GCC 4.2.1 Released

larry bagina writes "GCC 4.2.1 was released 4 days ago. Although this minor update would otherwise be insignificant, it will be the final GPL v2 release; all future releases will be GPL v3. Some key contributors are grumbling over this change and have privately discussed a fork to stay as GPL v2. The last time GCC forked (EGCS), the FSF conceded defeat. How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?"

Comments

How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?

[Anonymous Coward]

How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?

by not shoveling GPL3 down our throats?

Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?

[ozmanjusri]

by not shoveling GPL3 down our throats?

How does making a license freely available for software authors to use translate into "shoveling [sic] GPL3 down our throats"?

Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?

[NickFortune]

How does making a license freely available for software authors to use translate into "shoveling [sic] GPL3 down our throats"?

I suppose that a lot of free software authors feel that the FSF is being a little heavy handed. In fairness, it's hard to see how (after consultations lasting more than a year) that the foundation could have handled this better. All the same, there are inevitably going to be people who are not comfortable with the new licence. Given a choice of accept v3 or start a fork, it's perhaps inevitable that people who have invested a lot of effort in GNU projects are going to regard the licence as an imposition.

The new licence was always going to be divisive, although in the light of the MS-Novell pact, I think the benefits will be worthwhile in the long run. But that doesn't mean that devs on large projects like GCC don't have a valid point.

The trouble is that there's nothing now to be done about it, but to see how the dice fall.

Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?

[itsdapead]

How does making a license freely available for software authors to use translate into "shoveling [sic] GPL3 down our throats"?

1. FSF/GNU hold the copyright to many crucial open source software projects (not least GCC, libc*) and will almost certainly migrate these to GPLv3. So even if the linux kernel and other individual projects stay with GPLv2 all Linux distributors will either have to fork the "GNU" part of GNU/Linux or be bound by the GPLv3 in respect of parts of their products (...the "mere aggregation" clause means that the GPLv3 doesn't have to extend to the whole distro, but you're still "distributing" the GPLv3 bits). The fact that FSF asks for copyright assignment means that they are free to switch - other complex projects that include third-party code licensed as "GPLv2 only" don't have that luxury.
2. FSF encouraged users of the GPLv2 to adopt the "or later..." clause - and it was included in the sample "boilerplate" wording in the "How to use the GPL" documentation. This means that a lot of authors have placed their trust in the FSF not to break the spirit of the GPL. The GPLv3 is more restrictive than v2 (the FSF makes no secret of this) so the practical upshot is that "downstream" recipients of your "GPLv2 or later" software can redistribute it under a more restrictive license - technically in breach of the spirit of GPL. While I don't think many authors intended that the "right to TiVOize" and the "right to sell dubious patent protection" should be among the freedoms that should be passed on, maybe the "right to redistribute this software without having to employ an IP lawyer to decipher the license for you" was kind of implied...

(* LibC is, of course, LGPL which is less "viral" than GPL - but I haven't seen much debate about v3 of LGPL...)

Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?

[ozmanjusri]

To summarise your arguments:

1. Linux distributors choosing to distribute GPLv3 binaries will be able to do so without changing what they're doing now.
2. You don't understand GPLv3 and think others might be confused too.

None of this addresses the question: How does releasing GCC amount to shoveling the license down our throats?

Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps by letting the GPL2 users contemplate the possibility of a world full of linspire-microsoft style 'patent peace' agreements.

Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?

[wwmedia]

How does making a license freely available for software authors to use translate into "shoveling [sic] GPL3 down our throats"?


you were meant to say >>

How does making a more restrictive license freely available for software authors to use translate into "shoveling [sic] GPL3 down our throats"?


as a software developer you feel that the new version of GPL was not written with software developers in minds, and for software developers benefit.

but it feels/sounds like it was written by some lawyer(s) with a grudge against tivo/microsoft and to create an opportunity to make $$$ thru lawsuits

lawyers are (lie)lawyers, it doesnt matter that they work for the FSF..

Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?

[itsdapead]

1. Linux distributors choosing to distribute GPLv3 binaries will be able to do so without changing what they're doing now.

Tell that to Novell. :-)

...but even Linux distributors who haven't drunk the MS Kool-aid will be faced with a "choice" between sticking with current versions of key products (with whatever bugs and vulnerabilities come to light), maintaining their own forks, or being bound by the terms of GPLv3.

2. You don't understand GPLv3 and think others might be confused too.

Darn right!

However, you missed the bit about all the developers who followed FSF's advice about the "or later" clause and now have no choice but to allow their work to be distributed under GPLv3.

None of this addresses the question: How does releasing GCC amount to shoveling the license down our throats?

Er, no, your "summary" just chose to exclude all the bits from the original that did address the question. However, in case you are havving difficlty with the concept of "metaphor" I fully concede that my post contained absolutely no evidence that any representative of the FSF has ever used a digging implement to compel any third party to physically ingest a software license.

Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?

[ciggieposeur]

However, you missed the bit about all the developers who followed FSF's advice about the "or later" clause and now have no choice but to allow their work to be distributed under GPLv3.

And you "missed the part" where developers who wrote their own code under the "V2 or later" clause can decide for themselves whether or not to move their own projects to "V3 or later" or whatever license they want.

Only developers who signed over their copyright to FSF are being "forced" to move to "V3 or later". Since FSF legally owns that own code, good on them for moving their code to their new license.

Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know, as I user, I won't download the GPL v2 version with the v3 available. The previous fork was done for technical reasons and the FSF rightfully conceded. This fork is made by friends of Microsoft agains the best interests of the users.

Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?

[Ngarrang]

Start a new fork. That is the free software way. Why limit ourselves to one version of GCC? We have 3,000 distros of linux to choose from, but only one distro of GCC? This just isn't fair. Bring on the variants! Fork that baby. Innovation through competition.

Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?

[itsdapead]

And you "missed the part" where developers who wrote their own code under the "V2 or later" clause can decide for themselves whether or not to move their own projects to "V3 or later" or whatever license they want.

...but there is still nothing they can do to stop others re-distributing the "v2 or later" version of the code under GPLv3. If they happen to agree with the substantial new restrictions the FSF has added, that's fine - but if they don't agree, if they feel that these restrictions break the FSF's assurance that future versions of GPL would be in the same spirit as v2, then that is just tough.

The idea that others could re-distribute your work provided they did not impose additional restrictions on the recipients is central to the GPL. FSF is effectively saying "its OK when we do it for the greater good" line.

Can FSF force everybody to use GPLv3 for future releases of their project? No. Are they in a position to create an uphill struggle for developers who want to stick to GPLv2? Yes.

Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?

[xappax]

as a software developer you feel that the new version of GPL was not written with software developers in minds, and for software developers benefit.

The license was written with hackers and tinkerers in mind. It was designed specifically for our benefit, because it protects our ability to write and modify open source code on consumer hardware devices which employ open source code.

If that's not important to you personally, fine. But you should realize that as computer use shifts further and further from desktops to phones, pdas, and other highly proprietary platforms, there are a lot of free/open source developers who will appreciate the "rights" protected by GPLv3, even as they complain about it now.

Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?

[marcosdumay]

"but I haven't seen much debate about v3 of LGPL"

While using GPLv3, one can define extra permissions on a way that replaces LGPL.

Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?

[non]

key contributors. key. the minds behind every algorithmic, procedural and computational operation in the galaxy, and you put them in a room with a slashbot?

Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?

[Knuckles]

...but there is still nothing they can do to stop others re-distributing the "v2 or later" version of the code under GPLv3.

Are you sure that this is the case? It would seem to me that they cannot change the text in the COPYING file, and thus the only thing they can do is distribute as "GPLv2 or later" themselves.

Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?

[stonecypher]

How does making a license freely available for software authors to use translate into "shoveling [sic] GPL3 down our throats"?

Maybe you missed it, but this story is about them forcing a lot of people to use a tool under v3 by moving the license of one of GNU's most important tools. That, I think, is the shoveling to which grandparent refers. Y'know, the blatantly obvious one that people in post are also very angry about. Try taking the blinders off long enough to at least understand what your fellow man is saying.

Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?

[a.d.trick]

If they we're willing to be bound to the terms of the GPL 2, they should have no problems with the GPL 3. Although a few details of the license have changed, the intent of the whole thing is still firmly where it always was: a user-centric license designed to ensure FSF's 4 freedoms. If you don't like that, don't use the license, but it's not like this is anything new. The people who are having trouble with it are people like Novel and Tivo who where violating the spirit of the GPL even before the current one was release. Note, that the FSF isn't forcing software developers to use the GPL 3, we chose to. If you don't like that, then I'm sorry, but that's life.

If you're a software developer, and you have code that's release as "version 2 or later", you can quite easily change that to merely "version 2". Your old code will still be available under later versions, but you can change any new stuff you do.

As for not understanding the GPL 3, I can understand that one. I'm not a lawyer either and the GPL is definitely more complicated. But the problems the GPL is tackling have become more complicated too and it is simply not feasible to address these problems with a simple license. Once again, if you just want a simple license, Public Domain has been around since the dawn of time and is a perfectly fine option.

Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?

[G Morgan]

If they make a sizeable enough contribution under GPLv3 or later then the entire project falls under that even if large sections could be taken out and released under GPLv2. Same situation as with the kernel where large sections are GPLv2 or later but the majority is GPLv2 only.

Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?

[G Morgan]

It also allows any old author to come along and strip those permissions away. It is not and cannot be a replacement for LGPL. The FSF knows this and made it intentionally so, they want to end the mixing of free and proprietary software. Linus explored this, if he moved the kernel to GPLv3 with an exception for Tivo then someone can fork it and make sizeable contributions under vanilla GPLv3 and he'd end up with the license he dislikes.

This is the problem with the exceptions. It gives too much power for individual or small groups of authors to force the majority down a path they don't like. Better not to get into that sort of contract.

Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?

[Goaway]

How does making a license freely available for software authors to use translate into "shoveling [sic] GPL3 down our throats"?

It doesn't, because that is not what this is about. This is about the FSF moving the gcc code base to GPL3 against the wishes of a number of developers and contributers.

Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?

[ozmanjusri]

This is about the FSF moving the gcc code base to GPL3 against the wishes of a number of developers and contributers.

Can you name any?

Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?

[itsdapead]

Are you sure that this is the case? It would seem to me that they cannot change the text in the COPYING file, and thus the only thing they can do is distribute as "GPLv2 or later" themselves.

...Urgh... but how can I excercise my right to re-distribute under (quoth GPLv2) "(at your option) any later version" if I can't tell my recipuients that I have chosen a later version? I mean, most of the GPL is about what rights you grant to recipients! In any case, that doesn't apply if you create a derivative work by, er..., changing the "COPYING" file ;-)

More seriously, you may well have a point about verbatim re-distribution but it wouldn't stop someone incorporating your "v2 or later" code in a genuine derivative work and re-distributing the result under "v3".

...but yeah, I guess it would take a lawyer to work out how "or later..." interacts with sections (1), (2) and (6) of GPLv2.

...and a second lawyer to contradict the first :-)

(Maybe the whole "or later" thing wasn't very well thought out - and hasn't been an issue until an "or later" candidate appeared)

Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?

[Goaway]

No, I was taking the line "Some key contributors are grumbling over this change and have privately discussed a fork to stay as GPL v2." from the article summary at face value. Perhaps not a vice choice here on Slashdot.

Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?

[ozmanjusri]

Perhaps not a vice choice here on Slashdot.

Probably not. The submitter of the article is Larry Bagina, who has a chequered history here.

As far as I'm aware, the major discussion from the GCC team regarding GPLv3 was how to handle backports.

Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the writer of this article's name rhyme with "vagina"?

Thats more interesting than this story.

Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?

[Anonymous Coward]

>But you should realize that as computer use shifts further and further from desktops to phones, pdas, and other highly proprietary platforms, there are a lot of free/open source developers who will appreciate the "rights" protected by GPLv3, even as they complain about it now.
I seriously doubt it. All an OEM has to do to get around the GPL3 provisions is to (shock, horror) not use any GPL3 code. Hard as it may be for you to believe, hundreds of them are doing that this very second.

GPL3 is just irrelevant grandstanding by RMS that doesn't protect diddly squat.

Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?

[ciggieposeur]

but if they don't agree, if they feel that these restrictions break the FSF's assurance that future versions of GPL would be in the same spirit as v2, then that is just tough.

Many different things happen when you decide to make your software Free Software. You don't get to keep absolute control over the features your users decide to add; you don't get to take your ball and go home if you change your mind; you don't get to be elevated to a position separate from other users. If you release your code and a team of bright engineers takes it and turns it into an abomination and a million users adopt it, you can't do anything about that. You might end up with the canonical version of your software ala Torvald's Linux kernel, or you might be the unpopular branch no one uses ala Xfree86. The point is that releasing under a Free Software license has effects far beyond DRM, patents, and whatever else crops up in a new version of the GPL. If you release under any GPL-like license, you lose control of the code's future. Any developer who doesn't understand this basically has only themselves to blame for any future regrets.

The idea that others could re-distribute your work provided they did not impose additional restrictions on the recipients is central to the GPL. FSF is effectively saying "its OK when we do it for the greater good" line.

FSF is only closing loopholes that were not thought of fifteen years ago. I consider this a beneficial feature of using their particular Free Software license. When I write code and release to others, I get pretty ticked off when third parties try to interfere with my generosity.

Are they in a position to create an uphill struggle for developers who want to stick to GPLv2? Yes.

FSF is not creating strife, they are only exposing it. Some developers don't mind DRM, some hate it with a passion, yet they've been working on each other's projects for years.

It's going to be a fight for a while as popular GPL-only libraries decide whether or not to stay "V2 or later" or move to "V3 or later", but there aren't that many of them out there. Outside the libraries, there are no other forces pushing anyone's projects to GPLv3.

Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?

[m50d]

Are you sure that this is the case? It would seem to me that they cannot change the text in the COPYING file, and thus the only thing they can do is distribute as "GPLv2 or later" themselves.

Erm, what? They can write their own COPYING file giving people permission to distribute it under the GPLv3.

Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?

[Knuckles]

Well I'm not sure, that's why I was asking. Just saying so doesn't make it true, do you have a source?

Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?

[Orkie]

"The people who are having trouble with it are people like Novel and Tivo who where violating the spirit of the GPL even before the current one was release." I'm a bit sick of this argument. There really is no such thing as 'the spirit of the GPL'. Everybody sees it differently and as such everybody sees a different 'spirit'. I have always seen the GPL as a way of making sure code is released so at worst, it can be examined to find out how the hardware works (I am happy for the hardware to be locked down or whatever). I don't know what you see it as, but there is definitely no one 'spirit of the GPL' that people keep raving on about.

Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?

[m50d]

Erm, the copyright statement itself; you just exercise your option ("at your option any later version") to distribute the program under the terms of the GPLv3.

Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?

[Anonymous Coward]

However, you missed the bit about all the developers who followed FSF's advice about the "or later" clause and now have no choice but to allow their work to be distributed under GPLv3. T'would be so nice if people took the time to understand instead of having a knew jerk reaction.

Leaving aside the FSF, GPLv3, rms for a moment...

