Slashdot Mirror
CBC News Interprets GPL - Poorly
frankShook writes "The Canadian news service CBC has up an article entitled 'Linux distributors scorn Microsoft partnership'. Primarily, it looks to describe the ongoing licensing saga between Microsoft and Linux distributors. It also includes a highly unique interpretation of the GPL: 'Open-source software such as Linux, on the other hand, encourages individuals to add to or modify software without fear of legal repercussions, so long as they abide by the conditions of the general public license, which stipulates that the program must remain open and sharable.'"
The article is hardly about interpreting the GPL as the title of this story claims. There was a one liner about an aspect of the GPL; no more.
Karma: Neutered
See: the GPL homepage.
Actually, the only nit I could pick in calling it the "general public license" is the capitalization. If you go read the GNU page on the GPL, you'll find they call it the GNU General Public License.
Ian
Actually no, the original article contains the word "the" before the word "software". This is a transcription error on the part of the submitter (unless they went and corrected the article without changing the update time).
What is so wrong, again?
Nothing really - it's not a completely accurate description of the GPL, but it was never intended to be. In fact, like you, i think it's a darn good layman explanation.
Why do we have editors?
Hey, someone has to dupe this story next Wednesday!
Open-source software such as Linux, on the other hand, encourages individuals to add to or modify the software without fear of legal repercussions, so long as they abide by the conditions of the general public licence, which stipulates that the program must remain open and sharable.
As in, "you can add or modify the software and we, the original authors of the software, are not going to sue your ass, if you keep it GPL."
It's a good summary, which doubtlessly Microsoft is going to quote out of context again and again.
The only thing out of whack is the remain sharable and the concept of shielding from liability. You don't have to share a program you changed as long as you don't distribute it.
but the liability part, it captures the essence of free software and the principle of the GPL as you say. I think the "without fear of legal repercussions" was along the lines of , you take this program, add to it or change it, and you don't have to worry about Ubuntu taking you to court. Of course it seems a little broad in it's wording but the essence is there without getting too technical. It doesn't name the author of the article, I'm wondering it they needed the press in order to further their career. I mean, hits on the site to about the article to show to the news agency they deserve a job. It wouldn't be the first time slashdot has been used for something like this. But I'm just speculating. I didn't find the article to be too misleading. Especially when the GPLv3 comes into play.
If you take a microsoft program, extend it and then resell it, microsoft will likely come after you. If you take a GPled program, extend it and then resell it, Your not going to get the same problems if you distribute the source. You have do not have to fear legal repercussions in that aspect. I think that is what the article was trying to convey with the keep it sharable comment.
If the 100,000 workers are genuine employees, and Ford is considered a single organisation, then that isn't distribution. If some of them are contractors, or Ford want to be seen as a number of distinct legal entities (for some reason), then it probably counts as distributing it.