer" and other kinds of applications, rather than enhancing freedom in a way which would allow locked-down hardware, but prevent locked-down hardware from being a vault in which components of a system incorporating GPL software could remain closed. The way to do that would have been to extend the provisions that apply to software components that form an integrated whole with GPL-licensed material to hardware components that do the same thing.

What you have to understand is, if the corporate bastards have their way, the same "feature" that prevents you from running unsigned software on your TiVo will be coming to every computing device you buy, rendering the whole concept of open software irrelevant.

If there is consumer demand for freedom from the dictates of hardware vendors to do what they want with their machines, that won't win in the market, open-source software aside (since its a substantial barrier to choice even when it comes to proprietary third-party software.)

If there is not consumer demand for customizable software, that kind of system will win in the market regardless of the terms of the GPL, and the GPL making itself incompatible with that kind of system will just make GPL software irrelevant. Licensing does not substitute for consumer education and advocacy. (For one thing, with the increasing importance of interconnection—either to cell networks, the internet via an ISP, etc.—to the use of computing products, nothing the GPL can do can prevent the only contractual arrangements being offered by the "the corporate bastards" providing those kinds of networks from being ones that require locked-down, tamper-proof hardware for "security" reasons.)

question motives

[xzvf]

The GPL is an attempt to license behavior and mitigate the natural greed factor in humans (corportations?). Legal minds have worked diligently over the last decade to bypass as many of the greed restrictions in the GPL as possible to commercialize open source software. In response GPL drafters are trying to contain the greed factor and keep open source from being constrained. Are they (corporations with money and patent portfolios) trying to box open source in? Is Google and BMC spreading FUD like Microsoft and Novell? It might be innocent, but I'd like to know their motivations.

FUD from a Microsoft shill

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe this is the same columnist who wrote something like "Why Microsoft Loves Open Source," which took a very naively trusting view of Microsoft. He claims to be an open source advocate, but he is either stupid (or very naive), or an undercover shill for Microsoft.

I've read thousands of GPL3-related comments on Slashdot, and it is apparent to me that for the most part, the people who don't like GPL3 are people who already didn't like GPL2 -- people who either liken it to cancer or communism, or people who only like BSD-style licenses because they think that when code is freely given to them it means they should be entitled to re-use it in a proprietary product against the wishes of the original developer (and then claim that the GPL is stealing the food off their children's tables).

This is just FUD.

Re:FUD from a Microsoft shill

[Jerry]

Exactly!

As an example of this kind of marketing manipulation consult "The Submarine" by Paul Graham.
http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

April 2005

"Suits make a corporate comeback," says the New York Times. Why does this sound familiar? Maybe because the suit was also back in February, September 2004, June 2004, March 2004, September 2003, November 2002, April 2002, and February 2002.

Why do the media keep running stories saying suits are back? Because PR firms tell them to. One of the most surprising things I discovered during my brief business career was the existence of the PR industry, lurking like a huge, quiet submarine beneath the news. Of the stories you read in traditional media that aren't about politics, crimes, or disasters, more than half probably come from PR firms.

The source of this FUD is, no doubt, Microsoft's PR firm.

Re:FUD from a Microsoft shill

[edwdig]

or people who only like BSD-style licenses because they think that when code is freely given to them it means they should be entitled to re-use it in a proprietary product against the wishes of the original developer (and then claim that the GPL is stealing the food off their children's tables).

You're a tad off there. The claim generally isn't "they should be entitled to re-use it in a proprietary product against the wishes of the original developer". Very few people have any objections to the wishes of the original developer.

The claim is if you're putting restrictions on how the code can be reused, it isn't really free, so you shouldn't be calling it that. Unless you believe the code itself is an entity with rights and needs to be protected from slavery or something like that.

Permissive vs. GPL?

[Yfrwlf]

The GPL is very permissive, it permits the *user* to always be in control of the software by preventing companies from restricting it using DRM and other mechanisms. It is *not* permissive to *companies*. So you have the developers in the middle. They sometimes work for the consumers. They sometimes work for the companies. The consumers don't want the companies to be restrictive. If the companies were really catering to the consumers like they should, they would find ways of creating software without restrictions.
 
(plug)...which is why I'm trying to get a project going for creating a hub for software development commissions at http://www.opendevelopmentnetwork.org/, even though the site is very dead at the moment, and also down. :) (but normally up) (/plug)

I'll be brutally honest

[captnitro]

Yeah, it does alienate me.

My drive is in writing code, and being able to look at other code that has what I want, plain and simple. In that sense, the GPL made it easy to do those two things: all technology is driven by convenience. PHP isn't popular because of its "enterprise-class frameworks", it's popular because it's easy to grab code from elsewhere, easy to write code in. Windows is easy because it comes with your computer. The GPL made it easy to be open-source.

In the past few years it seems everyone has become a zealot for something in computing, not because they're a visionary, but because they're a bully. And to be honest? I don't really give a fuck. I don't plan on using licenses for the advancement of some idealogue's great Cause, and I don't plan on consulting a lawyer just to write code and see if I'm Compliant.

So in the past few years I've released stuff as BSD/MIT/etc. (Gasps.) Do I care that people can use my code and not contribute back to the "community"? Not really. For one, I haven't found that to be the case. But secondly, it's just easier. It's easy to use code and to release code. No Visions, no Causes, no lawyers, no Compliance and papers-please-style-development. Just some guy on the internet putting his code up for use.

Re:I'll be brutally honest

[fsmunoz]

I think it's great you have chosen to release your work with a BSD/MIT licence (really). But from reading your post it's apparent that you don't really seem to view the current GPL as suitable, so the GPLv3 will not change that. Every complain you have about the GPLv3 can be applied to the GPLv2.

Re:I'll be brutally honest

[Aladrin]

Right on. I used to feel -exactly- as you do. After all the ugliness in the last couple years, though, I tend to look on the LGPL with a bit of favor, even if I still intensely dislike the GPL (2/3/whatever) itself.

Re:I'll be brutally honest

[Mateo_LeFou]

"No Visions, no Causes, no lawyers, no Compliance and papers-please-style-development"

I understand where you're coming from but would like to point out that acceptance of the status quo is *not ideologically neutral. The status quo was created by ideologues who didn't like the previous status quo.

That doesn't mean you have be up in arms, or a "zealot" as people like to call anyone who talks about values. But be intellectually honest, and say that the prevailing Vision/Cause (and I guess lawyers) are, in sum, acceptable to you.

Re:I'll be brutally honest

[_Sprocket_]

It's easy to use code and to release code. No Visions, no Causes, no lawyers, no Compliance and papers-please-style-development. Just some guy on the internet putting his code up for use.

Why not simply release your code to the public domain?

Re:I'll be brutally honest

[TheRaven64]

Exactly. I pick (3 clause) BSDL for most of my code (a few snippets under MITL or public domain), but if I had to choose between GPLv2 and 3 I would pick 3. They both support the aims of the FSF, which I agree with, but the new version does it better.

Re:I'll be brutally honest

[Anonymous Coward]

My thoughts exactly.

My own pet theory is this: people that care about the software they write use the GPL. People that don't use BSD or MIT. By releasing under the GPL you're stating that you care about politics, and that you will watch for infringement, to some extent at least. Naive people that just use the license because without thinking (or even reading) it first don't count.

Re:I'll be brutally honest

[CoughDropAddict]

On one hand I sympathize with your position, because I tend to favor MIT/BSD as well.

But the GPL isn't just about visions and causes. It's about defenses against predatory behavior. The only reason that Microsoft hasn't gone after Red Hat demanding royalties for patent violations is because GPLv2 prohibits it:

Now that Microsoft had identified the infringements, it could try to seek royalties. But from whom? [...] One possibility was to approach the big commercial Linux distributors like Red Hat and Novell that give away the software but sell subscription support services. However, distributors were prohibited from paying patent royalties by something whose very existence may surprise many readers: FOSS's own licensing terms.

[...]

"Any free program is threatened constantly by software patents," Stallman wrote in a 1991 revision to the GPL. "We have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all." This restriction became known as the "liberty or death" clause.

--Fortune Magazine, May 14 2007

If Linux and the GNU project had taken your attitude of "hey, I'm just a guy putting up my code," then the community would be in a very different position today wrt. Microsoft's patent aggression.

Re:I'll be brutally honest

[kilgortrout]

Those bsd, mit and virtually all other software licenses contain extensive warranty disclaimers that shield the developer from liability. You don't get the benefit of those warranty disclaimers if you release in the wild as public domain.

Re:I'll be brutally honest

[twistedcubic]

"Politics" is not the right word. Many people use the GPL because of "politics"? No. People use the GPL because of freedom. Didn't you see this movie?

Re:I'll be brutally honest

[_Sprocket_]

You don't get the benefit of those warranty disclaimers if you release in the wild as public domain.

Do you have a reference to this? It seems to me that one could just as effectively waiver any warranty while abandoning copyright as placing the waiver inside a license which negates most copyright restrictions. Liability and copyright are two very distinctive things. But maybe I'm missing something.

Re:I'll be brutally honest

[dedazo]

Why not simply release your code to the public domain?

That would be the best option, except for two things. First and most important is liability. You have to have some sort of disclaimer that says "you can do whatever you want with this here code, as long as you assume full responsibility for doing so" or some quack is going to sue you for $1,000,000,000,000 bazillion dollars because he lost some data due to a bug in your code.

Second, ego. Certainly less important, but at least the license says "John Q. Public did this", if nothing else. Developers. We're big on he ego thing, lemme tell you dat =)

Re:I'll be brutally honest

[dkf]

If Linux and the GNU project had taken your attitude of "hey, I'm just a guy putting up my code," then the community would be in a very different position today wrt. Microsoft's patent aggression.

That's hard to say for sure; if they'd done that, then they'd also be running a real risk of having other companies doing the same back to them. It's perhaps more of a Mexican Standoff, where if any big player starts throwing their weight around, everyone loses (except the lawyers).

Straw Man

[FranTaylor]

It looks like someone's borrowed a theme from politics: the straw man. Take something that doesn't exist (this hypothetical band of developers and their even more hypothetical 'license pressure') and spin and pound your fist, and maybe noone will notice that you've created what appears to be a good argument out of pure nothingness.

GPL is working

[MobyDisk]

I am about to release a small project "DS Dictionary" which is a dictionary app for the Nintendo DS, under the GPL. I was forced to do so because I used the GNU GCIDE dictionary and two other GPL libraries. I contacted the author of those libraries, and they are GPL because the author in turn used another GPL library. The GPL is working today, and spreading, exactly as it was intended to do. And there is a large and ever-growing base of GPL software.

In this case, I'm very glad. I wanted to base my application on another project which was very similar to my own. But that person chose not to release the source to their application, so I was forced to go this route. It doesn't matter - this was a free tool and a useful experiment in learning to code for a new device. And the GPL source made it take 1/10th as long. I'm actually frustrated at the people who write code and horde it, so in some ways, I'm glad the GPL is forcing things to open-up.

Of course, I'll change my tune next week when I have an app I want to write where one library is GPL and the rest is not, and I'll have to go rewriting things.

Re:GPL is working

[Anonymous Coward]

What about when one library is GPL 2 only and one is GPL 3 only. You'll have to make a choice. That's the thing that bothers me the most about the move to GPL 3. The license text itself may be superior, but it's presence and the disagreements about it could split the community into two groups that have to keep reimplementing each other's wheels.

I plan to stay on GPL2 and any later version to retain compatibility. But that's basically saying I'll be GPL 3, once somebody contributes a line of GPL 3 code. I'm not really sure what to do about it.

Re:GPL is working

[_Sprocket_]

How much of that is "GPL2" and how much is stated as "GPL2 or later"?

Re:GPL is working

[The Wicked Priest]

TTBOMK, apart from the Linux kernel, there's very little code that's licensed GPLv2 only. Most is "v2 or later", because that's what it says in the FSF's boilerplate, and most people either supported that or didn't bother to change it.

don't worry about the FSF

[nanosquid]

It's silly to think that one license fits all. For something like the Linux kernel, a license like GPLv3 makes sense. For projects sponsored by companies, Apache 2 is a better choice (in fact, I consider Sun's use of GPL+commercial for Sun Java to be bad). What Stein's specific beef with the GPLv3 is, I don't get, since GPLv3 is largely GPLv2 with the Apache v2 patent provisions.

In any case, people like Hurley shouldn't spend time worrying about the future of the FSF. The FSF has been in this business for two decades and they know what they are doing.

Yes.

[LWATCDR]

It does me. I am actually considering taking over a FOSS project that lost it's maintainer. I was thinking about moving it to GPL but now it will stay BSD.

Re:Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't understand what's the problem with the creation of GPL V3. If you intended to use GPL for your project in the first place, you can still use GPL V2. The new license doesn't make the old one disapear.
You only don't win the protection agaist patents that are on the new version of GPL.

Another point is that, if you're taking over a project, unless you have permission from every developer that put a line of code there to change the license (or forget the code and start over), you can't even change that license.

Re:Yes.

[evil_Tak]

So why not GPLv2 then?

Re:Yes.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Another point is that, if you're taking over a project, unless you have permission from every developer that put a line of code there to change the license (or forget the code and start over), you can't even change that license.

I don't think this is true. If I take BSD licensed code and make a change to it and then license this new group of code as GPL, I don't think there is any problem. The GPL meets all the requirements of the BSD license. I can do anything with the BSD code I want so long as it is in compliance with the BSD license. The BSD license does not restrict me from not prividing the source, or selling the code, or licensing the code in some new way. MS took the entire TCP stack and so long as they keep the original credit in it, they can release it under their proprietary Windows license. The same is true for releasing it under GPL (as far as I know). Now if I have GPL code and I want to release it under the BSD license, I have a problem, because that does not meet all the criteria for the GPL license. To do that I do need permission from all the copyright holders who contributed.

On your first point, regarding GPL2 and 3, I agree by the way. I just believe you are incorrect about moving BSD code to GPL, which I think is perfectly legal.

Re:Yes.

[fsmunoz]

Honestely curious, what in particular about the GPLv3 makes you feel that way? You mentioned that you considered moving it to GPLv2, so it isn't out of being against copyleft in general.

Re:Yes.

[burnin1965]

so long as it is in compliance with the BSD license

I think the only thing you'll need to check is the version of BSD license. If the project was released under the original BSD license that has the advertising clause then it is not compatible with the GPL and you not be able to legally convert the original code over to a GPL license. You'll have to rewrite from scratch.

Re:Yes.

[LWATCDR]

The version of the BSD license would work with GPL and I will have to rewrite a lot of the code.

Re:Yes.

[LWATCDR]

I feel that GPLv3 is mean spirited. The very statement that it is supposed to stop Tivoization bugs me since I feel Tivo has actually done a lot of good for Linux in the past. Frankly the politics of the FSF, FOSS, copyleft, and GPL to me feels like it is moving in to the real of a religion. I use Linux a lot and love it. I will publicly state that I think every author of FOSS and public domain software is owed a big thanks. Here are the things that I am seeing that I don't like in the FOSS community.

1. Closed source software is evil. There isn't one model that will fit for every program. FOSS has yet to produce a good 3D cad program equal to SolidWorks, PRO/E, or Autocad as examples. I doubt that will ever happen because the economics don't support it. I want FOSS to have a chance to compete in any segment so I oppose things like DRM and the DMCA but not the idea of copyrighted material.
2. Ungrateful end user FOSS zealots. I see this all the time on Slashdot. Somebody creates a FOSS program and some idiot hates it because it doesn't have this feature or that feature or doesn't use the license that they think is free enough. Of course these people have never written a line of code in their life or donated a penny to any project but they will complain until the cows come home.

That is one reason I am thinking about adopting this project. I am sure the old maintainer got sick of it or got too busy with life. It is useful to people I know. And it is a way I can give back.

My selection of the BSD is for a few reasons. It already has all the BSD comments and a form of protest to the zealots. I am not in love with the BSD license but yes GPLv3 and the rants of RMS tick me off so BSD it is. As so many people have said it is my code and I will choose the question is does GPLV3 alienate developers. So in my case the answer is yes. Makes me sorry that I contributed code to a GNU project in the past.

Re:Yes.

[fsmunoz]

Thanks for answering.

Most of what you say has been said about the GPL since the 90's, mainly comming from the BSD crowd. Not judging it, but the accusations of fanaticism, zeal, religion, etc are not new to the GPLv3.

Your take on the Tivo issue is however to the point, if you disagree with that particular point strongly then GPLv3 is not for you indeed. To be honest it doesn't really seem that GPLv2 is for you either, taking in consideration that 90% of your objections cover the GPL and the FSF in broad terms.

It's your code, of course. Chose whatever you want. I'm happy enough it's a free software licence, BSD/MIT is fine by me, and I'm also happy you feel inclined to take over the project. Honestly, that's more important to tme than the GPL vs. BSD war. I could give some thoughts on why I prefer the GPL (2 or 3) but honestly, it's raining on water... the arguments from both sides are well known. What bugs me a bit in the specific discussion of the GPLv3 isn't the fact that some developers don't want to use it... it's just that they don't seem like they would be using the GPLv2 either :)

Re:Yes.