When you release software under license-X, you must always make sure it is possible to change the licence:
1) Because the law can change, thus possibly requiring ajustments to the license
2) Some problems might be uncovered in the license, thus requiring ajustments

There are different ways to ensure that ajustments can be made:
1) allow the author of the license to make those changes (e.g. the V2 or later in GPL)
2) have a single copyright owner (individual, company, foundation)

The point is that you don't find yourself having to track down every single contributor, some of whom might not even be reachable. In other words, the point is that you don't corner yourself.

Now, looking at specific examples:
1) Linux kernel: linus decided to remove the "or later" bit, AND didn't ask people to transfer copyright ownership to a single individual, company or foundation. So, there's basically NO way for the linux kernel to have its license changed.

2) gcc: here's it's the complete opposite of the linux kernel - the fsf owns the copyright of everything, and the fsf is the author f the gpl, and the gcc source code has the "v2 or later" bit. So, the license of gcc CAN be changed because the fsf took the necessary precaution.

As for those who followed the fsf advice of using "v2 or later", well, it's not like they could claim to not have forseen that a new version of the GPL might eventually come to life.

I think some people just have nothing better to do than complain. the "v2 or later" bit is an imperfect but necessary mecanism... and people unhappy with GPLv3 can continue with GPLv2. Alternatively, you can go join Linus in the corner he painted himself, and for which his solution is to say he doesn't like GPLv3 to avoid admitting that he messed up big time with the linux's licensing.

But either way, please stop being silly, thinking that a license never ever has to be changed.

Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?

[Anonymous Coward]

How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt? There will not be a revolt. The gcc folks have shown to be mature and grown up (unlike in some other projects). When the egcs fork was made, they took all the necessary precaution to ensure that egcs could eventually become the official gcc (by making sure all source code copyright was xfered to the fsf). egcs eventually became the official gcc. the gcc folks have dealt intelligently with the political/legal challenges/difficulties. I don't see why this would be any different with the question of GPLv3.

Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?

[a.d.trick]

You would benefit from actually reading the GPL-2 then. This is the second sentence, verbatim:

By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software — to make sure the software is free for all its users.

A little more research and you would find their classic free software definition which outlines exactly what they mean by free. I draw your attention to freedoms 0 and 2:

• The freedom to run the program, for any purpose
• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor

The GPL-2 failed to secure those on two accounts: patents and DRM (unless controlled by the user). The GPL-3 covers both those cases and even allows for DRM which is under control of the user.

Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?

[Knuckles]

Ok, now that I'm having easy access to /usr/share/doc again, I guess you are right :)

Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm... because the people that wrote the license directly or indirectly control major projects such as GCC, binutils, flex, bison, libstdc++ and glibc.

I have written a ton of code using these tools. Before I use a GCC under GPLv3, I'll have to pay lawyers tens of thousands of dollars to carefully examine whether I am allowed to continue writing my software using these tools.

GCC the compiler itself can still be used without a problem with the exception that in legallese I have learned, the "libraries" that are used for things like number format conversion are in fact able to be considered a project in themselves and so far as we've investigated, they are not seperately licensed. This would leave it up to a court to decide whether or not the functions provided by the compiler for converting from integer to float or vise versa could be considered as the basis of my code. After all, if I write any application that's heavily dependant on this type of functionality, then in a court, it could be established by a strong prosecuter that I have in fact based my work on theirs.

binutils, let's not get too deep into this one, but for the most part, this set of tools has always been hard for our lawyers to choke down with regards to whether any code assembled or linked with these tools would have to be GPL'd. Under GPLv3, it might actually have to be since many of the fairness clauses have been removed in favor of forcing derived works to be GPLed

flex and bison are out the window because of the templates, nearly 100% sure any code including a template from flex or bison under GPLv3 will have to be GPLed.

libstdc++ is template based which means simply using them is deriving your work from them, we had to buy Dinkum because of the LGPL limitations from v2, v3 is worse.

glibc hehe umm... well this will be a good test. glibc has nearly always been in the clear since you more or less only dynamically link to functions by using symbolic names, but I wonder what our lawyers will say about the definition of "Derived Work" in regards to this.

So, we spent many thousands of dollars learning to write code that is open sourced with restrictions under GPLv2, given the scale of our organization now and the amount of GPL code and tools we use to simply be able to compile on Linux, if GPLv3 becomes a problem for us, we might just have to ditch Linux as a target.

So with regards to shoving it down our throats, GPLv3 is viral. It's almost like the Midas touch. Everything it touches turns to "Free Software" and there are a lot of us that make programs that people use but couldn't possibly make a living off of selling services to. So, we depend on writing software that isn't specifically "Free".

Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?

[ozmanjusri]

GPLv3 is viral. It's almost like the Midas touch. Everything it touches turns to "Free Software" and there are a lot of us that make programs that people use but couldn't possibly make a living off of selling services to

Microsoft has been propagating the same FUD about every version of the GPL. It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now.

Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?

[just_another_sean]

forcing a lot of people to use a tool under v3 First of all, nobody is forcing anyone to *use* anything. What software you choose to use is your choice. And anyone simply *using* gcc has nothing to even think about when the license changes. Using gcc v2 or v3 has no impact on the software you compile.

If you want to distribute gcc you need to be aware of the license and respect it's terms. Again, if you don't like it then you are free to choose another compiler to distribute, assuming you can find one that a) meets your needs and b) has a license that allows whatever it is made using GPLv3 unsuitable for you.

Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?

[marcosdumay]

But the LGPL (2.1) can already be turned into GPL (2), can't it?

Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?

[xappax]

All an OEM has to do to get around the GPL3 provisions is to (shock, horror) not use any GPL3 code.

All an OEM has to do to get around the restrictions of any license is to not use code protected under that license. The point of GPL3 is not to say "all hardware manufacturers must let their source be modified", it's to allow open source software developers to insist "if you want to use code that me and my friends wrote for free on your commercial device, you can't try to prevent people like us from modifying it further".

GPL3 is just irrelevant grandstanding by RMS that doesn't protect diddly squat.

The license itself doesn't do squat - no license does. It's just a tool that developers can use to enforce the terms on which they'd like to see their code used. There may be some special circumstances when GPL2 is more appropriate for a project, just as sometimes LGPL is better. But I think in general GPL3 protects the spirit of free/open source software more strongly, and once people have gotten all this fear-of-change out of their systems, developers will embrace it.

Fact lite submission

[Anonymous Coward]

Who is opposing the transition to GPLv3 and why?

Re:Fact lite submission

[Anonymous Coward]

Who is opposing the transition to GPLv3 and why?

There's this guy Linus, he's one. You may have heard of him. He's the guy who created git and some other minor projects.

Re:Fact lite submission

[Svenne]

Oh, will he be forking GCC? No? Then how is that relevant to the topic at hand?

Re:Fact lite submission

[Unoti]

Here's an article that summarizes the rift. This article, at least, talks about Linus Torvalds refusing to go GPL3 because of the provision in GPL3 that discourages or prohibits DRM. Richard Stallman is on the other side: "The foundation believes that free software--that is, software that can be freely studied, copied, modified, reused, redistributed and shared by its users--is the only ethically satisfactory form of software development, as free and open scientific research is the only ethically satisfactory context for the conduct of mathematics, physics or biology."

Re:Fact lite submission

[Anonymous Coward]

Complete Bullshit! Please mod this down.

Re:Fact lite submission

[vandan]

Basically people who want to write non-GPL software oppose GPL3 ( and also people pushing DRM ). For everyone else ( people writing GPL software, and users who don't write software ), GPL3 is a good step towards protecting us from the oncoming legal onslaught from the commercial software world, headed my Microsoft.

Re:Fact lite submission

[KeyserDK]

I can claim (without having read the license) that code compiled under the gpl3 has to be gpl3 can't be true. Come on, common sense applies?

Also, you can't relicense GPL code to BSD without owning the copyright, which in this case the FSF has. So Apple can't do that.

Troll?

Re:Fact lite submission

[kv9]

offtopic. that has nothing to do with GCC.

Re:Fact lite submission

[xXenXx]

This is completely untrue.

Many companies use GCC to compile their proprietary products. As long as they don't modify GCC, they can license things any way they want.

Re:Fact lite submission

[gnasher719]

Who is favouring a switch to GPL V. 3 and why?

Seriously: It is quite unlikely that anyone is running gcc on a TiVo, and even more unlikely that anyone is running a modified gcc on a TiVo. And I can't see anyone creating a DRM encumbered version of gcc. Now if Microsoft decided to co-operate with Sony and create the most horrible DRM ever thought of for the new Microsoft-Sony-Dr.Evil Music Player, then there is nothing at all that would stop them from using a future gcc compiler under GPL V. 3 to do this.

Now someone could try to find out what exactly are the consequences if lets say Apple has a very cool idea to create faster code, gets a patent for it, and adds an implementation to gcc. Or if Microsoft has a very cool idea to creater faster code, gets a patent for it, and doesn't add an implementation to gcc.

Re:Fact lite submission

[TheRaven64]

I can claim (without having read the license) that code compiled under the gpl3 has to be gpl3 can't be true. It does, if the compiler embeds portions of itself in the output, which GCC does. This is why GCC contains a specific exemption from the GPL for this particular use.

Re:Fact lite submission

[Asmodai]

Any bundled GCC, like in FreeBSD and OpenBSD, will then be screwed since they add format protection changes. Heck, they need to change the way the gcc -v outputs it versioning to show it is not the stock GCC: gcc version 3.4.6 [FreeBSD] 20060305 (6.2-STABLE box).

Re:Fact lite submission

[Anonymous Coward]

We all know the general objections to GPLv3 but what do these objections have to do specifically with the licensing of a compiler collection that the FSF hold the copyright to? This isn't about DRM or tivotisation, that leaves the GPLv3 patent provisions which are only relevant to those who want to destroy or hinder GCC via patents.

Even Microsoft routinely license their technology free of charge on condition that licensees waive their rights to sue for patent infringement.

Again, which GCC contributors oppose the change of license and why?

Re:Fact lite submission

[KeyserDK]

That should be "code compiled under gcc gpl v3 has to be gpl v3 as well"

Re:Fact lite submission

[Timothy Brownawell]

For everyone else ( people writing GPL software, and users who don't write software ), GPL3 is a good step [...]

No, GPLv3 is significantly different from GPLv2, and some of us think that the new version really, really, sucks.

Re:Fact lite submission

[jonwil]

In fact, according to the GPL, even if you DO change GCC, you aren't required to publish the changes except to anyone who gets the GCC binaries.

Re:Fact lite submission

[twistedcubic]

No, GPLv3 is significantly different from GPLv2, and some of us think that the new version really, really, sucks.

If you're of this opinion, why not just read the license? You might change your mind.

Re:Fact lite submission

[Aim Here]

Does it? I see no such exemption for gcc in my debian install, just good old GPL with some notes that some bits might be under other licenses. Nothing about how the output would be gpled, if it wasn't for an exemption. I take it as read that gcc doesn't embed bits of itself in it's output.

What you say IS the case for bison, however, but that's because it embeds a pile of parser code in there.

Re:Fact lite submission

[conares]

I do! Becuz' dat Torvalds gai sed it was liek no gud....or sumpin...;)

Re:Fact lite submission

[halivar]

That's one of the reasons people hate the GPLv3. Any time someone says they don't like it, proponents suggest it's because they haven't read it. It's a mite insulting.

Re:Fact lite submission

[Timothy Brownawell]

No, GPLv3 is significantly different from GPLv2, and some of us think that the new version really, really, sucks.

If you're of this opinion, why not just read the license? You might change your mind.

Why do you assume that anyone who doesn't like it hasn't read it?

I have read it (and based my last couple .sig's on it, even), and I find the Tivo section to make it sound very much like "You are free to use this however you want. Except for things we disagree with.". Which is really a very hollow sort of "freedom", regardless of how bad the "things we disagree with" are.

Re:Fact lite submission

[Scarblac]

You are totally, completely free to _use_ a GPLv3 program for whatever you want, and you're even guaranteed to be able to do that on the device it came on, if any. Of course, if you want to distribute the program yourself, you have to give receivers all the same rights.

That doesn't sound like "you are free to use this however you want, except for things we disagree with" at all, to me.

Re:Fact lite submission

[DrXym]

Who is opposing the transition to GPLv3 and why?

Probably anyone who thinks it's a terribly bad idea to change licences midstream through the life of a product. They should have done what Samba is doing and declare a clean break at a major version change. It would be less confusing and far more clearcut to say that gcc 4.2.x is GPL v2 and 4.4.x is GPL3.

Re:Fact lite submission

[vslashg]

No, GPLv3 is significantly different from GPLv2, and some of us think that the new version really, really, sucks. If you're of this opinion, why not just read the license? You might change your mind. I'm not really sure why a glib post yours gets positive moderation. Just because somebody's opinion disagrees with yours doesn't mean they're uninformed. There are valid reasons to prefer GPLv2 over GPLv3. Of course, this is a matter of opinion, thus my use of the word "prefer" here (and the grandparent's "some of us think"), but it's not a baseless one.

GPLv2 might be characterized as a clever means of turning copyright on its head. GPLv3 doesn't seem as clever to me, as it goes through some odd contortions to address some rather specific uses of software.

As an example, one of the strangest is the special handling of "User Product"s, which means the rights you get regarding your use of GPLv3-protected code depend on your own software's intended use!

There's a post on the discussion draft FAQ about this -- why is TiVo disallowed to use DRM when others aren't? To me it's unconvincing, but they claim it's "a compromise of strategy, and not our ideals".

This is the risk people took releasing their code under GPLv2 "or any later version". Doing so gives the FSF a great deal of power, as now they have access to a much larger body of code to use to leverage the terms of their as-then-unwritten license. I find the FSF's pragmatism argument weak, and I think it's very unfortunate that the GPLv3 goes through such a contortion to limit the set of protections afforded to a subset of developers based on the target audience of devices they want to distribute their code on.

Re:Fact lite submission

[Anonymous Coward]

I see no such exemption for gcc in my debian install, just good old GPL with some notes that some bits might be under other licenses.

Most likely because you are looking at the wrong place (I guess you just looked at /usr/share/doc/gcc/copyright and jumped to this conclusion). In /usr/share/doc/gcc-4.2/copyright on my unstable system, it says clearly:

gcc/libgcc2.c (source for libgcc) has the following addition:
        In addition to the permissions in the GNU General Public License,
        the Free Software Foundation gives you unlimited permission to
        link the compiled version of this file into combinations with
        other programs, and to distribute those combinations without any
        restriction coming from the use of this file. (The General Public
        License restrictions do apply in other respects; for example, they
        cover modification of the file, and distribution when not linked
        into a combine executable.)

Re:Fact lite submission

[Timothy Brownawell]

You are totally, completely free to _use_ a GPLv3 program for whatever you want, and you're even guaranteed to be able to do that on the device it came on, if any. Of course, if you want to distribute the program yourself, you have to give receivers all the same rights.

That doesn't sound like "you are free to use this however you want, except for things we disagree with" at all, to me.

Even considering that the entire point of those restrictions was to tell Tivo "you may not use this software for that purpose"? Many ways to use software (almost anything including the word "firmware", for example) necessarily involve redistributing it.

(Also of interest is that the FSF's own "Free Software Definition" demands freedom of (re)distribution. Therefore I consider GPLv3 to be not only non-free, but hypocritical.)

