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.'"
...but at least it's coverage. They say no publicity is bad publicity.
I put the 't' in electrical engineering.
"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" sounds like a pretty reasonable shortened form of the intent of the GPL for lay people. I'm not sure one should expect a news article in the mainstream press to contain the text of the license or an entire treatise on how it came about and how it is applied.
A comparison between this and what it really is would make this post make a lot of sense to a lot of people who are sketchy on the details of the GPL themselves.
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
Linux is under the GPL, and that is an excellent high level interpretation of it. Yes, there are details- lots of open source software IS NOT under the GPL, for instance, and has different requirements- but it's reasonable, and the topic is Linux, not BSD.
What is so wrong, again? Why do we have editors?
Sounds like a good summary of the goals of the GPL to me. Why should the average person care exactly how it implements its goals?
frankShook and Zonk Interpret CBC News Piece - Poorly
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
Why is it "highly unique"? It sounds spot-on to me, as it captures the gist of it while being written in a lay language.
I think what they wrote is just fine. It was meant to be a simple explanation of the license, not a verbatim copy. Besides, if they could 100% accurately describe the whole license in one or two sentences, then the GPL would only be one or two sentences long to begin with.
Aww, not again. This is the same genius news source that posted the "SPEED OF LIGHT FINALLY EXCEEDED LOL" article a few months back. Old Slashdot Article.
They still don't seem very worried about their articles being accurate.
I don't think I have seen the mainstream media do a better job of covering a topic in so few words. The fact that they even covered this topic, and it was on the main CBC page is AMAZING!
The Internet news service Slashdot has up an article entitled 'CBC News Interprets GPL - Poorly'. Primarily, it looks to describe the ongoing lack of capacity for Slashdot writers and editors to think outside of the IT world. It also includes a highly unique interpretation of summarization, and with great authority and sarcasm, classifies relatively succinct and accurate generalization as 'Unique'. ..which it seems to be, for the Slashdot crowd. :-p'
I am not an atomic playboy.
as if modifying software were somehow inherently illegal, immoral, wrong, dangerous, something our legal system must take an especial interest in... and so on.
Just how is it inaccurate? The General Public License exists to protect the four freedoms of the software it covers. It can't shield a person from all legal liability, of course, but I don't see any major inaccuracy. Are people reading that to say that the GPL shields one from all liability? That would be a horrible misreading of the article, not an inaccuracy. The GPL most certainly does shield people from legal liability for copyright infringement when modifying the software. You know, that whole clause in the GPL that says "You are not required to agree to anything to merely use software which is licensed under the GPL. You only have obligations if you modify or distribute" and the fact that the GPL works because modification and distribution would be copyright infringement without the permission granted by the GPL?
That's right. The GPL shields you against copyright infringement claims by the GPL'd software's authors so long as you follow the rules of the GPL. It's the very source of the GPL's power; without it the GPL could not be enforced. Anyone who doesn't understand that that is how the GPL works doesn't know a damn thing about the GPL or copyright law. Which is probably why we're seeing this article here on Slashdot, huh?
Come on, you are complaining about how they left out all the exceptions and nuances of it? Do you seriously expect them to just regurgitate the entire thing? The basic spirit of it is captured pretty well in that one sentence which is far better than the summary I just read here on Slashdot. I cant even begin to count the number of times I have read a summary on here which was horribly misleading or flat out false. I think this is a pretty classis case of the pot implying that the kettle could be a little less black.
Leela: "They say the Evil One eats babies!"
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Meh, that's close enough. It conveys the spirit of GPL, even if it confuses a couple of things. The GPL is generally a difficult thing to explain to others.
If only there was a way to mod Zonks "article" -1 troll or - 1 flamebait...
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.
Slashdot summary interprets CBC - Poorly
I read the article and can't see any glaringly obvious discrepancies with the basic nature of the gpl. I think the submitter read it wrong or something, and mr. zonk went along with it.
Mucho weirdness.
This is typical for cult-like psychology. You want to convince everyone that your technology/company/whatever is the best thing since sliced bread, eat you (consciously or not) attack any attempt from "the rest of the world" to adopt said technology.
A big part of the value of being in a cult is that it's exclusive. We're the smart guys, the "guys who get it". The rest of the world doesn't get it, and their attempts to "get it" are laughable and worthy of mocking at.
Except of course, the biggest fanatics usually know less on the matter than people with more objective opinions.
I remember a while back that they had tested and recommended mplayer for some of their streaming. Of course they still use Real in places too, but at least there is a Linux client for Real. And I've never had problems with their site in any browser, so I have to think they are making sure it is cross platform.
I'm not sure it was very helpful to have some random contributor bash their explanation of the GPL, especially considering it wasn't all that bad of an explanation considering the intended audience. The fact that CBC is even reporting on the Linux distros that are resisting the shady MS patent deals is a pleasant surprise.
So how about "Thank You CBC" instead of "lets publish an "article" which nitpicks and pokes fun of CBC".
I PAPER, you LOSER!
If I were to write a summary of GPL for the general public, I would write something very similar to that.
The Slashdot summary, however, seems like a flame bait to me.
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.
I think it's perfect. They summarized the GPL into a single sentence. Anyone who is going to use / distribute GPL software will run into the GPL in more detail. What's more annoying is that it's actually a decent article discussing Microsoft / Linux patent deals and somehow everyone is blathering on about how unhappy they are with a single sentence halfway through the article instead of perhaps... discussing the article itself.
The CBC is disucssing Microsoft and Linux in the same page and they sound like equals. This should be a Good Thing.