[LWATCDR]

You see that is just it I did like GPLv2 enough that I did contribute code to a GNU project.
What bugs me is how this is targeted towards a company that did follow the letter of the GPLv2, is struggling, and has been in my opinion good for Linux. To me this says hey you can follow the rules to the letter but if RMS decides that he doesn't like you he will target you. I find this super counter productive.
He are other counter productive things I see.
Hating NVidia for supporting Linux but not the way you want them to. I feel it is more productive to state that you will buy ATI cards if they open source their drivers. Which frankly I will do. I would buy Intel but I have a nice AMD motherboard in my current system and Intel doesn't make stand alone cards. Frankly I am happy that NVidia does provide driver for Linux at all. I would rather have FOSS drivers but half a loaf is better than none. Why can't people be more positive and yes even grateful.
Then you saw my rant about the ungrateful users. Again counter productive bad manners.
Now fighting software patents that is what I would really like to see the FSF doing and not targeting Tivo. BTW I don't work for Tivo or own one.
If nothing else this is my shout that the FSF isn't doing it's job and is being harmful to FOSS in general as well as the users of FOSS.

Re:Yes.

[fsmunoz]

You see that is just it I did like GPLv2 enough that I did contribute code to a GNU project.

That's great. You could even do it without really liking it, if it crosses the "good enough" threshould. Many people that live by the GPL contribute to BSD licenced programs, it's not ideal but good enough.

What bugs me is how this is targeted towards a company that did follow the letter of the GPLv2, is struggling, and has been in my opinion good for Linux. To me this says hey you can follow the rules to the letter but if RMS decides that he doesn't like you he will target you. I find this super counter productive.

Well, then you have a good reason to dislike the GPLv3, as I said above. I disagree, but it's a good reason nonetheless. I personally feel that the spirit of the licence is what's important and that it must be updated to reflect changes in society, and in that perspective tivoization and and patent shielding are subterfuges. Since they are able to exist by following the letter of the licence then the licence has to be updated.

Hating NVidia for supporting Linux but not the way you want them to. I feel it is more productive to state that you will buy ATI cards if they open source their drivers. Which frankly I will do. I would buy Intel but I have a nice AMD motherboard in my current system and Intel doesn't make stand alone cards. Frankly I am happy that NVidia does provide driver for Linux at all. I would rather have FOSS drivers but half a loaf is better than none. Why can't people be more positive and yes even grateful.

Indeed... note that I'm not doubting your motivations or even your entushiasm and contributions, we're just debating here. The closed drivers thing is a though problem with many possible approaches, all of which have pros and cons.

Now fighting software patents that is what I would really like to see the FSF doing and not targeting Tivo. BTW I don't work for Tivo or own one. If nothing else this is my shout that the FSF isn't doing it's job and is being harmful to FOSS in general as well as the users of FOSS.

This is quite interesting... note that the FSF has done this extensively. Actually IIRC the previous revision of the GPL was made because of "patent shielding", which was another situation were following the letter of the licence could be done without following the spirit of the licence:

Around 1990, I found out about the danger of software patents. So in GPL version 2, we developed the section that we called "liberty or death for the program", although informally, because in GPL version 2 the sections don't have titles. This said that if you agree to any sort of patent licence that would limit the rights that your users would get, then you couldn't distribute the program at all.

Back then, when RMS talked about patents, many people dismissed it as "political posing", "fanaticism", "I like Linux but this is to much politics, RMS is an extremist", well, you get the idea. Some years latter and here we are, knee-deep in patent threats. To reinforce that the GPLv3 has extra provisions against this forms of sidestepping the licence:

A few years ago, I realised that there were other ways software patents might be used to make software non-free, so we're designing GPL version 3 to block them too. For instance, one issue is, what if the developer of the software has a patent on it, or rather, has a patent on some particular computational technique used in the program. (...) However, there's another way of using software patents to threaten the users which we have just seen an example of. That is, the Novell-Microsoft deal. What has happened is, Microsoft has not given Novell a patent licence, and thus, section 7 of GPL version 2 does not come into play. Instead, Microsoft offered a pate

Re:Yes.

[LWATCDR]

"Back then, when RMS talked about patents, many people dismissed it as "political posing", "fanaticism", "I like Linux but this is to much politics, RMS is an extremist", well, you get the idea. Some years latter and here we are, knee-deep in patent threats. To reinforce that the GPLv3 has extra provisions against this forms of sidestepping the license"
Hey I never said that Everything that RMS does is bad. Hey even Microsoft has some good products. Flight Simulator for example.
I wasn't taking you disagreeing as criticizing. Consider my rants more venting to a friend than really yelling. Polite disagreements are good disagreements. One detail that bugs me is that the new license ONLY effects consumer devices. To me that seems very odd and slightly annoying. The reasoning just doesn't sit well with me. I would rather let professionals have access than consumers since I feel they would have the greater benefit. I trust a professional with deciding if they need to lock or unlock their device.
What my real rant is I guess are two groups.
Those that I feel are being less then constructive.
And the big one the ungrateful parasites. I feel every programmer should get paid for their work. For my FOSS work I am happy with nothing more than silence and consider good bug reports, suggestions for new features, and or a thank you as a bonus. If you want the right to complain then you better be forking over some cash IMHO.
So that being said. Thanks RMS for GCC.

Re:Yes.

[MooUK]

Regarding your bit about Tivo:

They may have followed the license to the letter, but why is doing only that acceptable? The following sentence is exactly what Tivo did: They took code under a license intended to allow customers/users to modify and use the code themselves, and used a loophole to block such modification in hardware. The entire point of the GPL is to allow others to modify things - and they blocked it through a loophole. How is this a good thing?

I'm not saying you can't work under whichever license you see fit for your own projects. I'm just challenging one of your reasons for doing so.

Re:Yes.

[dkf]

If I take BSD licensed code and make a change to it and then license this new group of code as GPL, I don't think there is any problem.

Actually, I think that's one of the very few ways of violating the BSD license. :-) One of the key requirements of BSD code is that the copyright and license of the source code files themselves are retained. On the other hand, you can aggregate those files with other source files that are GPLed for the purposes of redistribution, and you can build the code into sets of binaries and libraries pretty much any way you want (so function calls or #includes cause no problems). If you instead choose to commercialize, failing to distribute source to any of the BSD parts (even if modified by you) isn't a big deal (the GPL parts aren't the concern of the BSD licensed code).

The major incentive for the members of a BSD community to share are that if they don't, they run the real risk of the rest of the community making incompatible changes that make the keeping of the the non-sharer's local changes up to date into a support nightmare. In other words they really strongly encourage openness and sharing. They just don't feel that it is right to use the license to enforce the policy; they prefer social/community enforcement.

Re:Yes.

[LWATCDR]

Funny but the FSF allows this locking of hardware for "professional and industrial" devices but not for consumer devices.
I can think of hundreds of ways I can Violate the spirit of the GPL. You going to block all of them. Suppose I create my own preprocessor that creates then generates c? I can then give you the source without the processor. What good will it do you?
Or I could run my code through a program that mangles the code so that it is just about useless to a human. There are more ways to break the spirit of the GPL than the FSF can block.
What language does the code have to be in? What language do the comments have to be in?
Yes I think this targeting is a very bad idea. While I wouldn't use those methods I am sure other will.
BTW you can not out-law preprocessors because they are very common even QT uses one. Mangled code? You going to mandate programing style in the GPL next?

just to annoy the astroturfers

[Anonymous Coward]

I have several GPL2 projects, a couple are quite popular. I'll be moving
all of those to GPL3 as soon as it's out. There is so much astroturfing
activity trying to talk it down that it must be a good thing.

Developers are affected by licenses too...

[quanticle]

Because as a developer we can always choose. GPL2, 3, BSD, Mozilla, MIT whatever we want. We are the ones in control. It's the users that can get annoyed when a package they could normally use can't after a license shift.

That's true only as long as you don't link to any other libraries or use any other programs as part of your work. As soon as you link your software to other software on the system, you are affected by the licenses on the other software. So, unless you're developing truly standalone software (like assembly code for an embedded device), you are affected by other licenses.

As a hobbyist developer, I see problems with GPL v3 in the sense that it is not compatible with GPL v2. Therefore, if I wanted to release code under GPL v2, I could not link to any libraries or programs that ware licensed under v3. That's not too much of an issue now (since the license has not been released) but it could turn into an issue if adoption of v3 becomes widespread.

Re:Developers are affected by licenses too...

[jshriverWVU]

Thought linking to libraries or other components was fine as long as you where dynamically linking. The only time the license became an issue even for commercial work was if you statically linked the code into your application. Difference being dynamic you call and ask for something, static the other code becomes part of your binary.

Perhaps this linking scenerio is a "hole" that was plugged in GPL 3, but I dont know but would like to find out if anyone here does know.

Re:Developers are affected by licenses too...

[aardvarkjoe]

Thought linking to libraries or other components was fine as long as you where dynamically linking.

The GPL says no. Here's a quote from the LGPL (which does allow dynamic linking):

When a program is linked with a library, whether statically or using a shared library, the combination of the two is legally speaking a combined work, a derivative of the original library. The ordinary General Public License therefore permits such linking only if the entire combination fits its criteria of freedom. The Lesser General Public License permits more lax criteria for linking other code with the library.

The typical explanation is that by creating your program to be specifically dependent on the interface into the GPL'd library, you are creating a derivative work. This reasoning has never seemed to be very solid to me, as there is a vast continuum of ways that you could "link" to GPL'd code that range from being obviously derivative to obviously not, and I'm not aware of any real legal precedent that tries to define what the limits are. The FSF is pretty clear that they believe that you can't dynamically link to a GPL'd library from software under an incompatible license, though.

Re:Developers are affected by licenses too...

[jshriverWVU]

What if you had a translation layer. Kinda like how NVidia does it's drivers? Say you're using some library but dont want to deal with the licensing issue. Write an FOSS bridge layer that binds to the library, but then communicates requests to a proprietary application. There must be a way around it. Haven't some commercial games for linux been written using SDL? Yet they are not FOSS.

Re:Developers are affected by licenses too...

[sumdumass]

I think the idea behind libraries is if you use regular system calls, your find. So if you implant something that adds system calls then anything can use the api to os and it makes the call to that library.

The objection seems to be when you address the library itself directly in anyway. This would be the equivalent of the Nvidia driver without the gpl code layer.

Re:Developers are affected by licenses too...

[Chandon Seldon]

Kinda like how NVidia does it's drivers?

Binary blob drivers in Linux are widely considered to technically be a violation of the GPL license. The Linux developers seem to have decided that they aren't going to go after anyone over binary blobs, but if any Linux developer changed their mind it could be bad news for anyone who was distributing Linux and a functioning binary driver together (GPLv2 auto-revokes itself for violations - this is actually less painful under GPLv3).

Re:Developers are affected by licenses too...

[notamisfit]

That's why nVidia doesn't release binary blobs. They release a bag of bytes that can be used to make your own binary blob.

That's why I like the LGPL

[Spy der Mann]

LGPL allows me to reuse the code that I've written as open source, in my boss' projects. I distribute it free because I feel it'll be useful to other developers out there.

I have the tendency to write software libraries, because they allow me to reuse my code in several different projects. The executable programs are just a wrapper. So, the LGPL suits me.
Good examples of LGPL projects are the FFMPEG library, which the LGPL ensures it can be used for both commercial and non-commercial projects.

And if that's not enough, there's the wxWindows (wxWidgets) license, which is GPL + exception.

Re:That's why I like the LGPL

[dotwaffle]

It's your code that you've written. GPL it, then re-licence it for your boss to use. Nothing stopping a dual-licence. LGPL allows others to do things "less free" with it.

Re:That's why I like the LGPL

[WPIDalamar]

Does your boss know that he must distribute the resulting executable under a license that allows the end-user to modify it?

Not many people realize this. But if you use a LPGL licensed library, you don't have to release your product under the LGPL, but you do have to release it with a license that allows modification.

Re:That's why I like the LGPL

[flonker]

If it's code you've written, you can do whatever you want with it. The licenses doesn't apply to you, as you already have the right to distribute copies of your own code in in any form you desire.

You do not need a license to distribute code to which you own the copyright. The license gives permission for other people to be able to use and distribute the code to which you own the copyright, including derivative works.

Hence, LGPL doesn't allow you to reuse the code that you've written. You can reuse the code anyway, regardless of whether it's GPL, LGPL, BSD, whatever. The fact that you wrote the code allows you to reuse it.

Re:That's why I like the LGPL

[One Louder]

The LGPL basically says that you have to provide a "linkable" version of the code, so that someone can modify the LGPL components and recombine them with the non-free components - it doesn't mean that the non-free components must be modifiable.

You're correct that the combined work must be released with a license that allows this, and that many people don't know that they need to do it. It's one of the most common misconceptions about the LGPL - most people think they only have to publish the source to the free components.

Re:That's why I like the LGPL

[GauteL]

"LGPL allows me to reuse the code that I've written as open source, in my boss' projects. I distribute it free because I feel it'll be useful to other developers out there."

There is nothing stopping you from using code you have written in ANY license in your boss' projects, as long as you have the full copyright for all parts of the code.

Re:That's why I like the LGPL

[WPIDalamar]

Section 6
>>
As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or link a "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work under terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications.

The "sections above" are stating you must distribute under the LGPL, so this clause is what gives the LPGL the ability to work with commercial software.

Re:That's why I like the LGPL

[cparker15]

Good examples of LGPL projects are the FFMPEG library, which the LGPL ensures it can be used for both commercial and non-commercial projects.

I assume you're attempting to make a comparison between the LGPL and the GPL, since this is an article about the GPL. The GPL would accomplish the same thing. As has been voiced elsewhere in this article's comments, the GPL is a commercial license. There is nothing in the GPL that states GPL-licensed software may only be used for non-commercial purposes. If the GPL didn't allow commercial applications of the software it covers, then you wouldn't be able to buy boxed copies of popular GNU+Linux distributions at your local computer retailer.

Re:That's why I like the LGPL

[cparker15]

Sorry for the double-post, but I didn't think of this until I already hit “Submit”.

See also the FSF/GNU essay titled Selling Free Software. An excerpt of it follows:

Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible -- just enough to cover the cost.

Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If this seems surprising to you, please read on.

The word "free" has two legitimate general meanings; it can refer either to freedom or to price. When we speak of "free software", we're talking about freedom, not price. (Think of "free speech", not "free beer".) Specifically, it means that a user is free to run the program, change the program, and redistribute the program with or without changes.

Free programs are sometimes distributed gratis, and sometimes for a substantial price. Often the same program is available in both ways from different places. The program is free regardless of the price, because users have freedom in using it.

[...]

Except for one special situation, the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) has no requirements about how much you can charge for distributing a copy of free software. You can charge nothing, a penny, a dollar, or a billion dollars. It's up to you, and the marketplace, so don't complain to us if nobody wants to pay a billion dollars for a copy.

Said elsewhere, but I haven't seen it like this:

[Lord Bitman]

the disconnect isn't between people who want GPLv3 to be "Less permissive" or "more permissive", it's between people who think GPLv3 is "more permissive" vs people who think GPLv3 is "less permissive". Both sides want more permissive licenses, they just disagree on what constitutes "permissive". Some say "you won't let me take permission away from others, so it's less permissive!", others say "we won't let anyone take away permission, ever, so it's more permissive."

GPLv3 really just seems to be an attempt to make things explicit which were implied in GPLv2. Personally, I think that's a step in the wrong direction, because the moment you enumerate which things you can or can't do, as opposed to just blanket saying: "you can't, in any way, distribute this software if you, in any way, prevent others from distributing this software", people will say "oh, you said "patent", not "Billy's Intellectual Voucher Certificate", so my way of restricting use /is/ allowed!"

google? greg stein?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is afraid that they won't be able to steal any more free software?
Greg Stein would like everything to be public domain so he can incorporate it into the google web server and then get a big fat bonus from his idiot boss when he tells him that *he* wrote all this code, because he is Greg Stein?
And where is that chris di bona fatass?

Translation

[NatteringNabob]

We would like to make a profit from open source software and not return anything to the community.

Re:Translation

[firewood]

We would like to make a profit from open source software and not return anything to the community.

We would like to profit from OSS, but only return something we consider of lesser or equal value, same as with any other rational business exchange. This isn't true, so we end up rewriting stuff.

Or we would like to return stuff, but the source rights to stuff we currently use isn't ours to return (licensed libraries, etc.), so we end up rewriting stuff (of one license or another).

In either case, the GPL causes us to waste time that BSD/MPL type licenses don't.

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

That's exactly what Outpost24 said to me "We use nessus now but are developing something new because we don't want to share our work.".

Viral licensing

[bigtangringo]

I'm not a fan of GPL anyway, give me BSD/Apache/MIT any day.

Re:Viral licensing

[Anonymous Coward]

copyright is viral

Re:Viral licensing

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not a fan of GPL anyway, give me BSD/Apache/MIT any day

the nice thing is that if you don't agree with the aims of the author of some code then you can simply not use it. go find an alternative or write it yourself under your *fave* license. here you go. enjoy:

http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php

http://opensource.org/licenses/apachepl.php

http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php

In the long run, doesn't matter, GPL will thrive

[Morgaine]

While it's undoubtedly true that some developers will be alienated by GPLv3, I don't think that it matters in the longer term, because *all* free and open source software contributes to the building of the GPL'd community pyramid, in one way or another.