Re:Fact lite submission

[MysteriousPreacher]

"the new version really, really, sucks." ranks alongside such great arguments as "Your mum" and "Because I said so". That's probably why it was suggested that they read the licence.

Re:Fact lite submission

[memfrob]

I have read it (and based my last couple .sig's on it, even), and I find the Tivo section to make it sound very much like "You are free to use this however you want. Except for things we disagree with.". Which is really a very hollow sort of "freedom", regardless of how bad the "things we disagree with" are.

So, if you want "You are free to use this however you want, including locking up my code behind your patents and DMCA-lockdowns so that I never see my code again", there's always the BSD license and its thousand variants. Nobody's forcing you to use the GPL for your code, or GPL code for your project...

Re:Fact lite submission

[jez9999]

make it sound very much like "You are free to use this however you want. Except for things we disagree with.".

The GPLv2 already does this! It says, "you can use this how you want, except several things, one of which is modifying -> compiling -> distributing it without the modified source."

Which is really a very hollow sort of "freedom", regardless of how bad the "things we disagree with" are.

If you say so. I think it's a prefectly reasonable level of freedom. If you want 100% freedom, go BSD-licence, but don't expect not to have corporate freeloaders.

Re:Fact lite submission

[alexgieg]

I find the Tivo section to make it sound very much like "You are free to use this however you want. Except for things we disagree with."

This isn't a correct reading. You ("you" as in "the end user") is always, always free to use the software to do whatever you want. Whatever! The GPLv3, being a license about copy rights, only places restrictions on how you ("you" as in "the copier") can copy it.

Always remember: copying != using.

Freedom 0, roughly speaking, was always about protecting the end user from EULAs, explicit or implicit. Since tivoization is about imposing an indirect EULA through messing with the copying aspect of the thing (again: copying != using - Tivo isn't the end user, the owner of the device is), to protect the end user's freedom 0 from such indirect EULAs, FSF adjusted the copying directives. And that's all there is to it.

Sure, as a copier you might not be happy about it. How dare the FSF oblige you to not restrict your end user in any shape, way or form?!? But as an end user, nothing has changed. Your freedom to use the software however you like is intact.

Re:Fact lite submission

[Anonymous Coward]

"I have read it (and based my last couple .sig's on it, even), and I find the Tivo section to make it sound very much like "You are free to use this however you want. Except for things we disagree with.". Which is really a very hollow sort of "freedom", regardless of how bad the "things we disagree with" are."

If either you or Linus can explain why it's good that Tivo can do precisely this but bad that the FSF are stopping them doing this then you are wasted on coding.

How dare the state take your right to own slaves from you? What a hollow sort of freedom you have,,,

Re:Fact lite submission

[Timothy Brownawell]

So, if you want "You are free to use this however you want, including locking up my code behind your patents and DMCA-lockdowns so that I never see my code again", there's always the BSD license and its thousand variants. Nobody's forcing you to use the GPL for your code, or GPL code for your project...

The new restrictions in GPLv3 have nothing to do with preventing "I never see my code again". That's already covered by GPLv2 requiring that source be made available. They have to do with demanding that specific hardware accept modified versions of the software.

Re:Fact lite submission

[Rashkae]

Let me play devil's advocate. What if a company released a new compiler (probably based off an existing proprietary C compiler) and added/changed completely new language symantics. Then they could take any GPL software they like, modify it, and release the new version of the software with source code. The problem is, since they didn't release the compiler, no one could *ever* actually compile a new binary from the source!

That's exactly what Tivoization is trying to guard against. Only in this case, the hardware makers were using hardware hacks to make the code useless. Note that GPL3 doesn't dictate how you use the code. What it does say, if the binary you distribute, based on GPL code is singed (and that signature is required for the binary to function), then you have to include the key that it's signed with as the GPL source code! That's no different than GPL2 requiring you release all source and scripts needed to compile the source.

Re:Fact lite submission

[Scarblac]

Even considering that the entire point of those restrictions was to tell Tivo "you may not use this software for that purpose"?

Woah - TiVo isn't using that software, their customers are using the software. The FSF is telling Tivo, if you're giving our software to your users, you have to give them the ability to change it. If you just allow them to, but then make it impossible to use those changes, then that's taking advantage of a loophole, you should have known it was, and now we're fixing that.

Re:Fact lite submission

[agbinfo]

Even considering that the entire point of those restrictions was to tell Tivo "you may not use this software for that purpose"?

As was pointed out to you already. TiVo is free to use the GPL'd software for the purpose they are using it now - PVR. What they won't be able to do anymore is to remove "our" right to modify that same software. That same software, by the way, they were given the right to modify and use.

You may disagree with that. Some feel that since the source code is distributed then it's OK to stop people from using it on some proprietary device. Just consider what will happen if personal computers become such a device.

The GPLv3 also guarantees that you can't protect only a select few down the distribution lane against patent lawsuits. You may disagree with that as well. Before you say that you do, please consider the Linspire and Novell deals.

So which part of the license don't you like?

Re:Fact lite submission

[N3WBI3]

Basically people who want to write non-GPL software oppose GPL3

Right, Like Linus... Wait a minute..

Re:Fact lite submission

[N3WBI3]

The FSF is telling Tivo, if you're giving our software to your users, you have to give them the ability to change it.

That is *not* the issue and its damn deceiptful of RMS and the gpl3 pushers to say it is. You *can* modify the tivo software, and you have always been able to do so. Tivo has decided to lock down their *hardware* and that is what gave rms a hissy fit.

http://public.www.planetmirror.com/pub/tivo/

Thats right go ahead and take thir code use it as you see fit..

Re:Fact lite submission

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

GPLv3 is an attempt to rectify certain "loopholes" in GPLv2 that allow individuals and organisations to use GPLed code in ways that contradict the ideology of the FSF. The license restricts the use of software with DRM technology, as well as preventing IP indemnification deals (with ramifications affecting the MS-Novell deal). Anyway, I don't really know too much on the subject, but here's some reading: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2108409,00.as p

Re:Fact lite submission

[Scarblac]

As I said, yes you're allowed to changed it, but then you can't use that software in the only device it's useful for; I don't call that being able to change the software.

It's a loophole that GPLv3 fixes.

Re:Fact lite submission

[Anonymous Coward]

That's exactly what Tivoization is trying to guard against. Only in this case, the hardware makers were using hardware hacks to make the code useless.

So what you're saying is that the GPL'd code that Tivo released won't work on other hardware? I can't use that code to help build my own MythTV box?

Oh, you mean useless as in "you can't use the code on a piece of hardware that you bought knowing that you couldn't change the software on it." How about if you don't like their hardware, you build your own box and use the code they supplied, complying with the GPL2, to the community?

But... but... it's not fair that you're using the basketball court at the town park to play horse with two other people. You can't monopolize the town's property like that. I demand that from now on, only regular basketball can be played on the town's property so that ten people can use the court at a time instead of just the three of you. That's freedom baby.

Re:Fact lite submission

[N3WBI3]

Wow thats one heck of a straw man you have there! Point A (our straw man) "If either you or Linus can explain why it's good that Tivo can do precisely this" Nobody is saying that what Tivo is doing is good, what they are saying is the freedom which is enjoyed by GPL2 users is good! Sometimes somebody is going to use freedom in a way you don't like. People voting for candidate X might be really bad but the freedom to do so is good. So take your scarecrow and go play somewhere else Point B "bad that the FSF are stopping them doing this" This is bad because the FSF is restricting the right of developers (you know the people who license code) to achieve a direct end. Taking away a freedom to make billy behave the way you want is *not* generally good.

Re:Fact lite submission

[tomhudson]

A lot of us have read it and saying "it sux" is just our way of being polite.

Its a fuck-up. The gpl was originally about software, and trying to extend it to hardware is inappropriate. It means that GPLv3 code is cut off from a lot of applications, for example, use in running medical devices where you absolutely want to prohibit anyone from changing the binaries; because of provisions for distributing keys, any device containing GPLv3 software is no longer certifiable. Nice way to hand a critical market to Microsoftie, where the blue screen of death is not just a metaphor.

There are other examples, if you care to do some research; we've commented on them before. The GPLv2 was sufficient to defang the Novell-MS deal, but people panicked. The GPLv3 is a political maneuver that plays right into Microsoft's hands. They would love all free software to move to GPLv3. They'd shit-stain their tidy-whities if it all forked to, say, a BSD license instead. Sun could, for example, merge linux and solaris. Linux with zfs would be an instant hit.

Re:Fact lite submission

[Moridineas]

"Those who would give up a little freedom for temporary safety from corporations deserve neither" --horribly mangled, wrong, off-in-spirit Ben Franklin quote

(tongue very much in cheek...and yet...)

Re:Fact lite submission

[Anonymous Coward]

He's the guy who created git and some other minor projects.

That's a coincidence, because he is being a git when it comes to the GPLv3.

Re:Fact lite submission

[Anonymous Coward]

You're position on GPLv3 is crap IMHO, this snippet however:

Nice way to hand a critical market to Microsoftie, where the blue screen of death is not just a metaphor.

Is responsible for caffeinated beverage being splurted all over my laptop. How's that for extending into hardware you cruel bastard :P

As you well know, GPLv3 anti-tivotisation only applies to consumer devices.

Re:Fact lite submission

[MysteriousPreacher]

You're preaching to the choir, I'm no fan of it because I think GPL2 provides sufficient protection. I agree with you that in combating the tivo effect, they're stopping people from using software in critical systems.

My main point was that people who say "It sux" should expect to receive a barrage of RTFA responses. Not every reader has the time to sit down and view the history of the poster to separate the whiners from the people with well considered objections. The impolite response is definitely more insightful in the case of your post.

Re:Fact lite submission

[Timothy Brownawell]

The GPLv2 already does this! It says, "you can use this how you want, except several things, one of which is modifying -> compiling -> distributing it without the modified source."

Please elaborate upon how "you must make source available" is the same as "you may not distribute this with devices with property X".

Re:Fact lite submission

[stonecypher]

... to GCC*. Man, what I wouldn't give for an edit button. 's only been ten years.

Re:Fact lite submission

[Unoti]

Get a grip, fanboys. It's not offtopic at all. He topic is GCC and GPL 3. Someone was asking what the controversey is about, and I told them. Losers

Re:Fact lite submission

[vslashg]

That's exactly what Tivoization is trying to guard against. Only in this case, the hardware makers were using hardware hacks to make the code useless. It's certainly a reasonable position that Tivoization is a problem, though I'm not sure I agree that a software license should concern itself with hardware distribution. But for the sake of argument, let's assume that that TiVo's strategy really is harmful and needs to be prevented in the future.

If that's the case, then why do the protections only apply to "User Product"s? If Google wanted to use the exact same technique with their search appliance, the GPLv3 would allow it, because a Google search appliance isn't meant to be installed in the home. Why compromise here? It sure feels like, to me, a way for the FSF to stick it to TiVo without pissing off the larger corporations that invest lots of money into free software development. The new version of the GPL is more complex, and it's troublesome when some of that added complexity is devoted to targeting particular uses of software. I thought this was supposed to be about "freedom", but different rules for different players sure doesn't feel like "freedom" to me. That's why I think the GPLv2 is a better license.

Re:Fact lite submission

[stinerman]

Even considering that the entire point of those restrictions was to tell Tivo "you may not use this software for that purpose"?

Actually that isn't what it says. It says you may use this software for whatever purpose you like, but you have to make sure the users of the software have these specific rights. If that fucks with your business model of restricting the rights of your users, then balls to you. Equivalently, I could say that the GPLv2 sucks because Microsoft can't use such software for their purposes, namely using the software in a proprietary program.

What Tivo et al. wanted to do was use the software but not give the users of the software under GPLv2 the freedoms they were supposed to have. Sure, you could see the code, but you couldn't further modify the code and install it on your Tivo. This reflected an imperfection (in the eyes of the FSF) in the GPLv2.

Suppose you release something using the GPLv2. I take it, modify it, and redistribute it but I put the source code in a secretly devised file format that no one but me can read, encrypt it, or in any way obfuscate it. Sure, I'm technically releasing the source code, but no one can do anything with it. Your software might as well have been released under a BSD-style license.

The entire scenario might be fine with you; I don't know your view on software licenses. If you don't like GPLv3, then simply don't use it. No one is forcing you to do so. Tivo and the like will have to either bite the bullet or start heavily investing in hacking the BSD userspace (or maintain old versions of the GNU tools).

Re:Fact lite submission

[Rashkae]

Yikes.... I'll have to re-read that part of the license carefully,, but if your interpretation is correct.... Bad FSF, no donut!

Re:Fact lite submission

[Anonymous Coward]

The anti-GPV3 people interpret "closing that loophole" as a limitation on what they're able to do with their hardware. ie: simply distributing GPL3 software restricts the developers' freedom to control their own IP.

In many cases, I'm sure that's irrelevant to a pure hardware vendor. After all, if they're selling hardware, and FOSS helps them to reach more customers, then everyone benefits. If they're selling a service, and giving away the hardware to facilitate the service, then they may interpret GPL3 as coercing them into providing both the device and the service at a loss. FSF is certainly not responsible for making sure that there are profitable business models for the use of FOSS, but they should expect some backlash when they proactively disrupt an entire class of established businesses.

Re:Fact lite submission

[Rashkae]

As bad form as it is to reply to myself... 10 seconds of research leads me to this. Chalk me up as a GPL3 detractor. The license has no business dictating terms based on the usage of the product.. Either hardware lock is allowed or not.

Re:Fact lite submission

[metamatic]

"You are free to use this however you want. Except for things we disagree with."

That's exactly what GPL v2 said as well. It was just less specific about a few of the things the FSF disagrees with.

Re:Fact lite submission

[Chandon Seldon]

That is *not* the issue and its damn deceiptful of RMS and the gpl3 pushers to say it is.

That damn well is the issue. Saying that someone has a right to modify software pretty strongly implies that they have the right to use modified versions of software on the hardware that they have.

If I receive a piece of free software on an appliance and I find a bug I want to fix, I can fix the bug and not have to deal with it on my appliance anymore. Anything less and it wasn't really free software.

Re:Fact lite submission

[Chandon Seldon]

Free software means, at very least, that every user have the ability to fix bugs in a program that he is using. Tivoization prevents some users from doing that, and is therefore incompatible with free software. And no, the ability to fix the bug in some other copy of the program from the one he's using isn't relevant.

Re:Fact lite submission

[isilrion]

for example, use in running medical devices where you absolutely want to prohibit anyone from changing the binaries; because of provisions for distributing keys, any device containing GPLv3 software is no longer certifiable.

Oh, so that's why those devices were specifically excluded? That was my only disappointment (so far) with GPLv3: that some hardware vendors were allowed to lock down our devices. Thank's for explaining why that exception is useful (though I don't think is the best way to do it). Relevant sections:

A User Product is either (1) a consumer product, which means any tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling.

[...]

If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product [...]

And then, this bit about non-installable devices (like, I would guess, some medical devices):

But this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM).

So I have to wonder... did you really read the licence?

Re:Fact lite submission

[Goaway]

Who is favouring a switch to GPL V. 3 and why?

The FSF, who own the copyrights to gcc, and for ideological reasons.

