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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[Anonymous Coward]

Duh, ask for copyright assignment doofus.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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?

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

[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

[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.

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.

[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?

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.

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

[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.

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.

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!"

Translation

[NatteringNabob]

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[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: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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.