In the long run, the boundaries between code written under different FOSS licenses tend to get fuzzy, because all the best ideas from old software (and code, where allowed) tend to make a new appearance in software created under the latest license. It's just the way people work. Very few want to take a political stand by adding a feature into an old licensed version of a package only, and disallowing forward migration.

If you like, GPLv3 represents more than just a specific instance of the GPL licence. Once it is released, it will become the generic GPL for the new front line of free software development, and for most people the "v3" label won't matter. And if important non-GPLv3 software (Linux kernel excluded) contains anti-migrationary constraints, then it will be rewritten within the GPLv3-supporting community if enough people want it. It's inevitable.

The kernel seems to be in a different category, but as far as applications are concerned, I really don't think that a degree of alienation among some developers will matter much at all.

Exactly that's why!

[cthulhuology]

As we all know, the BSD license has pressured people into not using the GPL at all. Given the greater freedom to the end user it gives, it makes the market for GPL software utterly untenable. That's why Linux has switched to BSD licensing. The public domain, however, is so compelling, given its great degree of freedom and complete removal of all boundaries on use, Microsoft has placed all of Windows in the public domain. In fact, the only thing that stood between Microsoft and total world domination was their licensing which prevents certain people from using their software as they see fit!

Joke Joke!

There's an old rule of marketing which states "You can charge too little for a product". Just look at most people's gut reactions, GPL'd software is more valuable than public domain software. For developers and corporations like IBM, GPL'd software is more valuable than BSD software because of the GPL's additional sine qua non provisions. The spirit of fairness that is at the basis of RMS's 4 freedoms has value to developers and coporations. For most developers, protections against corporate profiteering preserve their personal ability to profit from their labor. The only people alienated are freeloaders.

Re:Exactly that's why!

[burnin1965]

For most developers, protections against corporate profiteering preserve their personal ability to profit from their labor.

Well said. I swear the entire "Intellectual Property" movement is about the suits who cant do turning those who can into serfs. The internet has made marketing and distribution possible even for the smallest of organizations. But when you can't compete because the corporations own all your ideas then you have no choice but to work under them. "Intellectual Property" owners are the Robber Barons of the 21st century.

In Soviet Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia, GPL v3 spreads FUD about YOU!

Most Free zealots that I know never read GPL2

[Rogerborg]

(or at least never understood it) so I doubt they'll be bothered by the details of what GPL3 actually says either.

Overlooked something...

[ComputerSlicer23]

Right now, there are roughly 3 types of OSS licenses.

• Do what you want, but I own the copyright. (BSD, Apache 1 & 2)
• I share my code, if you do anything with this you have to share yours the same way I share mine. (GPL)
• I share my code, and if you re-use it you have to use it you have to tell people mine exists and thing you add you can pick the license. (Numerous licenses, including the CPL, EPL, LGPL).

The article states "look at the proliferation of licenses", as a sign that the GPL isn't filling a need. The simple facts are that the first two licenses are pretty much in the bag. Nobody writes new licenses that attempt to the accomplish the first two. Pretty much to a person, everyone uses Apache 2, BSD or the GPL to accomplish those goals. If you start looking down the list of other one-off licenses that are for OSS. Those are all about filling the need in the third item. If anything, it could be said that the LGPL is "failing". It isn't the "one true license" to accomplish the task. Essentially the proliferation of license's is about finding a "share and share alike" that can exist in a corporate environment. Where the core technology can be shared and developed by many folks, while the extensions and non-core pieces can be value-adds that are solve for money.

Greg Stein's a brilliant guy, and one hell of an engineer. But I think he's living in his own little world here. Lot's of folks like and enjoy writing software under the premise of the second type of license. Some folks do it under the first. In the end, the collaborative effort will virtually always win out. So in a lot of ways it doesn't matter if you use a license from the first or second group. That's why Apache has never been taken and had a closed competitor that is more used. Sure some commercial products are based on it, but none of them will ever quash Apache out of existence because they are so popular.

All the action is how to have an open source commercial license. The LGPL has a few terms that are a bit harsh on business, and have little to say with respect to patents or trademarks. In this day and age a license must address those.

Kirby

Google ________ (+5 Insigthful)

[Anonymous Coward]

should first open source their indexing code and pagerank before talking about permissive licenses.
What a hypocricity!

Makes no sense

[Scarblac]

This just makes no sense. The difference between GPLv2 and v3 is negligible compared to the difference between the GPL and other licenses.

It's basically the same license, it's just that it's written in a more legally robust way, more explicitly enforcing the things that GPLv2 is already supposed to enforce.

It's also had the most thorough community review process ever, for these sorts of things. Every word of GPLv3 has been debated by everybody who bothered to get involved, including all the major commercial users.

All news like this is just FUD.

Re:Makes no sense

[iknownuttin]

...it's just that it's written in a more legally robust way,...

Which makes it harder to understand for a layman, i.e. non-lawyer.

Re:Makes no sense

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference may be negligible, but it's enough. The licenses are only compatibile in one direction. Imagine if ALSA had been developed under the GPL3, it would still be userspace today.

Re:Makes no sense

[DragonWriter]

It's basically the same license, it's just that it's written in a more legally robust way, more explicitly enforcing the things that GPLv2 is already supposed to enforce.

Even if that were true (and that's, at best, debatable; certainly, people will disagree about whether some of the things the GPLv3 enforces are things v2 is "supposed" to enforce), it is a substantive change, because rational people choose a license based on what it actually does, not what some group of idealists think it is supposed to do.

yes, GPL is a commercial licence

[H4x0r Jim Duggan]

Correct. Further, GPLs v2 and v3 have clear statements saying that it's ok to sell covered software.

Enabling businesses to be built up around free software is essential for the progress of the free software movement. Our licences just have to ensure that those companies cannot harm the movement (neither intentionally nor under pressure from MS).

So if you distribute the software, you can't hide the source, and you can't sue the users for patent infringement, and you can't put it on a device that is set up to allow you to continue to modify without also giving the recipient that freedom. (Boo-hoo, you lose the "freedom" to screw others.)

And in the other direction, there is a warranty disclaimer so that distributing the software doesn't put people's business at risk.

Here's a summary of what's new in GPLv3:
http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/brussels-rms-t ranscript

As is typical of this type of FUD article, the author talks nothing about the actual content of the licence, and instead just gives baseless summaries and gossipy predictions.

Re:yes, GPL is a commercial licence

[maxwell demon]

You link is broken. The following should work:
http://www.germany.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/br ussels-rms-transcript.en.html

Re:yes, GPL is a commercial licence

[QuickFox]

Your link is broken, I get a 404.

Re:yes, GPL is a commercial licence

[supermank17]

Perhaps you can help explain this to me... I've never understood how one could easily sell GPL'd software. As far as I can tell, from my limited knowledge of GPL, anyone you distribute your software to has the right to modify and distribute the source code as well. With that being true, whats to stop the first person who buys the software from taking the source and beginning distribution of it for free, or trying to compete with the original seller?
I love open source software, and have contributed to GPL projects before, but just have trouble understanding how it would be profitable.
This is something that I've always found confusing, so any clarification would be more than welcome.

Re:yes, GPL is a commercial licence

[sumdumass]

What stops them is the same thing that causes them to buy your code in the first place. Or at least with honest people doing to. There was that thing with ethereal a while back. And the majority of that could have been avoided with some seciruty on the source downloads. You only have to distribute the source to the people who you distributed the program to. But the majority of people who would buy OSS programs would do so because they lack the skill or funding to make it work themselves. The manpower and all are issues that have to be considered.

And these people who buy it, know right off the start that it is available free if they want to do the work themselves. Some need the tech support and others just don't have the time to bother. So having the source and program available doesn't mean that the people who would buy it would all the sudden stop, it just means they aren't going to be forced into upgrades and stuff like that. It also means they will end up with better customer service because the companies knows there are people giving it away and they need to keep the edge to keep the customer happy. This is why they don't actively market to people who won't pay. And this separates them a great deal from the proprietary vendors.

Re:yes, GPL is a commercial licence

[innocent_white_lamb]

The answer to your question is simple: Service.
 
You don't generally sell GPL software on a disk in box, and boot the customer out the door right after you hand it to him. In a nutshell, you sell him the software and set it up for him and then bill him for services rendered.
 
This business model works much better than you may think at first glance, because depending on the job, "services rendered" can add up to thousands of dollars.

Re:yes, GPL is a commercial licence

[snoyberg]

I suppose two possible methods:

1. A support system like Redhat (which I'm assuming is not what you want)
2. A system like the old-style commercial software. Remember when you would buy a disk and install it on as many computers as you'd like? And yet, companies still made lots of money off of it. I suppose that even though it would be legal for one of your purchasers to redistribute your software, it wouldn't necessarily be feasible, especially if you charge modest prices and thereby don't piss people off.

Re:yes, GPL is a commercial licence

[tkinnun0]

Ah yes, the tech support business model:

1. Write a hugely popular Open Source Software.
2. Meanwhile, someone like IBM has set up an offshore support company specializing in your software.
3. ???
4. PROFIT!

Re:yes, GPL is a commercial licence

[supermank17]

Thank you, to both you and the other two that posted replies so far. The service model I knew was possible, but I was thinking mostly of the traditional method where money comes from just selling copies of software. You guys raised some other good ideas as well. I think after reading this, my conclusion is that it might not work for every situation, but it would likely work in more situations than I had previously thought possible.
Again, thanks.

Re:yes, GPL is a commercial licence

[maxwell demon]

First note, that generally the most money is not made with private users, but with companies.

Now imagine your business e.g. depends vitally on Linux, but there happens to be a kernel bug which critically affects your business. If you just downloaded it from the net, you are on your own. Of course the developers will care about the bug, and eventually fix it, but if your business critically depends on it, an answer like "Next week I'll probably have time to look into that" will not be acceptable to you. You need the fix, and you need it as fast as possible. And that's what you pay for. You don't pay for the right to run it on your computers, you pay for the guarantee that if something goes wrong, there's someone who cares about that, and whom you can blame if it doesn't work out as expected (don't underestimate the importance of the latter point!).

Ok, but if you write the code, anyone can step in and offer service for it, right? Right. But the author of the code has an invaluable advantage: No one would doubt that he knows the code better than anyone else. So if something goes wrong, whom would you trust more to be able to fix it, the original author or some random other person? Well, if it's not the author, you'd probably better stay away from the code at all.

Re:yes, GPL is a commercial licence

[turbidostato]

"Perhaps you can help explain this to me... I've never understood how one could easily sell GPL'd software."

You just put in a box and sell it. From where I currently stand I can view an old red and white box with a man on a funny hat printed on it. It's labelled "Red Hat 6.2" and do you know what's inside? GPL'd software packaged in a box and selled for a profit. I think I heared rumours recently that Red Hat is still in bussiness making money out of selling GPL'd software and some services around it, and I can say that some days ago I visited Dell's web page and peeked among their servers pages. There you could buy -online! hell, bussiness techniques are advancing day-in day-out mate, some servers -"poweredge" I think they call them, either with Windows (Vista or 2003, I really don't remember) for a price, or Red Hat -for a price too, so it must be true Red Hat is still in bussiness selling GPLed software.

Re:yes, GPL is a commercial licence

[turbidostato]

"A support system like Redhat"

I think there are some misconceptions around Red Hat. It's true that Red Hat makes money out of services, but it is true that they make money out of directly selling the software too (and I'd say they earn more on direct licenses that by means of services).

I just sent another message where I mocked up about Dell selling boxes with Red Hat preinstalled -and that's "direct selling" whatever the name they want to push through your throat: I want a machine and I want Red Hat on it, therefor I have to pay 600 if I want it serviced.

A *lot* of people buy such servers (from Dell, from IBM, from HP...) and *buy* the software because of the buying of the software itself, not for any other added benefit. Corporate environments need (or they think they need) feel worm by buying "something" that means "somehow" there is a contractual relationship between their assets and their assets' dealers. They need, say, a PowerEdge 2950 with a "certified" installation of RHEL 4AS and a "certified" installation of Oracle 9i and a "certified" installation of an EMC fiber channel storage device.

They won't give a damn about what any other services come in the bundle (I know about a ton of Red Hat installations on different companies, all of them with their one-year standard upgrade services payed along the hardware that they won't even try to register at Red Hat Network). If any, the value-added services only mean problems and nuisances to them when if something "funny" arises and they call the hardware support, first they hear is "did you upgrade to BIOS patch version XXX, and controller Z version YYY" (after all it is *suppoused* that those "services" you payed for are exactly the existance of such patches -you wouldn't need support if you were sure everything is going to run flawlessly) or they try to ask to Red Hat and first they hear is "did you upgraded your kernel to version XXX?" or "did you applied security fix ABC?". All they want is some "bundled product" they pay a lot of money to install and have a piece of paper that says "certified" so their asses are covered, and then they want to forget about it for the next three or four years. Then they decomission all the hardware and software alike an buy a new "bundle".

That's the bussines of "selling" software and it works exactly the same for proprietary or open software because, deeply on, it has nothing to do with the software itself and it's all about brand recognition and warm feelings.

Re:yes, GPL is a commercial licence

[turbidostato]

"Of course the developers will care about the bug, and eventually fix it, but if your business critically depends on it, an answer like "Next week I'll probably have time to look into that" will not be acceptable to you. You need the fix, and you need it as fast as possible. And that's what you pay for."

No. You pay for the safety net of being able to point to someone identifiable else that is not you when something goes nasty.

For the most part, specially regarding a project with ample distribution, you either don't sign support contracts and then you contact yourself with the specific guru of that software that will tell you "next week I'll probably have time to look into that", (but who said you can't pay said guru a big one-time check in order to change his response into "I'll do it tonight"?), or you have an expensive support contract, you call them, they'll tell you "I'll put our best engineers right now to the task; tomorrow you'll have a patch", and then they go to find who is the specific guru of that software; ask him, he answers "next week I'll probably have time to look into that" and then their phone support manages to distract you the whole week till they have the patch from the guru.

*But* the big difference with the payed support is that when your boss comes in rage asking why the database server is broken four days now, you can cover your ass by saying you are pressing your support company all you can so it's not your fault but those damned [here support company X], so you divert your boss rage from you to your support company.

Re:yes, GPL is a commercial licence

[supermank17]

You know, there really was no need to send off a snarky sarcastic reply. I wasn't attacking GPL at all, I was genuinely curious. And yes, I'm fully aware that the service model works fine for a lot of companies, Red Hat included. My question was more specifically targeted at the traditional retail space, where generally copies of the software are sold, and not service. For instance, I'm curious what strategy would be used to sell video games, because it seems likely that people would very rapidly start re-distributing the software for free, which would make it difficult to make back your initial investment (although I imagine you'd get some really spectacular derivative works, but I digress). Anyway, I've already gotten a couple of informative replies from others, and if you have any ideas on how you think companies would be profitable in that manner, I'd love to hear them.

Re:yes, GPL is a commercial licence

[turbidostato]

"My question was more specifically targeted at the traditional retail space, where generally copies of the software are sold, and not service"

Maybe my "snarky sarcastic reply" made you lost the part where I said I had at sight a BOXED RETAIL-SELLED COPY of a GPL software collection from a profitable company still in bussiness.

And you can find another post of mine on this thread talking about how Red Hat is still selling copies of Red Hat, although disguising its name as "services".

Re:yes, GPL is a commercial licence

[supermank17]

You said you saw it... yes. But again, they're really selling the service that comes with the box. And retail is most certainly not RedHat's bread and butter. I've seen lots of products on shelves from companies that are still in business and doing well. For instance, just the other day I saw a Zune sitting in Best Buy. That doesn't mean Microsoft is making any money off of it. And part of the reason I'm wondering about retail space is that while I used to be able to go into Best Buy and pick up a copy of RedHat, those boxes have slowly been disappearing off the shelves. Nowadays, I really can't find any linux distribution at a major software retailer. I'm guessing that's partly because online sales is cannibalizing some of it, but I'm also guessing a lot of that is because it wasn't doing well for whatever reason. Regardless, its still dancing around my question about software that is sold with no support attached in brick and mortar stores. I'm really just asking for what people think the solution is for things like video games, office software, etc. that are normally sold with no service. Is there a feeling that such software will continue to be licensed closed source, because it would be difficult to be profitable? Or that they'll switch to GPL, and have some way to make money (and if so, what do you think that would be)? As I've said before, I'm genuinely interested in what people think about it, not trying to troll or anything.

Re:yes, GPL is a commercial licence

[ClosedSource]

I can't say I understand this strange idea that it's immoral for developers to earn money by charging customers for proprietary software, but it's OK to bill them every month for "service" related to code they didn't even write. I guess "information wants to be free" but only if it's embedded in code and not when it's doled out month-by-month as a profitable enterprise.

Re:yes, GPL is a commercial licence

[Ginger Unicorn]

well you arent paying for *information* on a month by month basis, you're paying for support. the information is still free. if you dont want the service, just take the free information and do what you please with it. or perhaps the service isn't up to snuff or is too expensive. well with free software you have other options for support than just the company that makes the software.

and charging for proprietary software isnt "immoral". it just isnt a good as deal as free software.

as a real developer...