Re:Fact lite submission

[Vintermann]

Linus was hardly a "GPL fanatic", my impression is that he's been lukewarm all along. Although he seems to have a tough line on closed-source drivers, as I recall Linux wasn't even GPL until his contributors convinced him.

Re:Fact lite submission

[jZnat]

use in running medical devices where you absolutely want to prohibit anyone from changing the binaries ... Since when has medical devices been considered a "consumer product"!? Maybe you do need to read the license because things like medical devices are not affected by the anti-Tivoisation bit. Also, if absolutely nobody should be able to modify the software, then that should include the company distributing the software in the machine. Giving just them the ability to modify and use the code is unfair to the actual copyright holders as well as the customer who owns the device in the first place. However, this only looks to be an actual issue in "consumer" products that want to force DRM and other nonsense down our throats, so the GPLv3 prevents that by allowing the user to continue to modify and use the code regardless of the wishes of the distributor.

And before you or someone else says that the GPLv3 disallows DRM, I must tell you that it does none of that sort. Instead, it states that the code covered by this license are not "technological prevention" or whatever it's called in the DMCA so that the end user secures the right to modify, run, and distribute the code without being liable for being sued under 17 USC 1201 and all that legal mumbo-jumbo you may or may not remember from the DVD Jon and DeCSS case from years ago. What point is having the code under a copyleft license if the end user is still unable to legally modify and redistribute it? Also, to go back to the Tivoisation thing, what point is having the code under a copyleft license if the end user is still unable to modify and use the code on the device they own?

Besides, if you don't want to deal with the ramifications of using and distributing copyleft software, stick with the X11/BSD/MIT family of permissive licenses that basically say, "do whatever the fuck you want; I write this code so that anyone can use it for anything, so just give me credit." I feel that those licenses are entirely appropriate for other circumstances (e.g., essential libraries, drivers, low level system stuff, maybe even some kernel-related things), and others feel that it is an appropriate license for everything. We all have our own opinions, so just follow your own, but don't present it as fact (especially when the actual facts contradict it).

Re:Fact lite submission

[isilrion]

Please elaborate upon how "you must make source available" is the same as "you may not distribute this with devices with property X".

Well, the licence doesn't say that you cannot distribute software with devices with property X. It says that you must provide installation instructions. So, it is not different from requiring the source code. In fact, GPLv2 already mentions "installation scripts" as part of the definition of source code!

Re:Fact lite submission

[jZnat]

Tivo has decided to lock down their *hardware* and that is what gave rms a hissy fit. It ceases to be their *hardware* when I *buy* it from them. The fact that *my* hardware is locking me away from modifying code I have the legal right to modify while they continue to push their own DRM-encumbered updates is quite disgusting and reeks of corporate abuse of free software and my own rights as the customer who fucking paid for and now own the device.

Re:Fact lite submission

[Jeremi]

That's one of the reasons people hate the GPLv3. Any time someone says they don't like it, proponents suggest it's because they haven't read it. It's a mite insulting.

So people hate the license because of what the licence's proponents say? Shouldn't they channel their discontent at the proponents, instead of the license itself? If these people can't make that distinction, perhaps they aren't so bright after all.... and therefore, probably haven't read the license. ;^)

Re:Fact lite submission

[the-empty-string]

Please elaborate upon how "you must make source available" is the same as "you may not distribute this with devices with property X".

"You must make source available" == "You may not distribute this with devices that make the availability of source code irrelevant."

If that source cannot be used, it's cold comfort that vendors distribute it.

Re:Fact lite submission

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like a card game. It's good to have a "linus" card. It's better to have a "stallman" card. Much better.

GPLv3 was created by Stallman after M$ found a loophole they could possibly exploit in the V2 license. Basically V3 keeps M$ and others like them from stealing and shutting down our world with lawyers and endless litigation.

There are clauses in V3 that allow you to release your code and maintain your patents. V3 is much more flexible. However V3s default clauses prevent M$ from undermining all we've worked for. That's why M$ is trying so desperately, even hiring people lawyers and bloggers, to spread FUD about V3.

Re:Fact lite submission

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you assume that anyone who doesn't like it hasn't read it?

Because most of their arguments are based on obviously-false premises.

Re:Fact lite submission

[jon_anderson_ca]

To be fair, a medical hardware company can ship a certified product with a big "IF YOU $&$% WITH THE SOFTWARE THIS CERTIFICATION IS INVALID" sticker. All GPLv3 does is that, if you use "turn_premium_features_off = true", the end user can change it. The new code should checksum to a valid value (that of the premium software), so it should still pass inspection/recertification/whatever.

Re:Fact lite submission

[Anonymous Coward]

For a particular product received by a particular user, "normally used" refers to a typical or common use of that class of product, regardless of the status of the particular user or of the way in which the particular user actually uses, or expects or is expected to use, the product. A product is a consumer product regardless of whether the product has substantial commercial, industrial or non-consumer uses, unless such uses represent the only significant mode of use of the product. thus, if you can use a medical device at home, it is a consumer device

Re:Fact lite submission

[DragonWriter]

Woah - TiVo isn't using that software, their customers are using the software. The FSF is telling Tivo, if you're giving our software to your users, you have to give them the ability to change it.

Or, looked at a different but equally accurate way, it is telling them (but not people who sell hardware with GPLv3 software that exclusively targets "business" users), "if you're giving our software to your users, you must not give them the option of hardware that provides an absolute guarantee against changes". IOW, it limits customer freedom to choose hardware features that they might be interested in.

Sure, hackers and tinkerers who are pretty certain that they'll be the most technically proficient users with physical access to their home hardware probably don't want that feature. Technophobic parents whose children are (or who perceive their children to be) far more technically proficient, OTOH, might prefer that feature. However, the FSF has declared that while businesses might have a need for hardware with that feature that makes it important to keep that choice available, consumers can't have that feature if they want OSS. In fact, it so important to keep that feature away from consumers that products that are "dual use" (marketed both to businesses and consumers) can't have the feature, only "business-only" products.

And if your business-only product is designed to be incorporated into a dwelling (say, you make a digital utility meter), well, then its a consumer product, and you can't have that feature, either.

Re:Fact lite submission

[the not-troll]

You may think that, but GPLv3 is the very same as GPLv2, except with some legal loopholes closed, making it harder to violate the spirit of the license while conforming to its letter. Thus, if you don't like GPLv3, you shouldn't have used any GPL'd software in the first place, no matter which version, but something else.

The main idea of the GPL is that you are free to do what you want unless you infringe on the freedom of others, including the original author - this is, indeed, the very definition of the concept of freedom, especially as contrasted to the basic concept of ability to do something. I, for one, would not want to release the code, allowing anyone to come along and close it, thus deprieving me of their improvements while they continue to live off of mine.

Of course, the main focus is the user: If I am to purchase software (yes, I do always purchase the software I use or at least donate to the project - though not the inflated price of what a commercial alternative would have cost me), I don't want my business process getting broken just because the seller of the software goes under, discontinues the product or otherwise goes contrary to the intentions I have with the product. The GPL offers me this (apart from being cheaper).

Therefore, if you don't want the GPL, what you are saying is that you hate the user and, indeed, the developer, if you argue that e.g. Tivo should be allowed to not give back: You are claiming that freedom is to do what you want, even if it means taking away freedom of others. Indeed, this delusion of freedom including the ability to take away freedom is the fallacy developers releasing software under the BSD-license or similar succumbed to.

The only one having difficulties are those who don't offer any value: If you just take some distribution and resell it, you won't do that good - which is why Red Hat etc. offer additional services (or consider those resellers who send you burned or pressed CDs for a fee, which is a service, too).

And before you start: One can very well make money with GPL'd software as with any other software. If you fail at that, don't blame the GPL, blame yourself because you (like me) lack the business sense to sell things to people. Put differently: Windows still gets pirated, it's just less legal and Microsoft still makes money, because they know how to make money (and that's all they do).

However, what clashes with most people's monetaristic upbringing is that one doesn't necessarily needs to be paid in money but in material ways: Where the BSD license simply communistically gives their code away, ready to be abused by people who put their own profit above cooperation, the GPL makes a perfectly capitalistic trade: "I give you my code, but then you need to give me the code you build on mine".

Re:Fact lite submission

[mrchaotica]

It means that GPLv3 code is cut off from a lot of applications, for example, use in running medical devices where you absolutely want to prohibit anyone from changing the binaries; because of provisions for distributing keys, any device containing GPLv3 software is no longer certifiable.

You're wrong, and here's why:

• First of all, medical devices are not "User Products," so the requirement to provide keys doesn't apply to begin with!
• Second, the certification can always be revoked if the user modifies the code.
• Third, if you really "absolutely want to prohibit anyone from changing the binaries," you ought to be simply burning the thing into read-only memory instead!

Re:Fact lite submission

[DragonWriter]

As was pointed out to you already. TiVo is free to use the GPL'd software for the purpose they are using it now - PVR. What they won't be able to do anymore is to remove "our" right to modify that same software.

Tivo doesn't remove your right to modify the software now. The source is available. You can modify it. What they don't do is give you a system that will run modified software, nor an easy way to produce one. There are a few ways the FSF could have addressed that, presuming that concern is important (to me, it seems somewhat out-of-scope of the focus of the pre-v3 GPL, but it is a concern). One of them would have been to require equivalent openness of hardware: hardware that bundles GPL software would be required to have open specifications with rights that enable the recipient of the bundled hardware/software to "rebuild" their own implementation of the hardware (either a faithful one or a modified copy) and run whatever software they want on it. This would have allowed users freedom to do what they want, as well freedom to select hardware/software-bundle features.

Another approach, and the one the FSF chose—but only for consumers, because of outcry that business users needed the security of locked-down hardware/software bundles—was to have prohibit locked-down hardware. This requires it to be cheaper for users to run modified software than it might be under the other model, since they won't have to "rebuild" hardware, at the expense of the freedom to choose features of a hardware/software bundle they might prefer.

Re:Fact lite submission

[N3WBI3]

That damn well is the issue. Saying that someone has a right to modify software pretty strongly implies that they have the right to use modified versions of software on the hardware that they have.

No, it does not imply that. If I download the source for something I am *not* going to be running it on the hardware I obtained it from, and *nothing* is stopping someone from taking TiVo's offering, stripping out the parts they wish and putting it on a PC. Here is the souce http://dynamic.tivo.com/linux/linux.asp

Tivo is locking down hardware not GPL software.

Anything less and it wasn't really free software.

The GPL protects Users and Developers, the V3 says to hell with developers..

Re:Fact lite submission

[N3WBI3]

Its not cooperate abuse of free software... I love it when the community welcomes the GPLing of Java, contributions from IBM and others but when they do something the community does not like they are our evil corporate overlords.. Yea to hell with them and when they start using the BSD License and GNU/Linux starts to take a beating well be asking ourselves why..

Re:Fact lite submission

[Scarblac]

Medical hardware is not a "User Product" (as defined in the license) so it's unaffected by these changes.

That said, it's not surprising that software of which the whole point is that it can be freely changed by everybody is not particularly suitable for devices where you would not want that.

Re:Fact lite submission

[Timothy Brownawell]

Since when has medical devices been considered a "consumer product"!?

Not all medical devices are limited to the hospital or doctor's office. Although it's kinda scary to think of how a firmware update would be applied to a pacemaker (assuming they're even complicated enough to *have* firmware)...

Re:Fact lite submission

[Anonymous Coward]

Either hardware lock is allowed or not.

It's supposed to be allowed for industrial and/or corporate applications, as that was the major point of Linus' complaints, and other people's too.

If your application is SOX compliant, you don't want any random developer being able to put up any new version of the software. You might instead ask your compliance people to sign the version going on to the production servers, and then lock down the servers to only run code signed by compliance (a third party).

If you're distributing a medical hardware with its embedded controller, it might be against the law to run any modified software on it other than the one certified by the FDA. As such, the manufacturer might be required to lock down the machine.

Notice that neither of these preclude modifications. In the first one, your other servers allow your modifications to run fine. In the latter you might need to submit your modifications to the manufacturer, or even use the source code to build your own version of the device.

On the other hand, if I buy a computer, I want to be able to run whatever the heck I want on it.

That's what the distinction is. Yes its annoying, but at least it's better than v2, where nobody gets the protection.

Re:Fact lite submission

[Bananenrepublik]

An example was given upthread: medical devices where it is imperative for liability reasons that an exact version of the software be used couldn't use GPL3 code if the restriction of the tivoization clause to User's Products weren't there. That aside, it's much harder to fsck over a company compared to a user, so tivoization is much more likely to affect the freedom of users.

I'm fairly surprised people get so upset at the tivoization clauses -- anybody who understands what the FSF is about must have understood that Tivo was exploiting a license loophole to use software (C) FSF in a way that was not in accordance with what the FSF is about. I'm surprised that anybody wouldn't be upset by this.

Re:Fact lite submission

[halivar]

Legal documents have to be interpreted as they're read. One of the ways we interpret them is by what the designers of those documents say about them.

Re:Fact lite submission

[poopdeville]

Wow, you've almost realized that to grant someone a right, you have to take away another's right. That's life. Get over it.

Re:Fact lite submission

[TimSSG]

Would TiVo just have to give directions on how to replace the chip on the PC Board that contained the code. And, then they would be GPL3 OK?

Tim S

Re:Fact lite submission

[Chandon Seldon]

Tivo is locking down hardware not GPL software.

Tivo distributes software expressly intended to run on specific hardware. One of the basic goals of the GPL is to allow any user to modify the software he uses so it behaves the way he wants it to. Tivo prevents users from performing such modifications - the software being used, on the Tivo, cannot be modified.

The GPL protects Users and Developers, the V3 says to hell with developers.

The GPLv2 protects users by ensuring that they can modify their software. It protects developers by ensuring that intermediate distributors can't take away that right from the end users. The GPLv3 does the same.

Re:Fact lite submission

[Timothy Brownawell]

I take it, modify it, and redistribute it but I put the source code in a secretly devised file format that no one but me can read, encrypt it, or in any way obfuscate it. Sure, I'm technically releasing the source code, but no one can do anything with it. Your software might as well have been released under a BSD-style license.

If you do that, is it really still "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it"?

Re:Fact lite submission

[Brandybuck]

You are totally, completely free to _use_ a GPLv3 program for whatever you want

Unless you're using it on a server. In that case, your _USE_ is restricted if you have any clients.

Re:Fact lite submission

[N3WBI3]

Tivo distributes software expressly intended to run on specific hardware. One of the basic goals of the GPL is to allow any user to modify the software he uses so it behaves the way he wants it to.

Continue to extend that logic and releaseing code which will not work on a given platform is wrong. If I release, for example assembly code under the GPL for the SPARC platform I have, if we take your interpretation, violated the spirit of the GPL because if you want to use it on an Intel chip you can not.

Tivo prevents users from performing such modifications - the software being used, on the Tivo, cannot be modified.

No, it does not. It prevent you from running anything but their distribution on the hardware they sell! you are, in the spirit of the GPL, free to modify their code so it will run on another piece of hardware. The TIVO hardware is *not* under GPL. I line up with Linux on this one: I dislike DRM and what Tivo does but it is *clearly* not a violation of the GPL in act or spirit and rewriting the GPL to force hardware vendors to support modification is going beyond what the license should do.

