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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

[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]

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

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...

[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.

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

[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.

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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: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.

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.