[r00t]

I really only have a few things to complain about:

* license proliferation and incompatibility (can't change Linux)

* that selfish anti-Linux ("GNU/Linux") rant in the preamble

* the stupid gname! "GNU" isn't gnice, it's moronic

* "consumer product" definition doesn't involve a fair chance to negotiate a contract

I wish we could move everything to GPLv3. Right now, every downloadable ISO image with GPLv2 binaries is in violation unless that site is also supplying the source. It's not enough to point people to the original source. This sucks; lots of projects are technically in violation. GPLv3 fixes this.

Re:as a real developer...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the GNU/Linux part is important because people google GNU and find out that Linux is not just "open source" but free software-- very important when today Microsoft has tarnished "open source" wiht "shared source"

Re:as a real developer...

[Salsaman]

* "consumer product" definition doesn't involve a fair chance to negotiate a contract

The GPL is a license, not a contract. If you release your code under the GPL, you are still free to negociate a contract with whomever.

Re:as a real developer...

[r00t]

Tough shit. I'm a Linux developer, not a GNU developer. I don't even support GNU Hurd. Quit trying to forcibly rename my OS to something tacky.

Re:as a real developer...

[doc_doofus]

Google trends, GNU vs Linux
I think people google Linux and hardly have a clue about GNU.
Personally I think I had been playing around in the best OS (IMHO) for 3 years before I heard of GNU.
I am not saying GNU isn't important, but it is still relatively obscure to the "people."

no, not TiVo

[r00t]

They do not use the GPL except when forced by the GPL.

They haven't written anything original, new, fresh, unencumbered by prior licenses... and then decided to use the GPL.

Why is this here?

[Orgasmatron]

This guy seems to have an opinion (or maybe an agenda) concerning licenses, but can't be bothered to know the difference between open source and free software. It is hardly something worthy of mention on Slashdot.

My mom doesn't know the difference either. Should I get her to write an essay and submit it?

V3?

[lasthope]

It's time to wait for V4.

That's just whurley fishing for attention

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't feed the troll.

GPL = non starter for me

[WPIDalamar]

I, like many other people, develop commercial software. I can't use anything with a GPL license in our projects. That means my employer devotes $0 towards GPL projects.

On the other hand, we do occasionally use MIT or BSD licensed projects. When working with those we put in a lot of QA time (something most open source projects are severely lacking in!) and we put in some engineering time as well to fix problems we find or extend the project to do things it currently doesn't. That means my employer devotes manpower (and hence $$$) towards these projects.

It's not good, it's not bad, but it's something you should consider when choosing a license, especially software libraries.

Re:GPL = non starter for me

[VGPowerlord]

You know, I'm not a big fan of the GPL, but even I feel the need to point this out. It's only devoting manpower towards those projects if you actually give your modifications back to the project.

Extending it so that you can sell the new version it is not contributing to a project, it's supplanting it.

Re:GPL = non starter for me

[Duncan3]

You saved me the trouble of typing that.

GPL is a closed community. Code cannot be allowed to leave because it's viral, so I cannot use any GPL code and neither can anyone else I have ever worked with. If you don't want others to use your code, why are you coding? You MUST dual license.

GPL only works for big stand-along software that's now a commodity and noone needs to reuse. But even then, BSD would be a much better option.

Re:GPL = non starter for me

[WPIDalamar]

We do contribute modifications back. Even if we only reported bugs, that could easily amount to hundreds of hours of QA time. Most open source projects don't have QA teams.

Most projects out there that I'd hope to use aren't big stand alone end-user applications. Most are either small utilities or software libraries.

In my experience, commercial projects that use open source software are rarely trying to replicate what's out there. After all, making something for cost out of something for free is a hard business case to make. Instead, they often want some functionality other projects have in their own. Often times the open source project has nothing to do with the target audience or primary functionality of the commercial software.

Re:GPL = non starter for me

[Anonymous Coward]

That means my employer devotes manpower (and hence $$$) towards these projects.

What would be wrong about giving these things back to the community? You're not inventing something new, rather you improve things you found waiting for you to use... Use the library, give the improvements back and all be happy

Re:GPL = non starter for me

[petrus4]

GPL is a closed community.

As I've often said before, there's another name for a "closed community." The name is "cult."

Re:Said elsewhere, but I haven't seen it like this

[Scarblac]

Exactly. The GPL grants you a lot of rights, provided you grant the same rights to anybody you distribute to. It's symmetrical.

The GPL isn't very restrictive (hey, it includes a patent license, BSD doesn't have that). But that automatically also means that anybody using that code has to be unrestrictive downstream as well. Symmetry.

Most of the opponents of the GPL want a license to be less restrictive towards them, but still they want to be more restrictive themselves. Well, those people never were in the GPL camp in the first place, were they? So their comments about GPLv3 vs v2 don't seem very relevant.

Sounds like weasel words.

[Caspian]

If this person thinks that the GPL 3 is "less permissive", then he's right-- if one is speaking from the perspective of a corporation eager to use GPLed code as a "free ride" and profit off of it, whilst locking it away on proprietary embedded devices and never letting users hack on them (Tivo, I'm looking at YOU!).

The GPL is "more permissive" from the perspective of free software coders, in that it gives them the freedom-- and thus the permission-- to release code without wondering if it will end up going to line the pockets of some rich embedded device maker.

There's a saying in some circles in America: "Don't be so 'open-minded' that your brain falls out". Likewise, the goal of the GPL3 is to "not be so 'permissive' that coders get screwed".

If someone tried to smack you across the face, or rape you, or otherwise assault you, and you said "NO" and defended yourself, I suppose the attacker/rapist could complain that you were "not being permissive enough". But that's your right. Likewise, it's the right of developers to not fear that corporations will use their code as a free meal ticket, whilst the original coders get nothing in return. If you don't care if people lock derivatives of your code away forever, release it under the BSD, or into the public domain. The GPL is about freedom to hack on things, freedom to change and update and distribute and reverse-engineer-- not freedom to find sneaky ways to proprietarize open code for financial gain.

And by the way...

[Caspian]

I propose that the very notion that developers are starting to want 'more permissive' (read: 'more BSD-like') licences is false. If it were true, then most new projects would be released under the BSD licence, or into the public domain. However, the GPL is just as popular as ever, and the only people whining about the GPL3 are, basically, companies.

The fact that corporations (particularly MS, but others as well) don't like the GPL3 is a very heartening sign. These companies like nothing better than to make obscene amounts of profit off of the hard work of others, whilst giving nothing at all back. They hate the GPL3 because it's designed to protect coders from having their work stolen, pimped out, and locked away.

Google and Tivo don't like GPLv3

[Anonymous Coward]

Because:

Tivo wants to use GPL code but prevent users from installing modifications to the GPL code on their boxes.

Google wants to use GPL code and add modifications that others are prevented from using or modifying by using software patents and lawsuits.

If you want to use free code and hide your changes, and further restrict users, BSD is the way to go.

Re:Google and Tivo don't like GPLv3

[Dan Berlin]

Actually, Greg, being Apache software foundation chairman, has a fondness of the Apache License.
Don't let facts get in the way of anything, though

Several sorts of developers...

[jalet]

> Developers care about the licenses on the software they use
> and incorporate into their projects, they like permissive licenses,
> and they will increasingly demand permissive licenses.'"

I was thinking for a moment that you talked about the developers who choose a GPL* license for very good reasons.

But no ! No ! No ! You are simply talking about developers (or companies) who want to benefit from the work made by other developers, and don't want to contribute anything back.

Let me say you something, there is another sort of developers : the ones who care about the Free Software licenses on the software they WROTE, and who expect these licensing terms to be respected by other people. And this may surprise you, but I'm sure developers of proprietary software want their own licensing terms to be respected as well when other people want to use their work...

I've always like mit liscense more than any gpl...

[Anonymous Coward]

mainly because it doesn't require me to put code back out there... sometimes it can be more of a hassle to figure out what alterations I did then to just leave things closed source. One area where this is especially true is in game engine design. You have a lot of really complex speghetti code going on sometimes... stuff that is hard to sometimes comprehend yourself much less re-release and explain to the public... This is why Torque, 3impact, or some others like that as a game engine is way better than Ogre or Quake, or other gpl junk that isn't as refined or as well developed.

Trasnslation

[Bruce Perens]

Here's the story in translation: We want gifts from you developers, and we don't want to share! GPL3 alienates us because we want free gifts and we don't want to share! GPL3 bad, BSD good, we want you to use BSD so we don't have to share! If Free Software were a forest, we'd want to clear-cut it, because that leads to PROFIT FOR US and screw everyone else! Who the hell cares if there's nothing left of the forest when we are done with it! So, give us stuff, now!

Sorry for the flaming, but I hope you can see it's easy to lose patience with this sort of thing. And I lose patience with Slashdot for running this story over and over again.

Bruce

Re:Trasnslation

[fitten]

Software without users is worthless. Develop all the software you want but if users refuse to use it because of the licensing, all you've done is waste your time.

Re:Trasnslation

[tkinnun0]

If Free Software were a forest, it would be a magical forest where you could cut as many trees and as many times as you wanted and so could everyone else.

Re:Trasnslation

[sumdumass]

We want gifts from you developers, and we don't want to share! GPL3 alienates us because we want free gifts and we don't want to share!

The GPLv3 doesn't alienate people any more then the GPLv2 does in this matter. If you truly believe this is the argument against the GPLv3 then you need to listen a little better about it. Your arogence will get us all killed to put it politely.

Sorry for the flaming, but I hope you can see it's easy to lose patience with this sort of thing. And I lose patience with Slashdot for running this story over and over again.

Lose patients with what? Taking something completely out of context or refusing to listen to their grips and concerns because of that act?

Re:Trasnslation

[antiMStroll]

The entire article hinges on a twisted notion of freedom as the 'freedom' to close code designed to be open. It strikes at the core tenants of the GPL which I have always understood to be social, to maximize openess and sharing. Though I'm not a developer and refer to those more in the know, the entire notion of that the GPL is popular not because it permits leveraging massive prior art but in the same sense the Spice Girls were makes absolutely no sense to me. whurley's article reeks of base self-interest and is difficult to accept as disinterested examination of a license issue.

Re:Trasnslation

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said, Bruce!

You are right, we see this with Apple and their turning BSD into OSX. They shared for a while then they began walking away from sharing. We see it with M$ who took BSD components and locked them up in proprietary product.

Many buisnesses want to use the open source code because it doesn't cost them anything and with little effort they have a product.

This should be a warning for the community to say THANK YOU!!! at the top of our lungs to the companies that give their improvements and modifications back to the community so everyone can use it.

Re:Trasnslation

[maxwell demon]

As long as you are an end user (i.e. you neither modify nor redistribute the code), you are not affected by either license. You can use the code on your computer any way you like, no matter if it's GPLv2ed, GPLv3ed or BSDed. Add to that that most private end users don't care a shit anyway about licensing, and I don't see your lack of adoption.

Those affected by the GPLv2 vs. GPLv3 are those who develop software derived from other GPLed software, those who redistribute GPLed software (e.g. by selling CD-ROMs or by selling hardware with GPLed software installed), and those who want to GPL their software, but use certain non-GPLed libraries (because the GPLv3 is compatible to more of them).

Re:Trasnslation

[Quixadhal]

If software is released under a license which allows a developer to use it and integrate it into their project while maintaining their OWN license, it's a good thing. Having it cost money or not cost money is not the issue.

GPL v3 appears to disallow the possibility of the developer keeping their own changes to the code private and closed source. While this may not pose any problem in a world where developers are paid by the state the way ancient philosophers were given food and shelter so they could think all day long, it's not something most businesses want to touch.

Let me say that again. It's not something most businesses want to touch. Who's your market? Do you want Linux to be adopted into the business community, or do you want it to remain the red headed stepchild hobby OS that Microsoft wants you to call it? It's already difficult to justify using it when there's ZERO support out there and thus any failure falls back to the developer/sysadmin in the local shop to fix. Now you're saying we also have to give away the code WE developed?

There's not a single employer I've ever worked for that would accept those terms. Not one. Not being able to keep modifications private (and thus harder to replicate) means all future GPL software will be black boxes which cannot be modified in the business world. How is that any better than closed source?

In some ways, it's worse than closed source. Typically, if you offer enough money, a closed source package's source code will become available (with an NDA), and then you can modify it to your heart's content. Does GPL v3 offer such an option? I didn't think so.

So, if the community is happy with GPL'd software staying in the hobby arena, then we're all good to go. If you'd like to see it used more widely in the business world, then stop trying to change how people do business and start figuring out how to coexist.

Re:Trasnslation

[Chandon Seldon]

GPL v3 appears to disallow the possibility of the developer keeping their own changes to the code private and closed source.

Bullshit. It's absolutely no different from GPLv2 on this issue. If you don't distribute binaries, you don't have to distribute sources - same as before.

Re:Trasnslation

[rajafarian]

Dude, I'm getting tired of these corporate astro-turf bitches: "Will GPL v3 ruin Linux?"

Boy, they're scared aren't they?

Re:Trasnslation

[Bruce Perens]

I wrote a GPL software project for Merrill Lynch last year. Yes, the Wall Street bank. I make a living helping companies understand Free Software. There are very many large companies that accept, and now understand, the GPL and will accept GPL3 as well.

If software is released under a license which allows a developer to use it and integrate it into their project while maintaining their OWN license, it's a good thing.

Don't you realize that this is a fast path to bankruptcy for the developer? The developer needs GPL3 so that he can dual-license his product and make money from the folks that don't want to share their modifications. It is only fair that people who don't want to share should pay. The person you are calling "the developer" isn't the developer at all, he's just a free-rider. Make him pay!

Thanks

Bruce

Re:Trasnslation

[Plekto]

Let me say that again. It's not something most businesses want to touch. Who's your market? Do you want Linux to be adopted into the business community, or do you want it to remain the red headed stepchild hobby OS that Microsoft wants you to call it? It's already difficult to justify using it when there's ZERO support out there and thus any failure falls back to the developer/sysadmin in the local shop to fix. Now you're saying we also have to give away the code WE developed? But you see, you didn't develop it. You copied someone else's TV. Then you changed the color and added some new buttons, then called it a "Somy". If this was patent law, you'd get your ass sued off for not paying royalties and infringement. The plain and simple truth is that when you use GPL software, you are copying other people's work. Now, that's explicitly allowed as long as you return the favor. This always reminds me of listening to people trying to justify copying music they didn't pay for. It's illegal and immoral no matter how you dice it. You want a free ride and, well, you're not doing the majority of the real work yourself, or else you'd DO the work yourself and own it outright.

Re:Trasnslation

[mpe]

GPL v3 appears to disallow the possibility of the developer keeping their own changes to the code private and closed source.

AFAIK V3 dosn't require you to publish your changes any more than V2. All you'd have to do is not distribute the modified version to any third parties.

While this may not pose any problem in a world where developers are paid by the state the way ancient philosophers were given food and shelter so they could think all day long, it's not something most businesses want to touch.

That analogy dosn't really hold. Since for most businesses software is a tool. If anything it's the proprietary software idea which makes little sense.

Re:Trasnslation

[Cyno]

Oh, that's sarcasm.. Coming from the almighty Bruce of Open Source, I almost thought you were saying the GPL somehow supresses sharing. But you're so right. The media is playing rhetorical games that could damage the whole industry. It started back with SCO, but now its Microsoft that carries the tune. This has to stop, its not just Free Software under threat, its any open source software under any license that may or may not violate patents from any litigious monopoly.

Like Jonathan Schwartz was saying, the FOSS genie is out of the bottle. Microsoft is attempting to push it back but its way too late. However, Microsoft just released a genie of their own. Its not quite as cuddly and lovable as the FOSS genie, no, this patent genie is pure evil designed to damage and stifle competition instead of encourage innovation.

So to sum up.
FOSS genie: encourages innovation with ethically licensed IP
MS genie: kills innovation dead with patents

Please choose carefully.

Re:Trasnslation

[Cyno]

Should we also thank them for using our Intellectual Property in their products? I say they should be thanking this community for helping them cut costs. The easiest and most meaningful way to do this is by contributing code upstream. It could also save some maintenance costs, so it isn't exactly like we're looking a gift horse in the mouth. Its just a regular old commercial race horse who needs to win the next race or they get put to sleep.

Re:Trasnslation

[martin-boundary]

That's silly. Developers *are* the users that matter. Sometimes, there are other users on top of that. So what? Any user who doesn't like it shouldn't let the door hit his ass on his way out.

Re:Trasnslation

[An Onerous Coward]

Yeah, but if the forest is under the BSD license, Microsoft will come in, make a copy of the forest, tweak the genes of the pine trees so that the lumber from their forest is incompatible with the lumber from the old forest, and sign an exclusive deal with Home Depot. Then the subcontractors of the world will be banging on your door, asking you why the hell your lumber isn't compatible with Microsoft lumber, and suddenly giving it away for free just isn't enough, and then the hippies come in and chain themselves to your trees and you just can't get away from the strains of "Puff the Magic Dragon."

God, it's annoying when people try to take an analogy they disagree with and extend it until it says what they want it to say. The analogy is supposed to convey an idea. Argue the idea, not the analogy. Observe:

>>> If Free Software were a forest, we'd want to clear-cut it, because that leads to PROFIT FOR US and screw everyone else!