Re:Fact lite submission

[stinerman]

Of course it isn't, but that doesn't change my point.

Sure, I'm technically releasing the source code, but no one can do anything with it.

Tivo, etc. are releasing the source code and are doing so within their obligations under the GPLv2, but I don't have the rights that were supposed to be guaranteed to me. Tivo did an excellent job of finding a hole in the GPLv2. RMS did just as excellent of a job by closing that hole.

Your assertion that GPLv3 no longer allows for using the software for "any purpose" is very specious because you define "any purpose" as one which contravenes the license. Hell, you can't even use BSD-licensed software for "any purpose" if your purpose is to remove the copyright notices and/or use the authors of the program to endorse your fork. If that is your logic, then the GPLv2 also did not allow for "any purpose" since you can't use the code in a proprietary program. Indeed, only software in the public domain would meet your definition of "any purpose".

Again, you are free to have objections to the GPLv3, but your reasoning is lacking.

Re:Fact lite submission

[Timothy Brownawell]

Of course it isn't, but that doesn't change my point.

Sure, I'm technically releasing the source code, but no one can do anything with it.

Yeah, releasing it in a manner which does not satisfy the GPLv2 requirements. Which makes the "may as well be under BSD" claim meaningless - if you're going to violate the license, then of course the license doesn't matter.

Your assertion that GPLv3 no longer allows for using the software for "any purpose" is very specious because you define "any purpose" as one which contravenes the license. Hell, you can't even use BSD-licensed software for "any purpose" if your purpose is to remove the copyright notices and/or use the authors of the program to endorse your fork. If that is your logic, then the GPLv2 also did not allow for "any purpose" since you can't use the code in a proprietary program. Indeed, only software in the public domain would meet your definition of "any purpose".

Say I modify a piece of software and sell the modified version along with a source CD. This is permitted under any open/free license.

Now say I design some locked-down hardware, which will only run binaries signed by me (which include my version of the above software, of course), and now advertise that exact same software as being something to run on that hardware. Nothing about the software has changed, and yet GPLv3 prohibits this.

I am still distributing the exact same software in the exact same way, but GPLv3 says I can't do this because the purpose has changed.

The rules are based on why I do things, rather than what I do. That can't be considered free.

Re:Fact lite submission

[CryoPenguin]

It means that GPLv3 code is cut off from a lot of applications, for example, use in running medical devices where you absolutely want to prohibit anyone from changing the binaries GPLv3 says that if anyone can change the software on the device, then the end user has to have that ability too. But if you want to prohibit anyone from changing the binaries, that's easy: install them in ROM.

because of provisions for distributing keys, any device containing GPLv3 software is no longer certifiable The modified version has to run, it doesn't have to be certified. Unless your certification means that non-certified version are prohibited from performing some functions? In that case it's precisely what GPLv3 is intended to prevent, and we only disagree on whether that's a good thing.

Re:Fact lite submission

[Anonymous Coward]

If that's the case, then why do the protections only apply to "User Product"s?

Yesterday I got around to watching the RMS video that was posted to /. a few days ago. Although the talk is more about Copyrights than about Free Software, I believe the answer to your question is in that speech.
He talks a little about Wikipedia, that is the section I am referring to here.

Basically, "User Products" are items that you purchase and take home with you. You own then, hardware and all. Google uses a server situation. You have to connect to their server to use their products. You do not have the entire program on your hardware. That is where the difference lies. At least, that is my interpretation of it.

Using my interpretation, and theoretically stating that all software was GPL'd.
If I purchase a DVR, then I have rights to the code of the software on that system as I own that system. My rights include my ability to modify and if I choose, to distribute my modifications.

How about this scenario. There is a EMU in development for StarWars:Galaxies. Under this theoretical all software is GPL scenario, Sony owns their servers. If they wrote the software on those servers, then they are free to not give anything back. However, the client that sits on my home computer I should have the code and freedom to modify the client and to release my modifications if I so choose. If Sony was to give/sell the software to a third-party so that they could run a server, then that third-party should receive the code and freedom to modify any of that server software.

Getting back to the EMU, once completed, the EMU team can choose to run their own server and that be it. Or they could give the code to others to run servers of their own. Whomever receives a copy of the EMU server should receive the code and freedom to modify the code.

End of all software as GPL part.

Now if FSF is not stating that Google should release the code to items that reside on our hardware then we have a problem. I have not fully read the license yet, eventually I will, but I do not code much anymore, so it is not dire for me to do so just yet.

Re:Fact lite submission

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the basic goals of the GPL is to allow any user to modify the software he uses so it behaves the way he wants it to. Tivo prevents users from performing such modifications - the software being used, on the Tivo, cannot be modified. The GPL (v2) gives the user the rights to copy, modify and distribute the software. Everything else, including execution and replacement, is specifically out of the scope of the license.

Re:Fact lite submission

[Anonymous Coward]

It actually has valid uses in a business place. Also, the marketplace is more competitive in a business place and you have more capital to spread around and choose suppliers from for open hardware.

Finally, the companies that choose to lock in their businesses will have a bad reputation on the consumer side, since that will have to be open. That means more free software hardware devices.

Please don't just knee-jerk about this stuff, think it through.

Re:Fact lite submission

[howlingmadhowie]

an excellent comment. you really have cut through all the fud with that one :)

Re:Fact lite submission

[Chandon Seldon]

Continue to extend that logic and releaseing code which will not work on a given platform is wrong. If I release, for example assembly code under the GPL for the SPARC platform I have, if we take your interpretation, violated the spirit of the GPL because if you want to use it on an Intel chip you can not.

Not at all. Just the opposite in fact. If you wrote software designed for a Sparc, I'd expect to be able to run my modified versions on a Sparc too.

No, it does not. It prevent you from running anything but their distribution on the hardware they sell! you are, in the spirit of the GPL, free to modify their code so it will run on another piece of hardware.

The spirit of the GPL is that you can modify the software that you're using. If the software that you're using is running on a Tivo, then you should be able to modify that copy of the software - not just other copies of the software that aren't running on the device you want to use.

Re:Fact lite submission

[twistedcubic]

Why do you assume that anyone who doesn't like it hasn't read it?

I don't. I just assumed that the person I replied to didn't, by the tone of his comment. And I'm right.

Re:Fact lite submission

[Orkie]

Actually, I think it might cause more harm than good for users if it puts companies off using GPL things entirely (which means no more contributions from them).

Re:Fact lite submission

[twistedcubic]

You *can* modify the tivo software, and you have always been able to do so.

Dude, GPLv3 is about the SAME FREEDOMS as GPLv2 and GPLv1. What the hell is the point of RMS asking for printer specs/code if his bug fixes won't even work on the printer he bought??? The GPL is not some damned academic exercise! People don't do bug fixes on code for the sake of doing bug fixes. The extra code in Tivo's kernel is SPECIFIC TO THE HARDWARE ON THE TIVO. So, duh, we would like our enhancements to work on the Tivo hardware that we already purchased, otherwise, what the hell is the point?

Re:Fact lite submission

[twistedcubic]

The rules are based on why I do things, rather than what I do. That can't be considered free.

So a slavemaster isn't free because the U.S. Constitution prevents him from enslaving people? Extreme analogy, but I think I needed to hit you over the head with a large clue stick to make you realize that the "free" in "free software" is not a one-way freedom. It forces parties to be unselfish, in a mutually-beneficial way. This is why the GPL is brilliant, and this is why you hate it so much-- it pains you that a "zealot" like RMS came up with such an ingenius idea. Get over it, or just release all you shit to the public domain.

Re:Fact lite submission

[twistedcubic]

  As an example, one of the strangest is the special handling of "User Product"s, which means the rights you get regarding your use of GPLv3-protected code depend on your own software's intended use!

No. It depends on the HARDWARE with which you distribute the source code.

If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, ...

So it's not the "intended use", it's simply "the use". There surely is a more clever way to kill Tivoization, so instead of complaining now, I wish you had suggested a better solution sometime in the past year.

Re:Fact lite submission

[Timothy Brownawell]

So a slavemaster isn't free because the U.S. Constitution prevents him from enslaving people?

That's a "what" issue, not a "why" issue.

Extreme analogy, but I think I needed to hit you over the head with a large clue stick to make you realize that the "free" in "free software" is not a one-way freedom. It forces parties to be unselfish, in a mutually-beneficial way.

Which version of "free" are you talking about here, and what about the other half of freedom (DFSG 1,3,6,9)? You seem to be focusing on only half of the equation yourself.

This is why the GPL is brilliant, and this is why you hate it so much-- it pains you that a "zealot" like RMS came up with such an ingenius idea. Get over it, or just release all you shit to the public domain.

That's a load of crap, and I suspect that you know it.

I like GPLv2. It's a good, Free license. GPLv3 sucks, because it way oversteps its bounds.

Re:Fact lite submission

[stinerman]

Because the purpose restricts the users' freedoms.

Indeed the same software is distributed the exact same way. This isn't the problem. The problem is that in the latter case that you have removed the freedom of your end-users to exercise freedom 1 (the freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to their needs). This was an oversight in the GPLv2. The GPLv3 rectifies this.

As an aside, you can do as you say with the hardware, but you must provide your private signing key so that any modified binaries will run. It's a nitpick, I know, but I wanted to be clear.

Re:Fact lite submission

[Timothy Brownawell]

The problem is that in the latter case that you have removed the freedom of your end-users to exercise freedom 1 (the freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to their needs).

How? It's the exact same software as the first case. It still runs just as well on standard hardware. They still have full source. So where is the loss of freedom?

Re:Fact lite submission

[SETIGuy]

The new version of the GPL is more complex, and it's troublesome when some of that added complexity is devoted to targeting particular uses of software. I thought this was supposed to be about "freedom", but different rules for different players sure doesn't feel like "freedom" to me. That's why I think the GPLv2 is a better license.

This quote alone shows that you don't understand either GPL version because you don't even understand what "using software" or "uses of software" mean in the context of the GPL.

Users "use software" and the GPL is about the freedom the copyright holders give them. People who distribute software they didn't write are not "users" and what they want is immaterial.

When you read the GPL, you may spend your time thinking "how can I distribute this software in a way that allows me to make money from it while simultaneously preventing others from doing the same."

That is not "using" the software... It's using and abusing the people who developed it in the first place. GPL2 had loopholes that allowed this abuse. GPL3 closes those loopholes. It's not "different rules for different players," it's a change of the letter of the rules to match the intended spirit.

Re:Fact lite submission

[tomhudson]

"As you well know, GPLv3 anti-tivotisation only applies to consumer devices."

The anti-tivo provisions apply to all binary code that is distributed, not just consumer devices. Any distribution of binary code has to be accompanied by source and keys, or the source and keys have to be available for 3 years, yadda yadda yadda.

PS - sorry about your keyboard.

Re:Fact lite submission

[tomhudson]

Point taken. Thanks.

I've been against the GPL v3 for some time, because the GPL v2 was sufficient, and v3 really does end up ceding whole markets to non-open code. I'm surprised more people haven't cottoned on to the problems with compliance under Sarbanes-Oxley. If you have to provide the keys, you as a vendor can't guarantee that critical systems haven't been modded, so your package is deficient.

As long as the source is made available, anyone can make a non-locked-out version - heck, the original vendor can offer it in both flavours, as a "feature." This is one area where we're cutting off our nose to spite our face. RMS might be on some sort of "holy jihad", but I'd confine mine to "one true brace" and vim. The real world isn't always a nice place, and sometimes some form of lockdown is essential - like when they're processing your paycheck via direct deposit. Wouldn't want someone to pull an "Office Space" :-)

Re:Fact lite submission

[stinerman]

The loss of freedom is not due to the code, but due to your locking down of the hardware. Yes, the GPLv3 crosses the line into regulating the hardware on which the code is run. This is why Linus disliked it. I do not see a problem with that because it is a necessary evil in order to ensure that Freedom 1 is available to the user. Freedom to change the program to meet your needs must include the ability to run it on any hardware that could feasibly run the program.

How? It's the exact same software as the first case. It still runs just as well on standard hardware.

Indeed, on standard hardware. It does not run on your hardware, therefore you may not use the code because your hardware does not allow for the user to exercise Freedom 1.

Now, if you are arguing that you want to distribute source and binaries only on a disc with absolutely no code within the device, then you have a point. Of course, in order for a compiled version of the software to even run, you'd need to hand over your signing key, which negates the purpose of our discussion.

Re:Fact lite submission

[tomhudson]

Sure I did, many times. Devices that are upgradeable use flash memory, not read-only rom. Heck, even motherboards use flash nowadays. Of course, if they use EEPROMS, then they have to convey the source, etc. BTW, medical devices like blood-sugar meters, insulin pumps, portable dialysis machines, portable defibrillators, etc., are consumer products under that definition - "tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes,"

Also, as I point out elsewhere, compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley will require that some systems be completely unmodifiable except by the vendor or their agent. Nice way to cede more ground for no good reason.

Re:Fact lite submission

[tomhudson]

Read the definition of a personal product. "tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes,"

That includes blood sugar meters, insulin pumps, pacemakers, privately owned dialysis machines, etc.

Take the simplest example - a pacemaker. It certainly is tangible property. It certainly is normally for personal use - its not like you share it with others. And its certainly a medical device.

So, its a medical device which is tangible property normally for personal use.

How could it be anything BUT a medical device which is "tangible property normally for personal use?"

This is not splitting hairs ... the GPLv3 is flawed when it comes to medical devices, as well as systems that require Sarbanes-Oxley compliance.

Re:Fact lite submission

[tomhudson]

A lot of medical devices fall under the "consumer product for personal use" definition.

"tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes"

Pacemakers.

1. tangible property
2. not just normally, but exclusively for personal purpose - keeping your person alive
3. and yet, its a medical device, so medical devices are not automatically excluded

So tell me, just how is a pacemaker not "tangible personal property which is normally used for personal ... purposes"? Ditto glucometers, insulin pumps, and other medical devices? In their rush to ram the new GPLv3 down everyone's throat, they fucked this aspect up, big time.

Re:Fact lite submission

[tomhudson]

Sigh ... here we go AGAIN!!!

"tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes"

Just how is a pacemaker not tangible personal property that is normally used for personal purposes? Or an insulin pump, or a glucometer?

Or are pacemakers, insulin pumps, and glucometers not medical devices?

They f$cked this aspect of it up in their ill-conceived rush to be "pure as the driven slush". Holy wars are stupid - and the GPLv3 is a holy war, and the law of unintended consequences doesn't apply just to the field of medical devices, but to all software that has to guarantee that it cannot be modified except under controlled circumstances.

Re:Fact lite submission

[agbinfo]

Tivo doesn't remove your right to modify the software now. The source is available. You can modify it. What they don't do is give you a system that will run modified software, nor an easy way to produce one.

So you can modify it but it won't run. That doesn't take you very far.

One [way to prevent this problem] would have been to require equivalent openness of hardware: hardware that bundles GPL software would be required to have open specifications with rights that enable the recipient of the bundled hardware/software to "rebuild" their own implementation of the hardware (either a faithful one or a modified copy) and run whatever software they want on it.

So what happens if I want to write some GPLv3 code for some proprietary hardware? Using your suggestion, I can't unless I own the rights to all the patents on the hardware and I'm OK with everyone copying it. Guess that would make sure Linux never goes GPLv3 and if it did, there wouldn't be very many drivers. I'm against patents in general but if my hardware was patented, I wouldn't give away my patents unless everyone had to do the same.

I think the FSF way is way better than what you propose.

Companies like Tivo can still make proprietary hardware with GPLv3. There's even a way in there for them to ensure that the code won't be updated: put it in ROM. They won't be able to easily update the code but they would meet the requirements of the GPLv3 and of the media people.

Re:Fact lite submission

[isilrion]

portable defibrillators [...] are [...] tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes

I agree they are tangible... About the rest... let's just say I'm glad I'm not on your family.

Nice way to cede more ground for no good reason.

Protecting the user's freedom, perhaps?

Re:Fact lite submission

[tomhudson]

Certifiable as "certifiable under the guidelines of Sarbanes-Oxley". Clear audit trail. Safeguards against tampering.

Distributing the keys in those cases is a complete foobar.

Re:Fact lite submission

[Kalriath]

Twitter, why are you posting anonymously?

Re:Fact lite submission

[tomhudson]

Well, you'd have to admit that pacemakers fulfill the definition of a tangible device normally used for personal purposes, for a significant portion of the population.

The user in some cases wants peace of mind, and the freedom to run a software/hardware combo that cannot be altered except by the manufacturer. Pacemakers are a case in point. Or would you rather your loved one's next super-dooper pacemaker run "Windows Widow-Maker Edition" (at least it could make a legit claim of being an embedded version ;-)

This is an area where the GPLv3 is wrong in at least some of the problem domains.

Re:Fact lite submission

[Anonymous Coward]

It means that GPLv3 code is cut off from a lot of applications, for example, use in running medical devices where you absolutely want to prohibit anyone from changing the binaries; because of provisions for distributing keys, any device containing GPLv3 software is no longer certifiable. Nice way to hand a critical market to Microsoftie, where the blue screen of death is not just a metaphor.

If there's any GPL3-only software today, it's brand-new. If this medical device is so important, nobody's stopping it from using the GPL2 version like they have for the past 20+ years. Or find a BSD program to do it. Just because there's a market in which GPL3-licensed programs can't compete doesn't make it any less useful than pointing out that there are markets where GPL2-licensed programs couldn't compete 10 years ago.

Besides, a medical device can (gasp) run proprietary software. In fact, most (all?) do. What's wrong with that? Even RMS isn't trying to go after the pacemaker market with the GPL. I suspect they're not running Vista, either, though, so I don't see how it's a "Microsoftie" [sic] victory. Or that it's a "critical market".

There are other examples, if you care to do some research; we've commented on them before. The GPLv2 was sufficient to defang the Novell-MS deal, but people panicked.

Interesting interpretation of events.

The GPLv3 is a political maneuver that plays right into Microsoft's hands. They would love all free software to move to GPLv3. They'd shit-stain their tidy-whities if it all forked to, say, a BSD license instead.

I'm not sure I follow why they would do this (if I understand your, er, colorful metaphor).

Sun could, for example, merge linux and solaris. Linux with zfs would be an instant hit.

Yeah, it's a shame that ZFS on Linux is impossible.

Re:Fact lite submission

[Anonymous Coward]

use in running medical devices where you absolutely want to prohibit anyone from changing the binaries I've never looked at free software from the medical perspective, and I think it's interesting. However, I don't understand the above sentence. Why would you prevent someone from changing the device? Say it appears there is a life-threatening bug in a device monitoring me, I would really like to be able to (let someone) modify the code so I won't die. E.g. when the creator goes bankrupt or for whatever reason cannot/won't update my device.

The same goes for hospitals, if they have some old device with a bug or incompatibility, they might want to fix the problem.

Re:Fact lite submission

[Anonymous Coward]

How fucking complicated is a pacemaker? All it has to do is keep the heart beating regularly (okay that may be a gross over-simplification, but is still the essence of what it needs to do). So if needed it shouldn't take too long to rewrite it's software from scratch.

Also, how much GPLv2 software is there for pacemakers? Let alone GPLv3.

If someone writes software that is used in medical equipment and the GPLv3 would genuinely prevent that use, then the author can not use GPLv3, this is hardly good argument against the GPLv3.

Re:Fact lite submission

[MysteriousPreacher]

Yeah, totally agree. I like the BSD-style licences because they allow more freedom and increase adoption rates, OpenSSH being a pretty decent example of a project done well. If a vendor does decide to extend the code and keep their changes for themselves, we haven't lost anything. It's arguable that a lot of contributions are lost because vendors are scared, unnecessarilly so in many cases, of the GPL. The current and very visible approach taken by the FSF is not really helping, particularly when they seem determined to claim control of the hardware that the software is running on.

I hope Linus continues to stick with GPL v2 and his interpretation of it. Based on his recent responses to GPL v3, I'd say that's very likely.

Re:Fact lite submission

[isilrion]

Well, you'd have to admit that pacemakers fulfill the definition of a tangible device normally used for personal purposes, for a significant portion of the population.

Are they re-installable? That's a scary thought (more than your windows suggestion). But if they are not re-installable, they fall outside of the tivoization clause.

Even if they didn't, I would argue the 'personal purposes': I would not call controlling your heartbeat a 'personal' thing, but I realize that's a matter of interpretation and would be a problem. And, given that they would only be required to give the keys to the user of the device (and it may be in his best interest to destroy them ASAP), he can still be sure that only the manufacturer (and himself) can alter it.

Still, the drafting process was created to address exactly this kind of concerns. The "peace of mind" you speak of is mentioned in the faq (granted, for non-personal devices, but mentioned nonetheless).

Re:Fact lite submission

[tomhudson]

"If there's any GPL3-only software today, it's brand-new. If this medical device is so important, nobody's stopping it from using the GPL2 version like they have for the past 20+ years. Or find a BSD program to do it. Just because there's a market in which GPL3-licensed programs can't compete doesn't make it any less useful than pointing out that there are markets where GPL2-licensed programs couldn't compete 10 years ago."

Device manufacturers don't look just at today, but at the future. The GPLv3 is a non-starter for devices that need to guarantee that they run only legit code.

Ditto for critical systems that have to be in compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley. The ability for 3rd parties to run modified code without an audit trail makes GPLv3 software a non-starter. Think banks, accounting, control systems, etc.

Moving to a BSD license would make Microsoft crap themselves because then full compliance at all levels would be possible. Right now, they're laughing because they know that, as time goes on, more and more systems are going to have to be S-O certified, and that means non-GPLv3 software. GPLv3 is a nice way to take yourself out of the competition ...

Re:Fact lite submission

[tomhudson]

If the device is working fine, you don't want anyone tampering with it. If the device isn't working fine, you, as the manufacturer, don't want others tampering with it, having their patch harm someone, re-installing the old binaries to cover their mistakes, and then having people suing you.

Your name is on it - your insurers want to make sure only your code goes in it. Ditto for your customers. They want to know that someone's brother-in-law can't come in and "helpfully improve" something, and cause a disaster.

Re:Fact lite submission

[tomhudson]

And if the kernel were to go to GPLv3?

Devices like glucometers, insulin pumps, etc., have to have some embedded smarts. As time goes on, they get improved with more smarts. As for the pacemaker example, combine it with an O2 sensor, and you now have a demand pacemaker, instead of one that lags behind the actual needs of the patient. Also, since the heart functions best when the beat pattern is slightly chaotic (its natural state) instead of absolutely regular, you can program it for that as well.

Re:Fact lite submission

[tomhudson]

"Are they re-installable? That's a scary thought (more than your windows suggestion). But if they are not re-installable, they fall outside of the tivoization clause."

You're wrong - they most certainly ARE re-installable. What do you think they do with pacemakers that are installed in a patient who then dies a few months later without ever leaving the hospital? They clean them up and implant them in the next patient. That's what they did when my mother died. Do you really believe they're just going to throw out almost $10,000 of hardware that's almost brand new?

The FAQ is not the license - its just an interpretation of the license; the actual terms of the license take precendence. Also, no patient buys their pacemakers directly from the manufacturer - so everyone in the supply chain is distributing - "conveying" - they all get the keys.

Re:Fact lite submission

[vslashg]

That is not "using" the software... It's using and abusing the people who developed it in the first place. GPL2 had loopholes that allowed this abuse. GPL3 closes those loopholes. It's not "different rules for different players," it's a change of the letter of the rules to match the intended spirit. Of course it's different rules for different players. It's explicitly such! The FSF even addresses this on their own site:

We think it's unfortunate that [business customers] would be willing to give up their freedom like this. But they should be able to fend for themselves ... As a result, we have introduced this compromise to the draft: distributors are only required to provide Installation Information when they're distributing the software on a User Product ... See? And notice that the FSF isn't even attempting to claim that this compromise is for the benefit of free software authors or the free software community; how could they? If DRM is something to be protected against, then explicitly carving out special cases where it's allowed certainly isn't protecting anyone.

Their claim instead is that this is a compromise on behalf of business end-users to allow them to make unfortunate choices. Whatever you think of that claim (I don't buy it), clearly the GPLv3 provides different rules for different players.

As I said earlier in this thread: under the GPLv3, TiVo using DRM to restrict the use of the hardware they sell is disallowed. But Google using DRM to restrict the use of hardware they sell would be allowed. The FSF doesn't claim this is a move for freedom. They claim they "introduced a compromise". I find it distasteful that the license is crafted based on the FSF's idea of who can and who can't "fend for themselves" — and certainly, reasonable people can disagree.

Re:Fact lite submission

[mrchaotica]

Okay, so just give the person the encryption key to change the code! It's not as they're going to surgically remove it from their chest (in order to attach the pacemaker to a computer, to load the new version) anyway!

Besides, that's where my third bullet point -- burning the software to ROM -- should come in, since you're not going to be issuing patches (as that software must be correct the first time).

Re:Fact lite submission

[isilrion]

They clean them up and implant them in the next patient. That's what they did when my mother died. Do you really believe they're just going to throw out almost $10,000 of hardware that's almost brand new?

I thought you might say that. So, then, who can reinstall it? (the software, not the device itself). The manufacturer, the hospital? And how it is ensured that only they can? And who buys it? I guess that your mother didn't (sorry about it, btw), so that would leave the hospital as the owner and the one who must have the installation instructions. (And at this point, it is even less 'personal'). What kind of reinstallation is required, and why? (reconfigure some parameters? That shouldn't require a full reinstall) And there is always the option of giving some kind of warning if the signature doesn't match, instea of disallowing reinstallation (though that may not be legal)

The FAQ is not the license - its just an interpretation of the license

Indeed, but so is this thread. I'm not a lawyer, even if I were, I do not know about US law. But I know that there were several lawyers involved in the drafting process, and not only FSF/SFLC lawyers, also from other organizations (Sun, IBM, ...). I believe their interpretation is more accurate (and more likely to hold) than my own, and in fact, I believe that interpretation follows from the text of the licence (I arrived to it before reading the faq - you pointed me in that direction)

I would like to further investigate this particular matter. I still belive that its not forbidden by the licence, but there is one place where I can find out: licensing@gnu.org, or even rms@gnu.org (is amazing that he actually replies to emails, even in spanish). So, for completeness sake, could you provide me with links about the restrictions placed on medical devices? I'm not from the US, so you'll understand if I'm less than familiar with US law.

(P.S: It could happen that I'm wrong and they excluded them on purpose, with specific reasons. Perhaps those laws are unfair. After all, GPLv1/2/3 were created with the goal of making copyright a burden for those who want to use it to restrict. And it will certainly be the goal if a law is passed that no user-installable device can receive TV signals - i.e, the broadcast flag)

Re:Fact lite submission

[tomhudson]

Sure you'll be issuing patches for many devices - patches aren't just for fixing programmers' errors, but for adding features.

Re:Fact lite submission

[tomhudson]

Its not about ownership - its about "conveying". They made it so generic that almost anything fits. When you implant a device, you've conveyed the device and the software on it to the person who it was implanted in.

BTW, thanks about my mother, but she brought it on herself. Even when I was a little kid, I warned her not to smoke, that it would kill her. Do you know what smoking does to diabetics? Diabetes makes the capillaries fragile - smoking constricts them, and the blood no longer circulates properly. Gangrene set in. They amputated at the ankle, then the knee, then the upper leg, then ... that was it.

She went from "I'll give it up when the price hits $X" to "I'll give it up when I'm ready." to "Why should I give up my only pleasure?"

I'm against the death penalty, but I'd PAY for the privilege of throwing the switch on tobacco marketers.

Re:Fact lite submission

[mrchaotica]

Tell you what, how 'bout you name a counterexample: a medical device that

• is owned by the end-user rather than a hospital or the like,
• must not be able to be altered by the end-user in order to receive certification and must not be allowed to be used in an decertified state (even if the user did the "de-certifying" himself), and
• must be able to have updates applied by the end user.

Re:Fact lite submission

[tomhudson]

Your 3rd requirement runs contrary to what I'm saying - updates must NOT be applied by the end user. Mods should only be made by those approved by the manufacturer.

And such a device has been around for more than a decade - glucometers. Owned by the end user. Can result in death if the software is altered by the end user.

Re:Fact lite submission

[mrchaotica]

Your 3rd requirement runs contrary to what I'm saying - updates must NOT be applied by the end user.

Right, and that can always be accomplished without violating the GPLv3! For example, the "updates" could be provided as entirely new ROM chips that get physically replaced by the hospital staff. It would have to be legal for the patient to install his own new ROM chip... but where's he gonna get it?

Besides, this argument is specious to begin with, because who the Hell is gonna want to modify his glucometer anyway?!

Re:Fact lite submission

[Timothy Brownawell]

Say I modify a piece of software and sell the modified version along with a source CD. This is permitted under any open/free license.

Now say I design some locked-down hardware, which will only run binaries signed by me (which include my version of the above software, of course), and now advertise that exact same software as being something to run on that hardware. Nothing about the software has changed, and yet GPLv3 prohibits this.

...but only in the case that the software is being distributed *with* the hardware. So I'm not allowed to bundle it, but can still distribute it separately.

The threat...

[NoxNoctis]

...of a fork for a large and well known project like GCC can definitely shake things up. All the people involved just need to remember that if they do fork GCC, they've got a lot of work to do. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, but some people just whine about licenses, threaten to fork, and hope for the developers to hear their cry. I hate to say it, but GCC under GPLv3 is coming, and no amount of whining will change that.

Re:The threat...

[mwvdlee]

It really depends on who's "whining" (just because you don't agree, doesn't mean they're whining). The winner would be whichever (potential) fork would get the best development.

Re:The threat...

[91degrees]

Should we just accept that as a fait accompli? Isn't the FSF meant to be working for us rather than staying in their ivory tower dictating to us what we want?

Re:The threat...

[Alcoholic Synonymous]

I'm pretty sure that all of the BSDs will throw their weight behind the GPL2 branch. Along with a good portion of other commercial entities using GCC.

Re:The threat...