>> Software is infinitely reproducible, so there is no way to "clear cut"; everyone can take as much as they like.

> But if someone takes a code base, privatizes it, and makes it incompatible with the original, they undermine the welfare of their users and the success of the original developers for their own gain. The point of "clear cutting" wasn't to highlight the disappearance of a finite resource, but to point out that their behavior promotes their own self interest, while harming the community.

Generally, when you try to pull the ol' extend-and-reverse on an analogy, clarity of thought is the first casualty. Just say no.

Re:Said elsewhere, but I haven't seen it like this

[Rycross]

You're pretty much on the mark. Whether or not you feel GPLv3 is more or less permissive depends on your views on software, OSS, FOSS, the rights of users, and the rights of developers. If you believe that the GPLv3 is less permissive than the GPLv2, then likely your views do not align with the FSF.

Look, lets be honest. The GPL was made to promote the views of the FSF on software. Don't buy into the FSF's agenda? Don't use a license that was made to advance their agenda. If you don't agree with FSF's views, then be very cautious about using the GPLed license or GPLed code. Otherwise, just accept that you have to make some concessions to get a lot of high-quality free and Free code.

There's lots and lots of software out there with many different licenses. Insisting that others bend their views (and licenses) so that its easier for you to get a free ride makes you look like a fool.

Somehow I don't think many FOSS developers will have a problem with GPLv3. Most of the people using GPL for serious projects understand what it means, and support FOSS ideologically on some level.

MOD PARENT UP

[TheRaven64]

It's amazing the number of people who post on Slashdot with blatant misunderstandings of the GPL (you can't sell it, you have to give changes back to the community, etc). I can't help wondering where they got their information from, since it wasn't the GPL itself.

My objection to the GPL is the Theo De Raadt test: If you need to be a lawyer to fully understand the license, it's not friendly to developers. That's why I release my code under the 3-clause BSDL; it's short, simple, and to the point. Any developer can understand it, and can comply with it, without needing a legal opinion.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Rogerborg]

And I've seen it the other way: "Oh, it's Free, I can do whatever I want with it." Which makes them Open Source developers rather than Free developers, but my point remains: they don't know that.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

My objection to the GPL is the Theo De Raadt test: If you need to be a lawyer to fully understand the license, it's not friendly to developers. That's why I release my code under the 3-clause BSDL; it's short, simple, and to the point. Any developer can understand it, and can comply with it, without needing a legal opinion.

The GPL is not hard to understand. Someone who cannot understand it should be a developer in the first place (Ok, they'll be stuck doing MS Access "development" anyway).

However, NO license, NOT EVEN the 3-clause BSDL can be understood without reading it. Not even by reading slashdot comments.

This is not about needing a lawyer to understand the license, it's about being too lazy to read it before commenting.

Just one of many reasons why MSFT likes GPL 3.0

[enderle]

Often we accuse large vendors of losing track of their customers. MSFT has been historically blessed by competitors who, by focusing on MSFT lost track of who really pays the bills. Two earlier Slashdot posts: http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/02/ 2219230 http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/04/002021 3 got me thinking about just how much Microsoft will benefit from GPL 3.0 and I posted the following as a result: Why Microsoft Loves GPL 3.0 http://www.itbusinessedge.com/blogs/rob/?p=119&pag e=2

Re:Just one of many reasons why MSFT likes GPL 3.0

[Todd Knarr]

I think you miss one thing in your blog post: GPLv3 won't affect business users at all. What it will affect is one particular class of commercial software developers: those who want to use GPL'd code as the basis for their product. That group of developers needs to be able to release the results under proprietary licenses that forbid their customers from redistributing those products. The GPL prohibits that, and GPLv3 closes several loopholes that could allow working around the GPL'd conditions. That's obviously bad for those developers, but not unnecessarily bad for the original authors of the code.

Now, one thing I'm also missing is where those commercial developers are customers of the code's original authors. Those developers aren't paying the original authors anything for the use of the code, and usually a customer is paying something in some form for the product they're getting. If you don't want to pay anything, why should I consider you my customer? The GPL requests payment in kind (code), and those developers you speak of don't want to pay back with their code. They don't want to pay in money, else the whole question would be moot as they'd go to the original authors and negotiate a non-GPL license for the code in return for royalty payments or sometime and wouldn't have to worry about the GPL anymore. They sound more like freeloaders than customers, actually.

Re:Just one of many reasons why MSFT likes GPL 3.0

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah well - if I'd had any doubt about GPL v3, it would be gone now: Rob Enderle has spoken, and it is almost like the Goofus McDuff test (MASH goes to Maine): listening carefully to what Enderle recommends and then doing the opposite will usually lead to very good results.

Re:Just one of many reasons why MSFT likes GPL 3.0

[Verte]

Because it's a great excuse to spread some FUD?

GPL v3 is really no different to GPL v2, and I think developers realise this, both developers coding for money, and those coding for fun. It's not likely to change any business practices that aren't already an abuse of the GPL, and it's not likely to change the mind of developers who don't want to get shafted by some bottom dwelling corporate rip-off artists. So where, then, is your point?

Re:Just one of many reasons why MSFT likes GPL 3.0

[enderle]

I wonder. For instance if a vendor who is doing what Tivo does now can no longer legally do it and that vender serves me, am I not impacted? This could include numerical control equipment (and embedded Linux in general); inventory traffic, logistic, and management systems; healthcare monitoring systems; and a wide class of devices used by employees ever day possibly even including their phones.

Also I wonder if "distribution" would also encompass companies that provided products under the GPL to contractors or outsourcers? Most large companies have contract workers, who are not under tax law considered employees, and when you outsource there is clearly an arm's length relationship with the company you outsource to.

Now you could fall back on enforcement, as I doubt this kind of a breach would be high on the list for punitive action but what if the firm was doing something else that FOSS didn't like or a competitor wanted to cripple the company, could this then become an attack vector?

Maybe you've seen this discussed but I haven't yet. Also, and this suddenly strikes me, what is the cost of the GPL 3.0 to OSS in general and if it applies to Linux, Linux in particular? Were OSS a company the CEO, if capable (and that isn't always certain) would ask for a cost/benefit analysis. I haven't seen that either. But it would appear that the GPL 3.0 will decrease the market for covered products because it is more restrictive. TiVo alone could actually be the biggest, in terms of numbers, Linux distribution. IBM has clearly received special treatment in the GPL 3.0 language protecting them from the new provisions suggesting they, at least, may have done this.

If the GPL 3.0 reduced the potential market for covered products by 90% would it still receive this support? 10%? It's likely something in that range. Might be interesting to know what that is, but then if I'm trying to promote this there is every reason I wouldn't want anyone to know that number.

All the more reason to find out what it is... Good idea for a column, thanks!

Re:Just one of many reasons why MSFT likes GPL 3.0

[enderle]

What appears strange is I don't actually recall "recommending" anything. I was only commenting on why I think Microsoft is starting to like the GPL 3.0. The fact that it fractures the base, as demonstrated by this discussion, would be reason enough. The only reason I might want to stop the thing is I'm kind of hooked on my TiVo and would rather not have it become unreliable due to a large, unplanned, code change or worse. But I honestly didn't think about that in writing my piece.

Better advice might be to actually read the thing and reach your own conclusions. Doing what someone recommends, or the opposite, blindly would be stupid in every case. No wonder you sign yourself Anonymous Coward, I wouldn't want to be held accountable for such a foolish statement either.

Re:Just one of many reasons why MSFT likes GPL 3.0

[enderle]

Actually any change like this, even in the proprietary world, is an opportunity to spread FUD. IT, and buyers in general don't like change and were we talking about a product such a change would come with a cost in customers. But, the cost for this does appear high, recall that even IBM who is arguably the largest funding source for Linux has spoken out against this version of the GPL.

The way to counter FUD is with truth, but another is to cover the problems up. And a common ploy for people in business or politics is to try to do exactly that often, in these discussions, we have both unwarranted attacks and cover-ups. For instance how often do we discuss IBM's position http://www.crn.com/software/198701024 on the GPL 3.0 draft and the special dispensation they got?

But my point is that anything that weakens OSS works to Microsoft's benefit, this discussion topic alone would seem to support the conclusion that Microsoft should like this. That's the point.

Of course not

[aralin]

The GPLv3 does not turn developers into aliens, the USCIS does that :)

News at 11

[Freed]

Leading up to the release of the GPL3 license, an innovative theory about how developers want licenses that are less like the GPL3 and more like a competing license, the Apache License, is being pimped by Greg Stein, chairman of the Apache Software Foundation. In other news, sunrise scheduled for tomorrow.

New day, same old stuff

[Whuffo]

The original article reads just like a Microsoft public relations release. So who are these people, anyway? A few minutes spent with Google reveals that BMC is a pretty large software company - with multiple facilities. Geez, their Houston offices cover 1.5 million square feet.

So what possible interest could this large multi-national software company have in GPL software? "Boo hoo, we can't steal code from the internet."

Their assertion that the GPL is unfavorable to developers is questionable at best. Unfair to their developers because they have to write the code instead of stealing it? Or is it unfair to other developers because - I don't know, some other reason that you have to drink the MS kool aid to understand.

Really, now - a company that makes monitoring and management software for several Windows versions - and Linux - issues a release in which they speak of "developers!" and spread FUD about the GPL. Coincidence?

Bad call on BSD

[Anonymous Coward]

because the license for BSD requires that you keep the names of the developers in the source.

Bummer, you've already broken copyright and you haven't even moved a line of code!

Too narrow a Freedom?

[Sesostris III]

I get the impression that GPL v3 was drafted in response to things like Tivo-isation. But that is the problem with Freedom.

"Free as in Free Speech, not Free Beer", as the mantra goes. Unfortunately, if there is Free Speech, then there will be someone saying something you don't like.

My view is that in any arena of Freedom, there will be those who abuse that freedom, but, in order to preserve that freedom, this abuse will need to be tolerated. This goes for Free Speech, and (may I suggest) also for "Free" software licenses.

Tivo-isation, patent agreements, and the like, might be distasteful, but may need to be tolerated for the sake of a greater "Freedom". Trying to legislate against such things paradoxically may produce less freedom than there was before.

Sesostris III

Where "developers" = "proprietary leaches"

[pjrc]

I have a couple projects I'm working on right now, waiting for the final GPLv3 before I made the code available.

As a developer, though admittedly a small-time developer (under 100k lines of source published under GPLv2 over the last several years), I see the GPLv3 much like a version upgrade of a library or operating system. The new one may have a few minor quirks, but they're well worth it for bugs fixed in the new version. As a developer who releases under the GPL, I especially see the "tivo" issue as something like a security hole, and I'm glad it's getting fixed!

The thought process behind all this wishful thinking seems to be that "developers" (proprietary leeches who want to use the code but not share their own additions) are somehow customers, and what they want matters. That would be true if they were paying customers. But the truth is, every time I publish any GPL code, I never expect to make a dime (other than perhaps people find me and want consulting on their projects). So all these "developers" who want more permissive, BSD-style terms don't factor into my decision making process. I want to share the code, and since I don't expect to make any money, it's only fair that anyone who uses it must share theirs too.

Re:Where "developers" = "proprietary leaches"

[An Onerous Coward]

Why would you have to wait for release? It might be risky to say "GPL2 until v3 is released," if you think someone could pull something nasty before v3 is released, and try to claim the terms of v2 until the end of time. But nothing is stopping you from putting a disclaimer in your code saying, "This software may only be distributed under the terms of GPLv3, which is expected to be released on xx/xx/xxxx. Prior to the release of GPLv3, you do not have permission to redistribute this software."

no.

[Anonymous Coward]

is this a poll.

GPLv3 may scare companies that wish to restrict use of changes to the software by using TPM or software patents.

If you like those kind of restrictions, there is BSD.

Developers do not generally like those restrictions.
So the answer is no.

Re:no.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dom Portwood: Hi, Peter. What's happening? We need to talk about your TPM reports.
Peter Gibbons: Yeah. The coversheet. I know, I know. Uh, Bill talked to me about it.
Dom Portwood: Yeah. Did you get that memo?
Peter Gibbons: Yeah. I got the memo. And I understand the policy. And the problem is just that I forgot the one time. And I've already taken care of it so it's not even really a problem anymore.
Dom Portwood: Ah! Yeah. It's just we're putting new coversheets on all the TPM reports before they go out now. So if you could go ahead and try to remember to do that from now on, that'd be great. All right!

You need to examine developer motivations

[Old time hacker]

Many years ago, I wrote some open source software that we ended up putting under a BSD-like license. This led to the very wide adoption of this software in all sorts of devices -- mobile phones, PCs, Tivos and possibly even spacecraft.

If this had been under the GPL, it would *not* have been deployed as widely. [Given that this software was developed in 1991, the GPL was not really a serious contender at the time]. I don't get any income under either the GPL or the BSD-like license, so that is a wash. What I do get, from wider deployment, is a bigger ego boost. This is important to me.

Re:You need to examine developer motivations

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh my what BS.. ..now you're writing code for the space shuttle.. gimme a break..

Why I Rolled My Own

[ajs318]

I wrote my own licence for my own projects, which is reproduced below.

The GPL would have been nice, but it's a bit too politically-intensive. And the problem with BSD-style licences is that (unless you remove the second clause, to permit distribution only in Source Code form; which is actually fine for stuff written in interpreted languages) it doesn't guarantee to preserve Freedoms One and Three (I know I'm borrowing these terms from GNU; I happen to agree with their manifesto, I'm just not convinced that a notice of permission for acts above and beyond the Fair Dealing provisions of copyright law needs to reproduce a political manifesto) for posterity. I know that's just me being lazy -- I could always get off my backside and write my own Free competitor if some upstart tried to make a non-Free fork -- but I figured that said non-Free competitor would be just as guilty of "just being lazy" by using my hard work (which I intended to be for the benefit of all of humankind) for their non-Free project rather than writing their own from scratch.

I did at one stage have a section restricting translation of the program to other languages (the English text permitting translation was to be replaced with a section forbidding further translations when the program was translated; the intention being to preserve the integrity of the program and its documentation by guarding against multiple translations) but dropped this requirement as being unworkable and possibly non-DFSG.


COPYRIGHT
0. This program is copyright $DATE $AUTHOR. You are authorised to copy and distribute this program, and create Derivative Works based upon this program (in respect of which you will hold copyright on the portions you have modified), strictly in accordance with the terms of this licence and on the understanding that the same terms will be imposed upon the recipients. This licence originates from the copyright holders, not necessarily the person from whom you have obtained the program. Nothing in this licence is intended to be construed as prejudicing your Statutory Rights, which may include a limited right to make copies ("fair dealing" or "fair use") for certain purposes.

TERMS OF DISTRIBUTION
1. Any distribution in Source Code form (the preferred form for making modifications to the program) must include this licence and warranty disclaimer (or at your option, a warranty underwritten by you).

2. Any distribution in binary executable form must include the complete Source Code, the necessary instructions to render the Source Code into executable form ("Build Instructions"), and this licence and warranty disclaimer (or at your option, a warranty underwritten by you). If the program is made available for electronic download, the executable and Source Code + Build Instructions need not be included in the same archive file as long as both are available for download from the same place.

3. Any distribution pre-loaded into an appliance must include the complete Source Code and Build Instructions, the necessary instructions to replace the version of the program within the appliance with a modified version ("Modification Instructions"), any applicable warnings regarding cessation of warranty protection and/or regulatory approval as a consequence of modification, and this licence and warranty disclaimer (or at your option, a warranty underwritten by you).

DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY
4. We warrant that this program, when run unmodified on a computer which is operating properly, will do what the source code says it will do. NO OTHER WARRANTY IS MADE IN RESPECT OF THE PROGRAM, NOT EVEN OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. If you are in any doubt about the suitability of this program for a particular application, you are advised to consult with a programmer who is familiar with the language in which this program is written and whom you trust before proceeding.


As far as I can see, it guarantees to preserve Free

Re:Why I Rolled My Own

[maxwell demon]

We warrant that this program, when run unmodified on a computer which is operating properly, will do what the source code says it will do.

You'll probably want to restrict this warranty a bit further. After all, can you say for sure that your compiler doesn't have a bug, which causes the executable to misbehave in certain uncommon situations, despite the source being correct?

The usual warranty I see on software products is that the disk works at least for some (usually quite short) time. So maybe you should simply provide the warranty that the archives can be unpacked, provided it is attempted on a working computer with appropriate, working unpacking software, and there's still enough disk space free on the destination drive.

If someone complains because he got a corrupted archive, then you simply can mail them an intact replacement archive (or point them to an URL where they can download one).

Re:Why I Rolled My Own

[noidentity]

The main problem with rolling your own if you aren't a lawyer is that you don't really know what it means. As a non-lawyer, I prefer to choose a licnese that has been written with the help of a lawyer.

Re:Said elsewhere, but I haven't seen it like this

[Kjella]

GPLv3 really just seems to be an attempt to make things explicit which were implied in GPLv2. Personally, I think that's a step in the wrong direction, because the moment you enumerate which things you can or can't do, as opposed to just blanket saying: "you can't, in any way, distribute this software if you, in any way, prevent others from distributing this software", people will say "oh, you said "patent", not "Billy's Intellectual Voucher Certificate", so my way of restricting use /is/ allowed!"

Except blanket statements don't work in court. Take for example the warranty and liability section. It could basicly say "No warranty and full disclaimer of liability". Instead it needs to list a full range of general, special, incidental and consequential damages and so on. Things that are enumerated like the Bill of Rights are paid attention to. Sure you might say that what's not enumerated isn't paid attention to, but IMO they wouldn't be paid any attention to anyway. Take your "fair use", it's been dying a silent death because it's so vague and there's no way to say "My explicitly enumbered right to do X is being violated".

Besides, some of the loopholes are fairly creative. Tivoization is almost like being able to move freely, but it doesn't matter because you're in a cell with no exit. DRM is almost like being able to use content freely, but it doesn't matter because the content is locked in a safe and only lets you view inside. Patent covenants are like saying you're free to cross the bridge, but unless you bribe the patent troll he'll get you so it doesn't matter. All of those need to get pointed out and worked into the GPLv3, because they're not covered at all in GPLv2. And you won't get them covered by being more general.

Developers, yes. THE developer, no.

[Anonymous Coward]

So why do you need to be able to override the wishes of the developer of the code?

I'm not a developer TFA is talking about

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't feel comfortable releasing under GPL v2 because of the potential for abuse; abuses that the GPL v3 will fix. Thus, I eagerly await the final release of the GPL v3. It will encourage me to create MORE software, not less. Maybe TFA is right. Maybe there exists somewhere a horde of developers who absolutely hate GPL v3 and will never use it. I don't begrudge them their choice; hopefully they won't begrudge me for mine.

So what if

[Anonymous Coward]

when I give you the code on a device, on volatile memory (disk/flash/...) but tell you you cannot modify the program in any way.

What's to stop me from giving you the instructions and the source code on write-only media (e.g. encrypted).

How about if I take your program and patent something it does?

What if I give it to someone else and add "but you can ignore the license"?

Can I sell it?

What about if I improve it but "lease" the software to you, rather than sell a copy (distribute means I give a copy away, if I lease, I still own it, so no ownership changes).

Your license is ony as good as the person reading it. If I were a nasty person and a solicitor, I'm sure I could find a lot more holes in it.

Also, what the fuck is up with slashdot, eh? Piece of pustulent crap (and they wonder why I don't subscribe: how the fuck am I supposed to think that this will be anything other than a waste of my frigging time, et? So what do I get:

Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

It's been 17 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment

Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator."

What a load of complete shiteholes these people are.

Re:So what if

[ajs318]

when I give you the code on a device, on volatile memory (disk/flash/...) but tell you you cannot modify the program in any way.

The copyright holder already told me in section 0 that I could modify the program. What you say is irrelevant, because the licence does not originate from you: it originates from the copyright holder. If you distribute the program other than in accordance with the terms of the licence (which includes changing the terms), then you are infringing copyright.

What's to stop me from giving you the instructions and the source code on write-only media (e.g. encrypted).

Then you would have to prove in a court of law, on pain of copyright violation (because the only thing allowing you to give me a copy of the program is the licence), that you had given them to me.

How about if I take your program and patent something it does?

You can't. Even if the program itself did not constitute prior art, mere abstract mathematical processes are beyond the scope of patentability.

What if I give it to someone else and add "but you can ignore the license"?

Section 0 makes it clear that the recipient of the program receives the licence from the copyright holder, not the person who supplied them with the program. Unless you are the copyright holder yourself, you would be exceeding your authority by making such a statement; and, if the recipient goes on to infringe copyright by distributing the program other than in accordance with the licence, you could be guilty of aiding and abetting copyright infringement or conspiracy to commit copyright infringement.

Can I sell it?

Of course. Other people can still sell it cheaper or give it away for free, though, so don't count on gouging people that way. If you're selling the program for £1000 a time, then 1000 people could club together, pay £1 each, buy one copy, make another 999 copies for themselves and give away still more copies. If you had annoyed them sufficiently, they might even stand in the street outside your shop and give away copies of the program to your prospective customers.

What about if I improve it but "lease" the software to you, rather than sell a copy (distribute means I give a copy away, if I lease, I still own it, so no ownership changes).

That sounds like it might not be Fair Dealing / Fair Use, and it definitely isn't permitted by the licence. In other words, you're most probably guilty of infringing copyright.

News? Proprietary vendor and Apache don't like GPL

[dwheeler]

"Newsflash"! A vendor of proprietary software (BMC) and the Apache foundation (who sponsor a BSD-style license, instead of the GPL) don't plan to use the GPL version 3. Um, sure. And the sun rises in the east, too.

This really doesn't have much to do with anything, because both groups wouldn't use any revision of the GPL. Their "survey" seems to be simply discussions with other people just like themselves; they simply found that people who wouldn't use GPLv2 wouldn't use GPLv3 either. Big deal. The question is, will many developers who currently use or strongly consider the GPLv2 be willing to use GPLv3? If so, it's a success. If no one uses it, it isn't. Not everyone has to like it.

Since the FSF is the copyright holder of a lot of important projects, they can switch to GPLv3. All by itself that will mean that the GPLv3 will be used in many projects, and so the GPLv3 will be lots more successful than the vast majority of licenses. So this "death" is silly; it's a foregone conclusion that GPLv3 will be more successful than most licenses. In practice, I expect most GPLv2 projects to move to GPLv3; the internationalization and Apache 2.0 license compatibility are great, and the threats from patent deals and Tivoization mean that many who liked GPLv2 will like GPLv3 even more.

The GPL is the world's most popular OSS/FS license, by far, and it's critically important to use a GPL-compatible license (even if you don't use the GPL yourself). The GPL is popular for a reason. Note, for example, that when the Wine project switched from a BSD-style license to the LGPL, development began to pick up at a greater pace (more patches began to appear, the leader Alexandre made more CVS commits, and more applications were reported to work). A lot of code producers prefer copylefting licenses like the GPL (not all, but many do).

The GPL is not a license for all possible circumstances. Sure. But no license is.

Windows license alienates users...

[gillbates]

And has for quite some time. Yet it continues to proliferate.

The problem is that true software freedom is hard to come by when software itself is considered property. Think about how many areas of real estate aren't owned by anyone. Even public land is considered owned by the government.

So you have the GPL, a license which uses our legal system of copyright to ensure that certain freedoms and obligations are extended to the users of software. Which is most unlike proprietary software, whose licenses use the legal system of copyright to deny freedoms to the user.

It doesn't matter whether it alienates developers or not. Quite frankly, I see no problem with proprietary licenses because they keep freeloaders from taking away my bread and butter. But in a similar vein, there are certain freedoms, certain basic functionality, which everyone who uses a computer should enjoy. For that, we license software under the GPL, because it improves society as a whole. Both kinds of licenses achieve a good end; proprietary licenses allow developers to make a living writing code, and GPL licenses allow developers to give their talents back to the community. There is a need for both, and whining about one being better than the other isn't constructive at all. Instead, we should be considering which licenses are most appropriate for a given situation.

In typical usage, the GPL favors the freedoms of the users over the need of the developer to make a living. Proprietary licenses place the needs of the developer above those of the user. What we really need is a license which denies niether the user's freedoms, nor the developer's reasonable compensation for their efforts. I suppose in a perfect world, people unable to pay for software would still get to use it, because, by gentlemen's honor, those who could afford it would pay for it. But, we unfortunately don't live in a perfect world, so we have to make software subject to licensing - whether GPL or otherwise.

Something's Wrong with Slashdot

[Plekto]

I've noticed that since they have implemented the changes in how articles are submitted, the signal to noise ratio has become markedly worse.

We need a real editor to double-check for FUD, Holy War/OS Spam, and the like - and remove it. This isn't newsworthy - it's just more flak from someone who won't even bother to name himself(and his site as pointed out is basically a huge wad of FUD and blathering.

As for the GPLV3? tough - suck it up. GPL by its nature was never intended to be worked around or filled with loopholes. The spirit of it is clear - no profit, no stealing, no typical corporate BS with the code. the current one locks it down much more tightly and I for one have no problem at all with it. Make your money off of your own code if you are so bright. Stop copying everyone else's work and claiming it as your own. Or better yet, learn to make your money through value-added techniques and services instead.

P.S. A good example of this is a company like Linspire. You pay for your Linux distro - but you also get a lot of back-end support with real people to call, everything easy to find if you are a newbie. You pay $50 for the ease of use and added value(s). Or get Freespire and do it yourself.

Re:Something's Wrong with Slashdot

[KingKaneOfNod]

The spirit of it is clear - no profit, no stealing, no typical corporate BS with the code

That's not true; the GPL isn't about any of these things, it's about ensuring the freedom of users to modify the code, which means when you distribute a GPL licensed program, you must also distribute the source code. This doesn't mean that you can't charge money for it, it doesn't mean "no stealing" (it's perfectly legal to sell someone else's GPL code - take the Linux kernel for example), it just means "no binaries without making the source available". That way when you don't like something about a program, you have the freedom to fix it yourself.

Re:Something's Wrong with Slashdot

[Grishnakh]

I think maybe he meant "no unfair profiting from other peoples' work" or something like that. By "no stealing", I think he meant the GPL prevents companies from taking GPLed code, modifying it, then distributing that without the source code for the changes (like Microsoft did with their Kerberos extensions). The sentiment seems to be that GPL authors don't mind if people "share and share alike", using their code but then contributing the changes back, making sure end-users have access to all the source code etc.; they just get upset when someone takes their code, changes it, and then makes the (important) changes proprietary. It might not technically be "stealing", but it sure comes close when you consider the intent of the developers in releasing their code to the public.

But yeah, when you get down to it, the GPL is all about ensuring that end-users have maximum freedom.

Re:Something's Wrong with Slashdot

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

GPL by its nature was never intended to be worked around or filled with loopholes.

Yes.

The spirit of it is clear - no profit, no stealing, no typical corporate BS with the code.

No profit? What are you smoking?

Re:Something's Wrong with Slashdot

[psykocrime]

The spirit of it is clear - no profit, no stealing, no typical corporate BS with the code. the current one locks it down much more tightly and I for one have no problem at all with it. Make your money off of your own code if you are so bright. Stop copying everyone else's work and claiming it as your own. Or better yet, learn to make your money through value-added techniques and services instead.

Ok, that's pure FUD. The GPL is not designed to prevent anybody from making a profit.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCDoesTh eGPLAllowMoney


Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?

        Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)

Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my site?

        Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide "equivalent access" to download the source--therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary.

Now it may be true that making money from GPL'd software requires different business models and strategies than making money from
proprietary software... but it's false to suggest that the GPL prohibits - in spirit or in letter - making a profit from GPL'd code.

Re:Something's Wrong with Slashdot

[ClosedSource]

"This doesn't mean that you can't charge money for it"

Right. It just means that nobody will pay for it once they realize they can get it for free.

Re:Something's Wrong with Slashdot

[Hal_Porter]

As for the GPLV3? tough - suck it up. GPL by its nature was never intended to be worked around or filled with loopholes. The spirit of it is clear - no profit, no stealing, no typical corporate BS with the code.

Since when do legal documents have a 'spirit'? People agree to them because they don't have any clauses which are unacceptable. You can't just release a new version and allow the users to choose it regardless of the opinions of the people that wrote the code. Or vice versa actually. There are two parties here, and contracts are about binding agreements between them, not some arrogant third party imposing restrictions on one side.

Or consider this analogy. US Constitiution Version 2 is announced, and it offers the police more rights over how they treat terror suspects. Constitution Version 1 has a seldom noticed clause about how the police can accept that version or a later one at their discretion. People start to complain but the politicians that released it point out that terrorism 'goes against the spirit of Consitution version 1, V2 is just plugging a few loopholes'.

Suck it up, right ;-)

The legal vs. the psychological

[MillionthMonkey]

People focus on the legal issues, but not the simple logistical and psychological issues that arise from the fact that while open source and commercial code may be the work of separate legal entities, in practice both types of code are written and used by the same people, either at home or at work, since hobbyist coders usually have a day job.

At every job I've had, if we're considering incorporating an open source library, the license is the first thing to check. If the project page says GPL we immediately drop the library as a consideration. If it's a commercial license then we can use it but we have to do paperwork for accounting. And if we see BSD, then we right click, download the library, and start looking into it from there. The predictable results of this process: my head fills up with information on the libraries I use, and I forget about the ones I rejected long ago.

Then I get home to my hobby project. Legally, completely different rules apply to me at home. I can release under the GPL (a choice I can't simply make for my employer), use GPL code, etc etc. My own license restrictions as a hobbyist coder are supposedly orthogonal to those at my day job. But guess what? I have to use the same brain at work and at home, it only has so many brain cells to fill up with library APIs, there are only 24 hours in a day, and I barely have time to get drunk as it is. Even though I'm at home I'll probably just build things with stuff I'm familiar with. Especially if I view the library as not being an interesting part of my application.

If my employer used the GPL for projects then I guess I'd be predisposed to use GPL code at home. I've just never worked at a place that incorporated GPL code into its projects, so I'm not familiar with it, and probably won't adopt it.

The GPL is similar to any other proprietary license, from a proprietor it creates that hires anybody, pays nobody, and is legally bound to charge nothing. But it still shares (with the actual authors) proprietary rights to all derivative works because Richard Stallman wanted to confer upon it a competitive advantage enjoyed by other, commercial proprietors. It's a very reasonable proprietary license but in the end that's what it is, and some things should not be proprietary. We still need some public infrastructure in the software industry. Users (including most of you guys) want standard software conventions that always work in a predictable way. They want to leverage their knowledge of GPL software against non-GPL software (or MS software vs. non-MS software) in ways that are totally reasonable- or they say things like "well that's not the way Microsoft does it", "that's not how GNU works", etc. They especially want uninteresting things- like command line parsing, logging, etc. to work in a predictable way. This isn't really served by forcing everyone to implement common infrastructure separately because then users have to learn implementation differences between modules that play common uninteresting roles. These rarely get addressed unless they spoil a sale. Usually they don't; they just annoy users.

Re:The legal vs. the psychological

[Plekto]

At every job I've had, if we're considering incorporating an open source library, the license is the first thing to check. If the project page says GPL we immediately drop the library as a consideration. If it's a commercial license then we can use it but we have to do paperwork for accounting. And if we see BSD, then we right click, download the library, and start looking into it from there.
****

So essentially you want to copy someone else's work because you can't figure it out yourself and then expect to make a profit off of it? Free should remain free.

Re:The legal vs. the psychological

[WPIDalamar]

It's funny when people advocating free software focus on the cost.

His post summed up the effect of GPL in the real world nicely.

When writing a piece of open source software you need to decide what's more important to you.

If you want as many people using it, contributing to it, etc. Choose BSD, MIT, etc.

If you want to make sure nobody ever profits off of your work, choose GPL.

MillionthMonkey, I hope you don't mind, but I'd like to reproduce your post in my blog. Please let me know if you'd rather not.
http://www.rogue-development.com/blog/index.html

Re:The legal vs. the psychological

[Oswald]

Hmm, what's wrong with this picture:

It's funny when people advocating free software focus on the cost.

If you want to make sure nobody ever profits off of your work, choose GPL.

Perhaps, Mr. Pot, Mr. Kettle is not the only one here who needs to adjust his focus. While the post you responded to most certainly made an issue of money, many who choose to advocate or use the GPL are sincere in their desire to preserve software freedom. I don't agree with everything I read on this page, but there's enough there that makes sense that I don't think it's fair to accuse people of using the GPL just to spite people trying to make a living from programming.

Re:The legal vs. the psychological

[MillionthMonkey]

but there's enough there that makes sense that I don't think it's fair to accuse people of using the GPL just to spite people trying to make a living from programming.

That's pure projection; nobody made such an accusation. In fact the exact opposite just happened:

So essentially you want to copy someone else's work because you can't figure it out yourself and then expect to make a profit off of it? Free should remain free.

I always get attacked here whenever I report the pedantic (but usually overlooked) reason why I avoid GPL-ed libraries. People here call me a freeloader all the time for not using GPL code, which strikes me as pretty funny. But like I said, life is too short to please everybody.

Re:The legal vs. the psychological

[MillionthMonkey]

So essentially you want to copy someone else's work because you can't figure it out yourself and then expect to make a profit off of it?

Sure.

Re:The legal vs. the psychological

[MooUK]

Where did the GPL stop you from making money again?

Oh, wait. It specifically permits you to make money from it, as much as you want.

Re:The legal vs. the psychological

[Oswald]

Well, first of all, I wasn't addressing your post; I'm not sure if you think I was, or if you're defending your homeboy, or what. WPIDalamar said:

If you want as many people using it, contributing to it, etc. Choose BSD, MIT, etc.

If you want to make sure nobody ever profits off of your work, choose GPL.

You can pretend this isn't innuendo and that I'm projecting if it makes you happy. It would help if you could suggest another interpretation.

As for people calling you a freeloader for not using GPL'ed code, I'll do a little projecting and say they're probably mistaking your comments about why the GPL renders code useless to you as criticism, and they're getting defensive about it. I didn't make that mistake which is why (as I say) I didn't say anything to you.

And by the way, I don't think "pedantic" means what you think it means.