[Lonewolf666]

I hate to say it, but GCC under GPLv3 is coming, and no amount of whining will change that.
No doubt about that.
As seen with the XFree86 project, it takes considerable disgruntlement to create a serious fork. And even if it happens, the original project may stay alive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XFree86#Release_histo ry shows that XFree86 still exists, even if X.Org is the dominant X-Server these days. So I'm sure there will be an official GCC version under GPLv3.

It is, however, possible that a well-maintained fork under GPL V2 will also exist.

Re:The threat...

[timmarhy]

why is it that some people consider all descenting views to be "whining" ? could it be fear that the other party has very valid points?

Re:The threat...

[NoxNoctis]

People who can form a coherent statement as to what they believe is wrong with GPLv3 are not whining. Everyone else that just doesn't like it, they're whining. I'm sorry if I offended you somehow.

Re:The threat...

[xquark]

I don't know "who" is grumbling, but just looking at the C++ and C side of things, those
languages's syntax to RTL conversions are written by a small group of people (I believe 4-5)
under the auspices of something called "code sourcery" of which some of them are employed
by a company called EDG.

Hence I believe if the majority of people from this group were to revolt and stay with gpl2
then a fork occurring would be inevitable and the FSF wouldn't have a leg to stand on, they
would have to concede as they did with EGCS.

That said no one from code sourcery has made a comment about gpl3 ,positive or negative.
We'll just have to wait and see.

Re:The threat...

[Ohreally_factor]

I think it's more than possible. I think we can consider it as good as forked when we look at all of the interested parties, some of whom have a big financial interest in having a GPL 2 fork.

The pity is that it might not be possible to merge the forks down the road. That used to be one of the strengths of the GPL, the ability to merge.

Re:The threat...

[geschild]

Or it could be they are unjustly generalizing, or they could be right, of course.

Are these people considering all descenting views to be "whining" on all subjects or just on this subject? Are the 'these people' knowledgable in the field?

In other words, are you yourself generalizing?

Re:The threat...

[bhaak1]

The pity is that it might not be possible to merge the forks down the road. That used to be one of the strengths of the GPL, the ability to merge.

Doesn't the FSF hold the Copyright for GCC? How else could they switch easily from GPLv2 to GPLv3?

At least the direction GPLv3 -> GPLv2 should be open as soon as the FSF realises their "mistake".

But with EGCS there was no big merge. The official GCC branch was closed and EGCS was rebranded as the new official GCC.

Re:The threat...

[fyngyrz]

Isn't the FSF meant to be working for us rather than staying in their ivory tower dictating to us what we want?

Relevant quotes: George Orwell, 1984: "The purpose of power... is power." Also, Lord Acton: "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Actual free software is PD. Source, executable, or both. Put a license on it, and it isn't free anymore, instead, it is conditional — that is what licenses are, sets of conditions you must meet in order to use the software according to someone who withholds rights from you unless you comply with their vision of a limited manner in which they think the software should be used. This is true now, and it has always been true.

So if you're looking for freedom, find a PD project and use it, and/or enhance it, and toss the results back in the pond as PD again. Or make a new PD project. There is nothing so inconvenient and virally destructive to the lawyers and those who use them as is PD software. On the other hand, if you support the idea of a closed software ecosystem, by all means, follow RMS; his vision is as closed as any other religious convert's is.

Re:The threat...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hint: Look who wrote the announcement.

From: Mark Mitchell mark at codesourcery dot com

Re:The threat...

[Asmodai]

I am pretty sure that in a little while people will seriously consider alternatives to GCC.

Re:The threat...

[Asmodai]

Yes they do, one of the things you have to do if you supply patches to GCC and the likes requires you to sign papers that hand over copyright to the FSF. One of the reasons I never bothered to. As a fervent BSD and MIT license user I have no problems contributing to (L)GPL projects, but when it comes to legally write over anything to, say, the FSF, that's where I draw the line.

Re:The threat...

[McGiraf]

"...conditions you must meet in order to use the software ..."
  GPL v2 and GPLv3 do not restrict you in anyway how you can use the software.

Re:The threat...

[SL Baur]

Isn't the FSF meant to be working for us rather than staying in their ivory tower dictating to us what we want? You must be new here.

Re:The threat...

[Nelson]

Mark maintains GCC. He's basically the project leader.

I read the GCC mailing list. I haven't heard or seen any grumbling. Nothing I'd call significant. The most grumbling I've read is on how to deal with the branching and labeling/versioning which always seems to be a GCC issue; it's a major release number with no new features, when major release number imply new features... Read this. There are closed branches of GCC, ones that vendors may add custom support for their hardware to, stuff like that, those people will have to change things. There was some discussion about how you license patches, purely an academic discussion on licensing though. Like I said, I haven't seen any grumbling and it simply doesn't affect end-users.

I also read LKML and I don't think that that is terribly significant, Linus brings up some points that seem to go un-addressed elsewhere. There is also some disagreement about how something like Linux goes through the process of being recopyrighted, you see there are people that are dead that have contributed large amounts of code. With Linux in particular, nobody was requested to re-assign their copyright to anyone like they are with GCC and a lot GNU projects. Really the only serious disagreement I've seen anywhere is from companies that exploit free software and are worried that they might have to share their substandard source code or rewrite the free components that make up the heart of their applications. Some of the hacks from the magazines are trying to stir the pot a little but that's it. It's unfortunate, some of the folks that really benefit the most from free software, folks that have products that exist because free software makes it possible for them to afford to make software, are now trying to attack and undermine the very software they depend upon.

Re:The threat...

[Anonymous Coward]

>Along with a good portion of other commercial entities using GCC.

One of the primary corporate entities that is contributing development to GCC efforts is Google.

I wonder what their position on this is.

No mention of it in this video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5932347291 617182979

Re:The threat...

[dosius]

How viable are the alternatives? (Which really means TenDRA and Fabrice Bellard's TCC)

I think for most purposes we're still tied to gcc, though if I could write a compiler worth my salt I'd like to come up with an alternative; everything else has one.

-uso.

Re:The threat...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mark maintains GCC. He's basically the project leader.

Not to nitpick, but you're wrong. He's the Release Manager. His job is to coordinate timing on branch closing/opening, collect information on what patches are ready or not for a release, and actually package the changes. He got the job because nobody else wanted to do it (and kept it because he does it well).

Calling him the project leader make him a Linus. GCC is a lot more bazaar-like than that. Any contributor can approve patches into SVN, and even Mark needs review and approval of another contributor to get a patch in. From a technical POV he's just the same as any other regular contributor. Contributors in GCC have an area of expertise, and older contributors are more knowledgeable and respected, but there is no clear hierarchy like in the Linux kernel.

I think he's also a member of the steering committee, but again, that's administrative rather than actual leading.

Re:The threat...

[Anonymous Coward]

Read this. There are closed branches of GCC, ones that vendors may add custom support for their hardware to, stuff like that, those people will have to change things.

Your link mentions nothing of the sort. There was a question about licensing of closed branches earlier though.

Closed GCC branches are the ones where no patches are ported to.

Vendors and hardware manufacturers have their own private repositories for private development, just like any other project. These are completely unrelated to the FSF servers. There was some concern about what happens when a vendor needs to apply a v3 patch to their v2 internal repository. The obvious answer would be that their repo becomes v3, which some people worry since it will lead to delays while Legal gets their butt moving. A suggestion was any patch under 1000 lines which fixes a bug is automatically dual licensed. You'll have to wait to see if this accepted. The obvious other proposal would be to contact the author to see if they would dual-license, which i enough of a hassle to encourage switching to v3 and simple enough to work for a short time.

Then again anyone clueful enough to develop their own version of GCC would be smart enough to want the added patent protection of v3, especially in the compiler field.

Many GCC contributors contract out to work on private branches, usually with clauses on their contracts where the code can be submitted to the mainline after a set time. Others work for Red Hat, etc. Maintaining their versions or consulting in a similar fashion. As such, the license changes are pertinent to their lives.

Re:The threat...

[Vintermann]

Why on earth? Unless you want to do tivoization (with gcc?!) or patent lawsuits.

No, only people with a serious ideological grudge would ditch GCC beacuse of this. You have to be at least as fanatic as the FSF itself if you really would rather hurt yourself than use GPL3 - arguably far more fanatic, as that would be fanaticism over a mere quibble.

Re:The threat...

[Vintermann]

So, I assume from your comment that you didn't bother to involve yourself in the license talks? But don't worry, a lot of people with very different interests (including big actors like IBM and Redhat) did, and they seem to think the result was pretty good.

Perhaps some of the GPL v3 paranoia will go away once large commercial actors start preferring it for their releases?

Re:The threat...

[Vintermann]

The Edison Group people have no axes to grind, as far as I know. While they may personally be opposed to GPL3 for all I know, would they hurt themselves with a fork (hmm, interesting picture) just to make a statement? No way. Commercial actors are _less_ likely to fork over the change the switch to GPL3 is - not even taking into account that GPL3 is more convenient for most commercial users.

Re:The threat...

[91degrees]

Why? did I have some say in the licence talks? When did they happen? I don't remember receiving an invitation.

Re:The threat...

[Anonymous Coward]

bla bla "licenses are, sets of conditions you must meet in order to use the software" bla bla.

Bullshit. MS EULA is a USE license. GPL is a distribution license, not a use license. Saying that use and distribution is the same thing is a LIE.

You don't know what you are talking about. In such cases, the best course of action is to actually SHUT UP.

Re:The threat...

[fyngyrz]

You can't use GPL'd code in a closed-source project if it is going to ship to any user. This is a limitation on use of the code by the developer, and the use of the executable by the users. The GPL forbids distribution of such a creation, which directly limits the use of said project - the project's users aren't going to get to use it, obviously - which in turn limits use of the GPL'd code which would be contained in such a project.

No one can limit distribution without limiting use. It's impossible; the distinction you are trying to make doesn't exist. Furthermore, anyone who tries to tell you such a distinction exists is lying to you. Pretty amusing you accuse me of lying; I'm just observing the facts; there's not a single thing I said that isn't 100% accurate.

If there's a license, there are use restrictions. You either use it the way the license says, or you don't get to use it. Those conditions might be as minimal as "include author's name" or they might be as tight-fisted as "use it in our type of projects, or don't use it at all" or "You must pay" or "distribution must include source code" Or anywhere in between or combination. PD has no conditions. Take it and use it any way you want. It is far superior in terms of the number of limitations imposed on the user of either the source or the executable. The reason it is superior is because there is no license, and hence, no limitations on use imposed upon anyone who might find that code useful in either source or executable form, or both.

If you want to support the GPL, you at least ought to understand what it is. Making incorrect statements doesn't help your case, it just makes the GPL look bad by associating clueless arguments with it.

Re:The threat...

[Anonymous Coward]

" if you supply patches to GCC and the likes requires you to sign papers that hand over copyright to the FSF"

Um, the contract that gives the copyright over to the FSF has a specific statement, that says the code you give to the FSF must always be free software (the FSF can't take it proprietary).

Why are you relying on FUD instead of actual facts?

Re:The threat...

[HydroPhonic]

GPL v2 and GPLv3 do not restrict you in anyway how you can use the software. Some business models wish to make use of the software by distributing it. This requires adherence to the license.

Dual License

[SnowZero]

IMHO, dual licensed (GPL 2 + GPL 3) is the way to go for a time, while things shake out in the world of free software. Of course GCC, as a FSF project wants to lead the way to a GPL 3 future. However, I think projects would be wise to require contributions as >=GPL2, and release their software as either >=GPL2 or dual-licensed. The latter is what I'm doing to do in the next release of my own work; I don't really want to take sides, and will let competition sort out which license becomes popular. I won't accept outside contributions that are GPL3 only, which is the only thing that might annoy some developers.

Re:Dual License

[something_wicked_thi]

What does that even mean? Clearly, you need to re-read the GPL. The GPLv2 is *already* "dual licensed" (I put the term in quotes because it's nonsensical to talk about it as such) as GPLv3 by virtue of its "any future version" clause. Furthermore, GCC requires assignment of copyright to the FSF, so the FSF has full say over what the license is. Nothing additional is required of contributors.

I think you might want to consult with a lawyer about your own project's licenses, as well. It seems to me what you really want is to continue accepting contributions as GPLv2, but I can't actually make any sense out of what you are saying above.

Re:Dual License

[SnowZero]

What does that even mean? Clearly, you need to re-read the GPL. The GPLv2 is *already* "dual licensed" (I put the term in quotes because it's nonsensical to talk about it as such) as GPLv3 by virtue of its "any future version" clause. Ahem, I think you need to reread the license. First, there are quite a few GPLv2-only projects out there, such as the Linux kernel. There is no requirement to include the "later version" statement in programs, as it is not a part of the actual license. The license statement/boilerplate says which license you use, but it is not the actual license (except in the case of short licenses like MIT, where the entire license is sometimes used as the boilerplate). This has been discussed in detail before on LKML and Debian-Legal, so I'm surprised you haven't heard of this. My particular projects are GPLv2-only at the moment, because I do not believe in supporting licenses which don't exist -- now that really is nonsense.

Furthermore, GCC requires assignment of copyright to the FSF, so the FSF has full say over what the license is. Nothing additional is required of contributors. I'm well aware of this. If you can find something in my post which is inconsistent with this, let me know. I was just giving my opinion on what I think most projects should do. Since all FSF projects require copyright assignment, they can do what they want, and meanwhile I can give my opinion.

I think you might want to consult with a lawyer about your own project's licenses, as well. I have talked with lawyers before on the licensing, although the GPL3 did not exist then so that wasn't the issue. As I stated before, the 2-vs-3 thing has been covered in quite a bit of depth elsewhere, and I'm pretty happy with what others have determined in their analyses. There are people out there using licenses they have never even read, so I think they might be more in need of a lawyer than I am. I don't make a living off my projects anyway, so I am not too worried about worst-case legal consequences causing me much harm.

It seems to me what you really want is to continue accepting contributions as GPLv2, but I can't actually make any sense out of what you are saying above. Modulo your different interpretation of the GPL license itself versus the license statement for a block of code, we seem to agree completely. I require contributions to be submitted as "GPL 2 or at your option any later version". Thus far I've released my compilation as GPLv2 only, for much the same reasons that the Linux kernel is released that way. Future versions will likely be GPLv2+GPLv3 (exercising my "or later" option to others' contributions).

I call bull.

[c0l0]

I'm very interested in everything Free Software, and have been following developments around GPLv3 and its adoption rather closely. Apart from some flaimbaits proclaiming how $CORP was going to abandon GCC (or anything else) after going for v3 of GPL, there is no evidence whatsoever supporting that this might actually be considered by anyone important - or in case there is, it wasn't visible enough for me to spot it.

So, user number 561269, would you please elaborate on the subject and cite any credible source supporting your view that a major contributor to GCC is considering to fork and "have it their way"? Your posting thoroughly lacks that kind of information right now, and therefore I think it deserves being tagged bogus or useless.

Thanks in advance for clearing this up.

- c0l0
(who's growing tired of all this anti-GPLv3-FUD swellig so much recently fast)

Re:I call bull.

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy likes to spread fud, look at his "a new GNU kernel" post. He needs to get a new hobby.

Re:I call bull.