Re:The legal vs. the psychological

[MillionthMonkey]

Please don't take it personally; it was a reply to the wrong post. When these threads go on between the GPL and BSD people I get a little dyslexic.

Re:The legal vs. the psychological

[dtobeydtobey]

Is anyone making money by selling GPL licenses in the real world? I mean, just from the license sales, not from services, etc., attached to the software?

As soon as you sold your first GPL license, your competitive advantage would be reduced to nothing because the person you sold it to could turn around and distribute it for any price, including for free.

Are any businesses actually doing this?

(I guess if there are they wouldn't want us to know, lest we track down one of their customers and get the software from them for free!)

GPL3 is permissive

[The Cisco Kid]

It just happens to force anyone using code provided under it to be just as permissive as the person who provided them the code under that license.

No one will be forced to use GPL3 for code that they wrote themselves.

No one will be forced to use other people's code that is licensed under GPL3.

What will be prohibited, is taking code that someone else wrote and released to you under GPL3 terms, and distributing it to others under anything other than GPL3.

Some developers will choose to use GPL3, some may continue with GPL2, others will continue to use non-GPL licences. GPL3 forces no one to do anything.

Sure, some proprietary software houses may be unhappy, becuase they will be prohibited from taking GPL3 code and locking it up or enhancing it and including the result in consumer products without sharing with the community. But that is exactly what the people that will have chosen to use GPL3 for their code *WANT*.

The FSF and the GPL arent interested in what people who *dont* use the GPL want.

Easy but useless

[quintesse]

Yes, it sucks that the GPL is so difficult to understand but that's just how the world works, life isn't always easy. So the BSD might only have 3 simple clauses... BUT I DON'T WANT IT! It doesn't give me what I want, I could just as well make it public domain and be done with it. It would have 0 clauses and be even simpler.

Question about GPL V3

[snakecoder]

My understanding is there are two new provisions in there:
1) Patent protection which I think nobody argues with

2) Anti-DRM, Anti-Tivoization. In my understanding this is the most controversial.

Personally for number 2) I think my opinion is related to the whatever the reality is. Basically, I have no problem with Tivo so I don't like #2. Now if MS stays dominant and coludes with HW platforms, #2 could basically prevent you from ever runnig changes to your source code. Maybe that might change my opinion, but I doubt it.

Are these the only two issues? or are there more?

57% of projects on Freshmeat use GPL

[cabalamat3]

I've just checked and 56.82% of projects in Freshmeat use the GPL (24436 out of 43001). Another 3449 projects (8%) use the LGPL.

Reports of the GPL's demise therefore seem exaggerated.

Re:57% of projects on Freshmeat use GPL

[MarkWatson]

Not quite right, but close:

GPL: 65.88%
LGPL: 6.55%

Re:57% of projects on Freshmeat use GPL

[cabalamat3]

Ah, yes, I see that now as the bottom of this page.

I got my numbers of 24436 and 3449 from another page on freshmeat.

So it seems Freshmeat is being ambiguous.

It's still your choice

[NickFortune]

If you're looking into reusing code somebody else wrote ... you're stuck with their license.

And so... what, exactly?

If you're just starting development they you find a package whose licence you like better. If you're midway in development and committed, keep on using the last version licenced under terms you found acceptable.

If none of those appeal, then yeah, write your own and release it as you see fit. If you want the benefit of the hard work of others, the price is accepting the terms of the licence.

Re:It's still your choice

[Goaway]

And so... what, exactly?

And so you cannot, as a developer, always choose, as the original post claimed.

Re:It's still your choice

[NickFortune]

And so you cannot, as a developer, always choose, as the original post claimed.

Of course you can. You can choose the licence you desire, and then choose from the packages available for that licence, or else you can choose the package you desire and then choose to abide by the terms of that package's licence. It's not a lack of choice, it's a question of priotities. Choose which is most important to you.

Re:It's still your choice

[Goaway]

The original statement was about choosing a license and choosing a license only. The fact that you can choose to grow potatoes instead of writing code is hardly relevant.

Re:It's still your choice

[NickFortune]

Pshaw. The choice of licence determines the packages you can choose to implement. There's no need to bring horticulture into the debate.

Actually 66% use GPL, another 6.5% use LGPL

[Salsaman]

I don`t know where you got your figures from but they are wrong.

http://freshmeat.net/stats/

TIVO - consumer vs commercial

[Something Witty Here]

This commercial loophole for the anti-tivo thing sounds problematic. I own quite a few products that were intended for "commercial" customers. RMS started GNU/GPL/FSF because of a bug in a "commercial" product that he couldn't get the source code for.

Group 3 is taken care of

[g2devi]

It's my understanding that the new GPL was created precisely to take care of the third group.

The key reason for the large number of third group licenses is that some people want to create licenses that are half way between LGPL and BSD (e.g. the Mozilla licenses which essentially is a per-file LGPL) while others want to create licenses that are between the LGPL and GPL (i.e. some creative-commons share-a-like licenses and licenses that are GPL for commercial and LGPL for liking with open source).

The key observation in the GPLv3 is that most of the licenses in the third group (LGPLv3, Apache, etc) can be written as the GPLv3 plus additional permissions. This insight renders the license fragmentation of the third group to be irrevelant. For instance, if application A is licensed under the GPLv3 + X permission + Y permission and application C is licensed under the GPLv3 + X permission + Z permission and application C is licensed under the GPLv3 + Z permission, then it's possible to combine code from any of these applications without difficulty and it's possible to easily figure out the license of the combination (i.e. Application A+B has license GPLv3 + X permission, while Applications A+C, B+C, A+B+C all have license GPLv3.

The GPLv3 formalizes this concept explicitly.

Re:Group 3 is taken care of

[ComputerSlicer23]

I believe your understanding to be very wrong. The GPL is always intended to play in the space of "I'm giving you my source code, if you use it, you have to give up yours if you link to mine". If you are correct the GPLv3 is wrong-headed and nobody should use it if that's not the space it's covering. Lots of folks who used the GPLv2 would be up in arms if GPLv3 isn't nearly identical in spirit. As most GPLv2 code will be allowed to update to GPLv3 automatically if they followed the FSF instructions for applying the license. If you believe I'm wrong, if you could cite the paragraph that leads you to believe that it's legal to link to GPLv3 code and not re-distribute the source, I'd be highly interested.

(LGPLv3, Apache, etc)

I'm unaware of an LGPLv3 (I believe there is a discussion about constructing one, but the most recent one I know of a public test available for is LGPLv2.1, which is essentially changing "Library" to "Lesser" from the LGPLv2).

is that most of the licenses in the third group (LGPLv3, Apache, etc)

Apache v1.1 or v2.0 are *NOT* in the third category as you imply. They are in the first category. You can take Apache 2.0 code modify it and redistribute it. No one has legal recourse to get you to stop distribution, or produce the source (at least according to my reading of the APLv2.0 Section 4). The only requirement Apache 2.0 has is some specific patent things, and that you distribute a copy of the license, that you leave the copyrights in tact, and that you acknowledge that you used that source. There is no provision for producing the pieces you modified. There is a provision for explicitly documenting that you did modify them if they are being distributed. With the LGPL, the copyright holder could sue you for copyright violation if you fail to produce the modified source to the modified binaries. The EPL and CPL have somewhat similar provisions.

I believe the GPLv3 has various options and provisions to avoid people writing the GPL + patent provisions, or GPL + attribution provisions. Thus allowing folks to make the GPLv3 compatible with other far more permissive licenses like the Apache 2.0 that have one small condition that the GPL didn't (which is an extra condition, and thus GPLv2 incompatible). The FSF has held that Apache 1.1 and Apache 2.0 are incompatible with the GPLv2, I believe the GPLv3 will make them compatible + have the GPL v2 provisions + have more patent and IP provisions). The Apache folks have said that GPL and Apache 1.1 and Apache 2.0 are compatible, that the additional provisions are insignificant.

The GPLv3 is about covering the second type of license.

Kirby

Why are people actually arguing about BSD vs. GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want a permissive free software licence, you should go with the BSD, but WHICH BSD... there is a Two-Clause License, a Three-Clause License, and a Four-Clause License.

GPLv1 died before the last piece of the GNU Project's puzzle was put in place, namely Linus Torvalus' Linux kernal. The GPL had never had to face the BSD scenario... Now they do. If a group of Stallman haters but GPL lovers were determined enough, they will continue GPLv2 distros of Linux as well as there being a push by the FSF for GPLv3. The Free Software Foundation needs to make completely sure GPLv2 is compatible with GPLv3, but NOT vice-versa.

offtopic

[namekuseijin]

This is the article with the most number of Insightful posts from ACs I've ever read on /.

bad times when people have to go anonymous to express thoughtful opinions...

Pragmatism vs. Idealism vs. Politics

[Anonymous Coward]

"To me it seems counter-intuitive to promote the ten freedoms of open source as means when the ends typically is software that has none (i.e. proprietary, source-less derivates). It's like a living tree that spawns dead branches, does that make sense to anyone?"

Not at all, it makes sense in a pragmatic way. It's a question of use (how many people will use a code base and how useful it would become), that's why there is an L-GPL, which is closer to BSD license. Some people won't use a strict GPL license because they don't agree with the "politics" (i.e. if you use my stuff, then your stuff must also be under the same rules as my stuff - i.e. agree with my stance /opinion on software or get out of here). BSD and L-GPL licenses carry less "politics" with them in that you are less constrained with how you can control your software. Doesn't mean one is better than the other, they all (GPL, BSD, L-GPL) have uses. In all honesty, a strict GPL license, to me is very similar to proprietary software (in terms of extreme politics) but just on the opposite end of the spectrum. But that's just my 2 cents.

And if I add more code, we BOTH hold copyrights

[Anonymous Coward]

So in the combined work, I can put these changes in there. (Note, this is allowed because I'm allowed to create a derivative work.

Or I can post merely the original code and not my changed version.

With the encrypted media, your license never said you had to be able to read it in cleartext.

When it comes to patents, if there is prior art younger than a year old from my filinf (in the US) then that does not constitute prior art unless you can PROVE it was my only source of inspiration. And even in that case, patents have been handed out for "using floating point numbers in 3D rendering".

And where does the license say I cannot lease my combined, improved work?

If the license says you may do what you want but not then anything NOT enumerated in is allowed.

This is precisely why the GPL is bigger than BSD or the OP license. And is also the reason why GPL3 is longer than GPL2.

You still haven't shown why the license doesn't forbid the elements I asked, and I'm not particularly evil nor legally trained. Think what BS&F could do to it if SCO/MS/SPECTER hired them to break it...

Re:And if I add more code, we BOTH hold copyrights

[ajs318]

So in the combined work, I can put these changes in there. (Note, this is allowed because I'm allowed to create a derivative work.

No, section 0 says "You are authorised to copy and distribute this program, and create Derivative Works based upon this program ..... strictly in accordance with the terms of this licence and on the understanding that the same terms will be imposed upon the recipients" (emphasis mine). You lose the licence if you change the terms.

Or I can post merely the original code and not my changed version.

You wouldn't be in compliance. The licence requires you to distribute Source Code and Build Instructions for the actual code you distribute.

With the encrypted media, your license never said you had to be able to read it in cleartext.

The prosecution would simply claim that you had failed to supply the required materials altogether, and the "encryption" was merely a ruse to divert attention from your default. Since they constitute the only evidence for the defence, they will have to be revealed in court (unless you fancy a stretch).

When it comes to patents, if there is prior art younger than a year old from my filinf (in the US) then that does not constitute prior art unless you can PROVE it was my only source of inspiration. And even in that case, patents have been handed out for "using floating point numbers in 3D rendering".

But it's still an abstract mathematical concept and still can't be patented.

And where does the license say I cannot lease my combined, improved work? If the license says you may do what you want but not then anything NOT enumerated in is allowed ..... You still haven't shown why the license doesn't forbid the elements I asked, and I'm not particularly evil nor legally trained.

You misunderstand. A licence gives you permission to do something that the Law of the Land would not normally allow. If the Licence doesn't explicitly mention a particular act, then the Law of the Land applies. Leasing your combined, improved work would breach the original copyright holder's copyright.

All the same, I think that in the next version I will add a clause authorising the use of reasonable force in obtaining the Source Code. Should be fun seeing what the courts determine is or isn't reasonable :)

Um, no.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Developers care about the licenses on the software they use and incorporate into their projects, they like permissive licenses, and they will increasingly demand permissive licenses"

Um, no. I'm a developer and I care deeply about the licenses on the software I use *and* develope. Like always I want a license that protects my rights and protects my work from being appropriated. Which has and continues to mean GPL.

I just got done reading TFA...

[leviccampbell]

and even though the author is right about the decline in use of the GPL, we can't forget that if RMS didn't start the GNU project, the FOSS community wouldn't be where it is now, What license do you think the Linux kernel will be released under if the GPL wasn't around?

It's more than that

[g2devi]

Actually, it is mean to stop license proliferation of the 3rd type:
http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT7188273245. html
http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_so ftware_notes/why_gplv3_says_additional_permissions _are_removable
http://gplv3.fsf.org/additional-terms-dd2.html

And the LGPL v3 is actually written in terms of the GPLv3:
http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/barcelona-rms- transcript.en.html#lgpl
http://gplv3.fsf.org/lgpl-draft-2006-07-27.html

So basically, the GPLv3 was designed to eliminated the need for any GPLv3-compatible license since any GPLv3 compatible license can be written as the GPLv3 license plus additional permissions. It might not be the most efficient way to specify your GPL-compatible license (e.g. the MIT license would be much longer if expressed this way), but it can be done. If the GPLv3 license existed, I doubt the GPL-like per file Mozilla license would have existed or the GPL-like for open source Qt license would have been created as independent licenses.

Re:Said elsewhere, but I haven't seen it like this

[init100]

it's between people who think GPLv3 is "more permissive" vs people who think GPLv3 is "less permissive".

I disagree on a minor point. I think that pretty much everyone can agree on that the GPLv2 is slightly more permissive than the GPLv3. The real issue is which one is more or less free. There we have the camp that think v2 is more free because they can subvert it with DRM or a patent deal à la Microsoft-Novell, and the camp that think v3 is more free because code won't get locked up by DRM or patent deals.

Google's blatant GPL violation

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL requires that whenever redistributing GPL covered code that a copy of the GPL texts be provided in writting. It also requires that the source code to the redistributed work also be provided directly or offered. Both providing the text of the GPL and either direct or indirect offering of the source code are required such that one can't just be treated as substitue to providing the other. In the case of the Google Search Appliance, Google originally choose to not honor either clause. Eventually they got around the providing the source code. Since then, when asked to honor the GPL, the either ignore the request or claim that offering the source code alone complies. At no point have they gotten around to actually providing a written copy of the GPL texts to those customers that get the GSA. And while they clearly know they are blatantly violating the very first clause of the GPLv2, they still excuse themselves from ever correcting the situtation.

So, inbetween the lines of Greg Stein's ramblings is the subtext that Google doesn't want to be bothered with honoring the GPLv2 and therefore doesn't want any additional provisions added either. It's not a surprise that a company that violates the GPLv2 won't like the GPLv3 either. But for such a violator to claim their prospective should be considered in the process is just a clear conflict of interest.

So what is the problem? His claim is that additional terms make the license less permissive. In fact, the GPLv3 is written with additional terms to KEEP the work *MORE* permissive that the GPLv2 does. The GPLv2 allows for "tivoization" by the redistributor which makes the redistributed work less permissive. Tivo does this by signing the binaries so the customer is no longer on equal footing to install modified works on the Tivo since the customer doesn't having the keys needed to re-sign the binaries. Google's GSA also does a form of tivoization with a grill across the front of the unit, security screws and a password protected BIOS to all make it hard for the customer to ever open the GSA or boot from any alternative source other than what is supplied by Google. Like with TiVo, the concept used by GSA is to deny equal footing by the customer to install modified works. Yet a company that uses these non-permissive methods has an employee try to claim they are attempting to ensure the GPL remains more permissive?!

Google and Google's Greg Stein doesn't have FOSS developer's interest in mind any more than the other GPL violators of the world does. Only when they decide to actually honor both the legal letter and the spirit of the GPLv2 should they even be considered to be worth listening too. Until such time, his words could be considered in the same light as the actions of the company he works for--just plan full of crap.

Re:Google's blatant GPL violation

[chrisd]

Sigh:

http://code.google.com/mirror/gsa.html

So much outrage spent on nothing.

Re:Google's blatant GPL violation

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes... "sigh."

Let me spell it out for you, the GPL requires that Clause 1 (a copy of the GPL provided at the time of distribution) AND Clause 3 (the source code provided or offered).

That is an *AND*, not an *OR*. As such:

- Honoring Clause 1 can not be treated as an exception to honoring Clause 3.

- Honoring Clause 3 can not be treated as an exception to honoring Clause 1.

- Honoring Clause 1 and failing to honor Clause 3 is a violation of the GPL.

- Honoring Clause 3 and failing to honor Clause 1 is a violation of the GPL.

Now that I have covered in detail how a logical *AND* works. Please note that I stated there existed a *CLAUSE 1* violation of the GPL where a customer accessable copy of the GPL is not provided at the time of redistribution of the GPL covered works.

You sigh and point out that Google honors Clause 3 of the GPL. I never claimed they didn't. They have also promoted further development of GPL covered works. Neither of these acts are listed as being an exception having to comply with GPL Clause 1. The facts remain the same and the Clause 1 violation still takes place. Feel free to order a GSA and point out where a customer accessable copy of the text of the GPL is provided at the time of redistribution with the GSA.

Pointing out that Google honors GPL Clause 3 is as meaningful to explaining how Google honors the GPL Clause 1 as trying to point out that Purple Dragons exist.

Re:Google's blatant GPL violation

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you even taking the time to explain this? He already knows that Google is violating the GPL and ignoring the facts because he works for Google! Nothing you say will make him agree with you that the hand that feeds him is capable of doing wrong.

Re:Google's blatant GPL violation

[chrisd]

Okay, how about instead of 'sigh' I spell it out for you and those that might read you an say: You're an astroturfing (or simply dishonest) moron. We provide such documentation at sales time to those who buy the product.

Re:Google's blatant GPL violation

[Anonymous Coward]

I am glad you got the name calling out of your system. And since you seem to be aware of the documentation that contains the full text of the GPL provided to the customer at the time of redistribution of the GPL binaries on the GSA, you can provide details as to where it is located.

Is it on the inventory sheet that came with the GSA? Nope
Is it in the little yellow booklet that came with the GSA? Nope
Is it on one of the web pages use to administrate the GSA? Nope
Maybe it is printed someplace on the Google t-shirt provided with the GSA? Oops... nope.
Maybe it is printed in really tiny print on the cross-over ethernet cable provided with the GSA? Uh... nope.

So, where is it? The great Chris DiBona of Google seems to claim I'm a moron if I can't find it but yet it still does not seem to be here. Where is it then he who clearly considers himself not the moron?

In addition to really addressing the location of the text of the GPL as required by Clause 1, you also fail to discuss at all the issue of how Google has it's own style of "tivoization" regarding the customer being able to modify code on the GSA. The front grill does have non-standard screws keeping the customer from accessing the front of the machine. The BIOS has a password which is never provided to the customer. And the root password along with all other Linux account passwords are not provided to the customer. The only access the customer is provided is through the web interfaces and even updates to the binaries done through that interface is via an obfuscated or encrypted file format. At no point does Google allow the customer to download and redistribute just the binary parts of the updates since each update file also contains Google copyrighted material.

Bottom line: Google's employee can only revert to name calling instead of actually taking steps to resolve violating both the letter of the GPLv2 and violating the spirit of copyleft. Is it any wonder such a company is anti-GPLv3?

Re:Google's blatant GPL violation

[chrisd]

First off, you should have that in your docs. I'll double check but either a) you didn't get them for some reasons or b) you're making this up. Secondly, the tivoisation is an issue for GPLv3, not 2.

I think there were a few boxes that didn't ship with proper docs a few years ago, I'd hate it if it happened again (hence why I'm checking). But I gotta ask you again: why are you so ready to be pissed off at us? This is why I called you a moron, and maybe I shouldn't have, but I gotta tell you this level of stridency against us is a waste of time and makes your arguments smell contrived, dishonest and demented. Anonymity added on top of that makes you seem downright fishy. After all, how can I fix things if I don't know who you are? Please email me at cdibona@google.com and I'll personally fedex you copies of the notices and the gpl, printed on paper or even a t-shirt, for that matter.

Call me a 'name caller' if you must, but your rage, I say again, is ill placed. There are plenty of bad actors using open source improperly, Google isn't one of them. We're not perfect, but there isn't anything all that dramatic going on here.

Chris

GPL = do ask, do tell.

[Anonymous Coward]

"We do contribute modifications back."

True, but try getting this forum to see that. There's really nothing in either license that makes explicit that so and so made a contribution. Just that in one it's a requirement, in the other it's optional. That's why we get these "BSD is dying" stories from time to time. Even if the number of contributors are about the same.

Re:Why are people actually arguing about BSD vs. G

[notamisfit]

They can't be compatible (without the "or any later version" clause, which is in essence a dual GPLvX/GPLvY license). To incorporate GPLv2-only code into a GPLv3 project causes it to be under additional restrictions, which violates GPLv2, and vice versa.

As for BSD, the four-clause variant is outdated (except for NetBSD), and the third clause in the three-clause variant prohibits something that is prohibited anyways, so really any BSD license in modern use is pretty much the same. Ditto with the MIT or ISC licenses.

No, it does not

[BeeRockxs]

I'm one of the maintainers of a GPL project,
and GPLv3 certainly does not alienate me.
In fact, I'll encourage switching to GPLv3 once it's ready,
which really should not be a problem, considering that we
currently license our project under GPL2 or later.

no, not THAT contract

[r00t]

The GPL is not a contract (***in the USA***), but that's not the contract I mean.

The GPLv3 tivoization clause says that you can't use DRM to prevent changing the GPLv3 code on a consumer device.

What makes a consumer device special? Ever wonder why GPLv3 has a hole?

This is to allow various types of devices where the customer (usually a business) actually wants the DRM being used against them. Typically this is for legal reasons. The device might be safety-critical stuff: a medical implant, aircraft flight control software, nuclear reactor core monitoring equipment, etc.

The proper distinction here is that the customer actively participated in writing the contract. (freely offered to dig his own grave) Normal customers don't get to do that; you don't get a tivo if you demand that tivo executives first sign something your lawyer wrote.

So this is a minor inaccuracy in the GPLv3. It covers both more and less than it ideally ought to. Yuck.

Re: Where does it say that?

[burndive]

The copyright holder is identified in three places:

1) The copyright notice on the first line
2) On the first line of the capitalized section
3) On the fourth line of the capitalized section

Copied and pasted from the Wikipedia page that I linked to in my post:

* Copyright (c) <year>, <copyright holder>
* All rights reserved.
*
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
* * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
* documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
* * Neither the name of the <organization> nor the
* names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products
* derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
*
* THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY <copyright holder> ``AS IS'' AND ANY
* EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED
* WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
* DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL <copyright holder> BE LIABLE FOR ANY
* DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
* (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
* LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND
* ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
* (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
* SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

Developers and Choice

[Anonymous Coward]

"Their assertion that the GPL is unfavorable to developers is questionable at best. Unfair to their developers because they have to write the code instead of stealing it?"

GPL is unfavorable to some developers because it removes choice -- the choice of how to license your work. If you use a GPL'ed library, suddenly, all your code is GPL. The GPL code may serve a very small purpose in an application but yet it becomes the "most important" thing there (by sole virtue of a license), which is b.s. Sounds a bit over-reaching and Microsoft-esque does it not? It's unfavorable because it forces developers to agree with someone else's politics about how software should be licensed. Sound familiar? I won't point out the obvious similarities.

It's not corporate only who objects to such things.
Nor is it people who want a free ride.
It's rational thinking individuals who feel "freedom" isn't "freedom" if you thrust it down people's throats. Hence BSD, etc projects are used in lieu of GPL.

"Abusing code"

[Overly Critical Guy]

I was under the impression that the GPL license is mostly meant for "hobby" developers that want to make sure no one abuses their code to earn money on time they donate for the good of mankind.

But I thought copyright infringement was okay, and that anybody trying to enforce the law was an evil cartel? Or is our position on this self-serving?

Same terms as what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Same terms as the code segments I wrote or the same segments as the OP wrote? They are both "the same terms".

wrt 3d, it IS patented in the US. SGI and then purhased by MS. Go figure.

The license only talks about THIS CODE but this code he gave you? Or the entire derived work.

And the license said you're allowed to do what you like (make derived works and copies which are not allowed by copyright) so it removes copyright restrictions as long as I do some things. Wht things I have to do have wiggle room if you're a weasel.

And now you're adding an enforcement clause (be careful, it may not be legal!) which may be just what the patent-busting clause is doing with respect to patents and GPL and is the reason for this fudpiece here.

I respect your license and thinks it does, to a reasonable person, to cover the four freedoms. However, if you produce a lot of work under it and the work is valuable (as valuable as the 20Bn "value" of the Linux kernel) then getting that for free without having to give back is a very attractive proposition. Someone will be PAID to avoid the intent while staying within the words.

And that's what happened to the GPL2. And why it's so wordy even in GPL1 and getting wordier. Because being able to take advantage without taking the penalty of the license is a very valuable proposition and the license has to cover the weasel-worded loopholes.

Hopefully I'm getting some way to showing you that the license is OK but can be bypassed and stopping the bypassing is what the GPL words are trying to achieve. You may want to take your license to the FSF and ask if

a) it's an FSF-compatible license
b) what the shortcomings are

I'm sure that they'll help out.

Ta.

Re:Said elsewhere, but I haven't seen it like this

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree on a minor point. I think that pretty much everyone can agree on that the GPLv2 is slightly more permissive than the GPLv3.

Nope. The GPLv2 is no more permissive by design than the GPLv3. It does have some loop-holes, at least according to Tivo's lawyers (I'm don't think anyone took them to court yet, so we don't know if a judge would agree).

In short: Exploitable bugs were found in the GPLv2, and the GPLv3 is the patch for those bugs. From my point of view, the only people who prefer v2 over v3 is those who want to use those exploits.

(No, Linus doesn't really prefer v2 - he just doesn't really care about licensing. Not wanting to take the time to read and understand the part about keys is proof to that).

Alienate? No.

[Evets]

Where would the Open Source world be without FSF? The only people concerned with having more freedom than the GPL provides are interested in taking open source work and making it proprietary.

If you really want to go that route, simply buy up all the MS Development environment based libraries that you need - not a big problem for big companies interested in that market space.

Every version of the GPL basically says, "hey, I made this. I'm giving it away for free. You can use it for your own use, or develop more free software with it, but don't be a dick and steal it to make a commercial product." That's pretty fair.

If you are truly in need of a library and you want to purchase a more lenient license, developers may be open to that - unless the body of work has really turned into a community project in which case there's probably no way to get EVERYONE'S permission.

The only real problem I see, and people have gone through it before, is in situations where a project is migrating to GPL v3, and all of the contributors aren't on board. The whole reason for posting drafts this far in advance is so that people can voice their concerns about licensing changes to the FSF.

Really, the major changes are to stop the exploitive behavior of MS and Tivo - of which both company's practices are damaging to the Free Software movement. Why on earth should people be averse to protecting the thriving community we all participate in?

The main thing that's amusing...

[petrus4]

...about a story like this which adopts a perspective critical of the GPL, is watching its' apologists scurry around like ants trying to make sure that nobody is exposed to that which it's fairly obvious that said apologists know, deep down, is the truth.

Just accept it, guys. Copyleft as a concept is based on fear, and there are developers in existence who do not share your fear, and who thus do not feel a need to use the GPL. As the saying goes, stop struggling, and it won't hurt anywhere near as much.

Re:The main thing that's amusing...

[Evets]

I'd have to argue the point. Copyleft, from my perspective, is a concept designed to encourage the development of free software.

I actually just recently decided to adopt the GPL, and my decision was pretty much as follows: I can give it away for free, or I can give it away mostly for free and support the development of free software as well.

I realize that others have different viewpoints, and if there were a very good reason, I'd certainly be willing to entertain an alternative licensing scenario. But frankly, the GPL has worked quite well in fostering OSS and the FSF has insightfully reacted to some potential problems with OSS abuse that I would not have considered in writing my own license.

I understand the desire to be "more free", but I'm pretty happy with the restrictions of derivitave works because that ensures the philosophy I used when starting out my project will continue in future iterations even when I'm no longer involved.

Re:The main thing that's amusing...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd amend that to fear and indignation.

I like the GPLv3, and I write code. Others do too

[dwheeler]

I like the GPLv3 in its "final draft" form. I expect to switch my GPL'ed projects to it (which will be easy, since they already say "GPLv2 or later"; just change "2" to "3"). Obviously others like GPLv3 too. So many people will use GPLv3, and thus GPLv3 will be a success. For those who wanted a different outcome: Sorry.

Clearly people who don't like GPLv2 won't like GPLv3, but why would you expect anything different? And those who have been most outspoken against earlier drafts of GPLv3, like Linus Torvalds, seem to be much happier with the latest version (they might not use it, but it's hard to claim they're alienated). And kernel developers are certainly not uniform (in anything!); Torvalds didn't like earlier drafts, but Alan Cox has spoken very positively about the GPLv3. The Apache License 2.0 compatibility and internationalization are enough reasons all by themselves to upgrade. And I don't have any trouble with the new "must be able to change the software" rules; if I start a project, I want to be able to use arbitrary later versions extended by others, and I can't without these new GPLv3 clauses for anti-Tivoization and anti-DRM. Yes, in some cases there are other conditions I want more instead, but in those cases I'd use a different license.

I don't license everything under the GPL, because I have different motives for different projects. Indeed, over my lifetime I've licensed stuff under the GPL, LGPL, MIT, and proprietary licenses, depending on my circumstances. But if you're trying to make sure that you get to use future versions of a project you start or contribute to, the GPLv3 is a pretty good way to get there. It certainly isn't "alienating" me. Instead, I now have a new choice, one that better reflects my goals when I choose to release code under the GPL.

Re: Where does it say that?

[FutureDomain]

I have to admit that you're right about the copyright holder's name in the license, but that's not as much of an issue if it's an organization that holds the copyright (i.e. Mozilla, Apache, etc...). The beauty of a permissive license it that that if others contribute under a permissive license, than you can include their changes without having to request copyright permission or include multiple licenses in the source code. It's still a good idea to attribute the specific changes in the code to the author, but unless the author's license requires it, it's not required. Permissive open-source licenses allow total freedom, whereas the GPL is almost totally free, except for the stipulation that you also release it under the GPL. The BSD allows you to release your code under any license, but the GPL requires to release it only under the GPL. I prefer the BSD because I want my code to benefit everyone, not just the open-source programmers.

Re: Where does it say that?

[burndive]

The person I was replying to was talking about his own code, not code belonging to a large software corporation or foundation. Even in those cases, though, the foundations usually ask for copyright assignment. If they don't ask for this, or if an individual person doesn't ask it of his contributors, then those contributors are the copyright holders on their contributions to the code, and their names would need to appear on the license associated specifically with their code. As I was saying, the BSD license specifically requires that "this notice", including the identification of the copyright holder, be included whenever the code is distributed. Those are the terms of the license. If someone BSD licenses their modifications to your code back to you, this does not absolve you of your responsibility to adhere to that license: you are required to list them as the copyright holder for their contribution, because that's what the license says. If you don't want to do that, you need to ask for copyright assignment, which is what it sounded like this guy was wanting and thinking that the BSD license gave him.

Re: Where does it say that?

[Plekto]

"If you use a GPL'ed library, suddenly, all your code is GPL."
****
Well, l don't USE GPL then. I can off the top of my head name a dozen different programming suites that will allow you to do what you want to without touching GPL. But you need to actually do your own work or pay for it.

I find that 95%+ of the whiners about GPL are people who want a free ride. They are the programming equivalent of bittorrent mp3 leechers. They want an easy out due to someone else's hard work(or a no-cost one) and then complain that they can't do business as usual afterwards.

"As soon as you sold your first GPL license, your competitive advantage would be reduced to nothing because the person you sold it to could turn around and distribute it for any price, including for free."
****
Absolutely not true. If your business is surviving only on software sales, you've already lost any competitive advantage that you had. Please actually talk to someone who runs a business about the term "value added". You make your money in real world business not on the product but on everything else you offer with it. Take a look at RedHat - their code is free, yet they make lots of money doing it somehow.

Answer a questions with another

[icepick72]

So when are developers NOT alienated? (They're an ornery bunch.)

no, GPL is not a commerce friendly license

[AHumbleOpinion]

Actually your question indicated a real problem and the person who responded did a little dance to FUD the issue. You are entirely correct. Nothing stops someone from taking a GPL'd product and reselling it themselves. At local computer swap meets there were no shortage of people selling Red Hat and other distributions, people who have no association with Red Hat and who do not pass any of their proceeds back to Red Hat. With respect to the retail boxes, Red Hat dramatically reduced their retail package efforts due to low sales. You can get the DVD for a quarter of the prices from a 3rd party, or have it bundled with a book, etc. In short, trying to sell GPL'd software is very risky, and the risk increases as you become more well known. To describe the GPL as a commercial license is to take and entirely literal and unrealistic viewpoint.

Go fuck yourself, Bruce

[Anonymous Coward]

you fucking hippie

So you want to restrict SOME freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

since you don't want me removing your name from the code.

This is the point of LGPL

[jhantin]

So split the difference. LGPL enforces a return of contributions to the library while allowing the code to be included in proprietary closed-source products.

You've got it backwards

[ClosedSource]

"Who's making money off the kernel? Red Hat, for example, doesn't make money off the kernel per se. They put a great deal of time and effort into creating a distro, adding value to it, and supporting it. That's what earns them their money. The kernel enables them to make money, but that's quite a distinction from taking my code and locking it up into a proprietary app and charging me if I want to use it."

Red Hat would simply have no business if not for the kernel and other GNU software. If Red Hat were to create it's own original kernel incompatible with Linux, nobody would be interested in it. Not so with TiVo. They have an actual product that people are interested in and if it were implemented without Linux it wouldn't make it any less attractive to their customers.