[samkass]

I don't know of any fork of GCC happening, but I know that Apple now has their own C/C++/ObjC front-end to LLVM that can compile down to binary, and thus it seems will soon be able to avoid using GCC altogether. And since they appear to be prepared to open source it, perhaps there won't be a fork of GCC, but instead this may be the beginning of the end of GCC's dominance.

Re:I call bull.

[Anonymous Coward]

The front end is apparently called 'clang' but details are scarce so I'm guessing it's not too far along yet.

Does anybody have anything other than the info from the recent LLVM meeting?

Re:I call bull.

[kyncani]

> would you please elaborate on the subject and cite any credible source

Well, don't know if this qualifies as a credible source, but

http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/23/ 0446204

This is slashdot after all :)

Re:I call bull.

[Surye]

I would have said, there's no way GCC would have lost dominance over GPL3. Then I remembered how fast a license change killed XFree86 dead, to which I would have said the same thing.

Re:I call bull.

[Freed]

How is that example any good? I recall major existing rifts within XFree86, and the new license breaking GPL compatibility led to an _immediate_, _widespread_ decline in the distribution of XFree86. GCC is not at all comparable to that.

Re:I call bull.

[G Morgan]

GPLv3 is incompatible with the most dominant OSS license on the planet. It is comparable.

Re:I call bull.

[wiredlogic]

The Xfree relicensing was merely the straw that broke the camel's back. Freedesktop.org was already in existance and working on their fork because of dissatisfaction with the glacial devlopment pace of Xfree86.

Re:I call bull.

[muuh-gnu]

The most dominant free software licence could not guarantee free software to stay free, so it got updated, like it got updated 1991. Why should this pose a problem for anybody except the people who plan to bundle free software with hardware in such a way nobody can modify it?

Re:I call bull.

[Freed]

Formally, yes, incompatibility with GPLv2 is something that both cases share. However, you are suggesting that it matters for GCC as it did for XFree86. Already several reasons have been given as to why this is false. Another reason is that for that most dominant license, the most dominant way that it is used is either with the "or later" language or without the "only" language. So in practice, compatibility with GPLv3 exists in most cases here. The XFree86 case was completely incompatible with any GPL, and the community responded accordingly.

Ironically, GPLv3 is compatible with more licenses than GPLv2. Since they are copyleft licenses, incompatibility between the two is completely natural and logical.

Re:I call bull.

[phantomlord]

Because it drives a wedge between GPLv2 and GPLv3 developers. I've written some unimportant GPLv2 stuff in the past. My code with stay GPLv2 because I don't like GPLv3. I don't distribute binaries, just my source, so in no way am I bundling hardware with free software. However, I now have to make sure any code that I use (be it linking or borrowing a couple functions) has to be from a GPLv2/v2+ code base. That might mean having to fork libraries (not all of them are LGPL) and other code rather than getting it from an upstream source or depending on a GPLv2 copy being available because even at the source level, GPLv2 and GPLv3 are legally incompatible.

For argument's sake, lets say I include some code from the gzip package as an internal function used in storing my data files in my program. It turns out that there is a buffer overrun and a patch is posted to fix it. Now, is the patch against GPLv2+ or GPLv3+ code? If 1.3.12 is GPLv2 and 1.3.13 is GPLv3 but they are otherwise identical, how am I to resolve the licensing of the patch? If it is derivative of the GPLv3 code, it makes my copy of 1.3.12 GPLv3+, which, in turn, makes the already existing code in my program legally unusable.

If your answer is to relicense my code to make my headache go away, that is precisely the problem with what the FSF is doing. They're using their existing code base in an attempt to strong arm other authors to release their code, which has happily existed with the FSF code base for 16 years, under a license that they may disagree with. That puts the FSF on the level of a Microsoft or *IAA. What's theirs is theirs and what's mine is theirs.

Re:I call bull.

[Anonymous Coward]

What's theirs is theirs, and what's yours is yours.

The only problem arises if you wish to use others' code (the patch) in your program under an incompatible license. The fact that gzip shifted to GPLv3+ indicates that they do not wish their future code to be subject to the loopholes of GPLv2. If you want the buffer overrun patched in GPLv2 code, write a patch yourself. Alternatively contact the patch author to ask if they are willing to license their code under GPLv2.

Yes, it is more trouble than it would have been if the others' code had stayed GPLv2+. But note that in your example it was the choice of the gzip project contributors to license their future code under GPLv3+. You're blaming the wrong party. The FSF just provided another license option for those who wrote the code.

Re:I call bull.

[phantomlord]

Yes, it is more trouble than it would have been if the others' code had stayed GPLv2+. But note that in your example it was the choice of the gzip project contributors to license their future code under GPLv3+. You're blaming the wrong party. The FSF just provided another license option for those who wrote the code. The one quibble I have with that, however, is that everyone has to be diligent about accepting GPL code to their project. GPL3+ cannot use GPL2(only) code. GPL2(only) authors can use GPL2 or GPL2+ code. GPL2+ authors can use GPL2+ code, GPL2 code (as long as they don't combine GPL3/GPL3+ code as well) or GPL3/3+ code (as long as they don't use GPL2 code... and this would also make their program GPL3+ instead of GPL2). If someone somewhere in there combines an incompatible patch, they no longer have the right to distribute that work as is (they can again if they remove the patch). Talk about a minefield... and that is what the FSF deliberately brought us by producing an incompatible GPL3. They're using their position as a core tools/library provider to bludgeon everyone else into ditching the GPL2 for the GPL3 to avoid the very disaster they brought on us. Best part is that they're claiming the moral high ground/that they're our savior for rescuing us from the problem. That's like an arsonist trying to get credit for saving someone from a burning house that they started on fire.

Further, if you accept the FSF definition of "derivative works", ie, that linking constitutes derivation, we have another really fun issue. Lets say my program uses a GPL2+ library and I write my code for that GPL2+ library. However, the author of the library releases the identical library under GPL3+. None of my code changed and I still intend on having it linked only to GPL2+ code. Down the line, a distributor links my application with the GPL3+ version of the library. Said distributor has forfeited his right to distribute my work as well as the work of the library's author. Meanwhile, the library author has grounds to sue both the distributor and I for copyright infringement even though I never intended my work to be linked with GPL3+ code (it just happened to be compatible with my function calls).

Part of the discussion on the gcc mailing list centered around that idea as well... if any gcc released after July 31, 2007 is legally incompatible with GPL2 code, maybe a major version number bump is in order (or in the case of a library, going from libwhatever.so.1 to libwhatever.so.2) to help alleviate those types of issues by making the line more defined.

Completely different

[zsau]

Once more, Slashdot's editors demonstrate that they are here solely for adviews and not to provide "news for nerds" or "stuff that matters". The ECGS fork will be nothing like the current fork. ECGS was forked for technical/organisational reasons: GCC was being developed much like a closed-source program with a free licence, which resulted in a stagnating compiler and unhappy would-be contributors. ECGS should the superiority of the "bazaar"/open-source development method of the "cathedral"/closed-source method in this particular context. All of this is well-known information you can find just about anywhere on the web.

Given that GCC development will remain open, this fork cannot be compared. On the other hand, we do have another situation that might be considered similar: The X.org/XFree86 fork. XFree86 was developed under a free software licence, but with 4.4 this was changed to a non-free licence. X.org forked the most recent free version and has basically completely replaced XFree86.

But, of course, this is still not perfectly comparable. XFree86 was using a relatively closed development method, and the X.org fork's more open style saw it rejuvinated: And indeed, this was part of the purpose of the fork. A GPLv2 GCC fork will not see this sort of rejuvination, as GCC has already seen the benefit for it of an open method, and continues to use it. (See: The EGCS fork the article poster referred to.)

In addition, the XFree86 licence was widely regarded as being non-free and some major distributions (e.g. Debian, Fedora) considered it completely inappropriate for inclusion. It was made unilaterally without discussion without relevant stakeholders. The GPLv3, however, has had public draft releases and discussion including many major distributors and producers of free software. Although it removes certain freedoms distributors had with GPLv2 (which, largely, went completely against the spirit of the GPLv2), the GPLv3 has the agreement of the people needed to make it work. There will be basically top-down push for adoption as there was with XFree86/X.org.

My prediction: Any GPLv2 fork of GCC will be largely forgotten in a year or two.

Re:Completely different

[bjourne]

There is no fork of gcc happening. The story submitter just made things up.

Re:Completely different

[Bakafish]

Well if they would simply allow us to rate the article's themselves, we could troll rate the whole thing off the front page. Slashdot needs to give us a better way to provide instant corrective measures to our clueless editorial overlords. I'm sure after getting their submissions buried a couple times they might be a bit more discerning.

(Yeah, I must be new here...)

Re:Completely different

[zsau]

Yeah, well with another poster saying that the submitter made the whole thing up, if that's true I'm tempted to redirect Slashdot.org on my computer to Technocrat.net or something more useful so I stop coming here.

Re:Completely different

[Anonymous Coward]

For xfree86 there was another reason. If you ever hacked with its code you'll probably have played with something known as "imake". The sole thinking about that utility makes me (and a lot other people) puke. Needless to say, the xfree86 people were very happy with it. That alone could be a reason for forking.

Re:Completely different

[kestasjk]

What I'd like to know is what would be the difference between a GPLv2 and GPLv3 gcc? The big difference is about preventing people from changing the code by requiring that it is digitally signed, but that doesn't seem to make a big difference for compilers. What's so bad about a compiler on Tivo that you can't change because it has been digitally signed?

Re:Completely different

[G Morgan]

I bet if you did that you'd get a bunch of whiny teenagers posting endless articles about Ubuntu, the iPhone, Ron Paul and a variety of top ten lists (top ten reasons Lolcode should replace C in the Linux kernel). With all meaningful comments and Soviet Russia jokes buried beyond all comprehension.

You should call it bury or something. Totally original idea.

Re:Completely different

[Scooby Snacks]

Regarding XFree86, you got it almost, but not quite, right.

The new license was perfectly free, and everybody agreed that it was. There was no debate about that. The problem with the license was that they added an advertising clause, making it incompatible with GPLv2. That, combined with the growing discontent with the development method (which you touched on), was what made everyone drop it like a hot potato.

How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?

[LingNoi]

Some key contributors are grumbling over this change and have privately discussed a fork to stay as GPL v2.

Who are they? You could have linked to the mailing list or somewhere these "key contributors" where discussing it but you didn't.

Smells like FUD.

The sad state of Slashdot editorial line nowadays

[vivaoporto]

Some key contributors are grumbling over this change and have privately discussed a fork to stay as GPL v2. The last time GCC forked (EGCS), the FSF conceded defeat. How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?"

(emphasis mine)

The use of weasel words, speculation of "private discussions" (how would one in the public know the content of a private discussion without being a part of it himself?) and the use of the textbook definition of straw man by bringing up the unrelated fact that one fork have been successful in the past and implying that, because of that, one "revolt" is imminent, is nothing by an ill flamebait, in order to generate controversy and the unavoidable licensing flamewar that it will certainly ensue.

This is sad because Slashdot used to be a place where, when a new version of software were posted, the discussion were directed to the changelog and the new features, fixed bugs, and this particular article didn't even mentioned that. It was a cheap shot at GPLv3, a license that seems to have lots of people that dislikes it, people that aren't even affected by it in the first place. GPL doesn't cover use, only distribution.

Sad, sad, sad, this used to be a cool blog with real "news for nerds" but lately it seems more interested in generating polemic and the page views that accompany it.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing in my post shows any support (or lack of) for any of the mentioned licenses, nor discusses the their merit (or lack of). So keep me out of the flamewar.

evolution in action

[oohshiny]

If the GPL v3 objections are real and widespread, then the GPL v2 forks will survive.

If the GPL v2 objections are unfounded or astroturfing, then the GPL v2 forks will die.

I think the grumbling will blow over; I don't see any serious problems with the GPL v3. In fact, the fact that GPL v3 is compatible with more open source licenses seems like a big advantage.

Maybe not a problem really...

[flibble]

To be honest from my reading of the gcc mailing list, most of the complaints seemed to be focused around the fact that the original plan (which was up for discussion at least) was to change the numbering system so they went straight from 4.2.1 to 4.3.3 (lots of 3's to ram the point home of course) which would be confusing to most people (and probably to a few packaging systems as well). With what would be 4.3 going to 4.4.

The big problem is that RMS seems to want all patches put into SVN after July 31st to be GPL3+ no matter what, even on release branches which automatically pollutes them. This then causes problems for corporate users who may then have to wait for a legal department evaluation on the license...

I don't think many people would object if the GPLv3+ restriction was for 4.3/4.4+ really. (well as long as RMS doesn't go mad and revoke the linking exception for libgcc anyway...)

GPL v2, v3 or *BSD?

[LinuxGeek]

People that use a Linux distro that is newly encumbered by Microsoft patent agreements *cough*Linspire*cough* cannot use the compilers for development anyway. What does the actual GPL version matter to the users in that situation?

I am certainly not a lawyer, but MS has a ton of lawyers that seem to have become experts in the GPL arena and they seem to have little fear of GPL v2, but v3 seems to have them concerned. It seems that if developers want to stick with v2, then they may as well go all the way to the FreeBSD license. v3 is the future of free and open source projects that want to remain free in both senses until MS gets brave enough to sue over some vague patents. But if they can get enough partners like Linspire and Novell, they will have crippled much of the spirit that drives opensource. I plan on supporting companies that are standing up to the MS bullying in whatever ways I can.

Re:GPL v2, v3 or *BSD?

[gnasher719]

'' People that use a Linux distro that is newly encumbered by Microsoft patent agreements *cough*Linspire*cough* cannot use the compilers for development anyway. What does the actual GPL version matter to the users in that situation? ''

Please could you explain why I couldn't use the gcc compilers on a box running Linspire for development?

In reality, this whole "patent agreement" is just a lot of hot air. Microsoft just agreed not to sue a very small subset of all Linux users. The other 90+ percent of Linux users just say "Patents? What patents? If I am infringing any of your patents, then tell me which ones, so I can tell you where to stick them".

Re:GPL v2, v3 or *BSD?

[LinuxGeek]

Please could you explain why I couldn't use the gcc compilers on a box running Linspire for development?

Why, yes, I believe I can. Here is an excerpt from the MS-Linspire agreement:

"Customers" means an enterprise or individual that utilizes a specific copy of a Covered Product for its intended purpose as authorized by Linspire. Enterprises or individuals are not Customers when they (1) resell, license, supply, distribute or otherwise make available to third parties such specific copy or additional copies of the Covered Product; or (2) resell, license, supply, or distribute the output of SDKs or developer kits they utilize as a Customer.

MS defines a customer as someone they temporarily promise to not sue. If you want to know more, then you may want to read and participate in the groklaw article.

Re:GPL v2, v3 or *BSD?

[gnasher719]

But that doesn't put actually any restrictions on me. I don't care one bit what Microsoft wants me to do or not to do.

Otherwise, here is how I can destroy the use of the gcc compiler on Redhat in two seconds:

I, gnasher719, hereby promise not to sue any Redhat Linux users for use of any patents that I own that are used in Redhat Linux, unless that Redhat Linux user uses gcc to compile anything.

Now Redhat Linux users can't use gcc anymore!
I hope you can see what's wrong with this argument. Exactly the same is wrong with your argument against gcc usage on Linspire.

Re:GPL v2, v3 or *BSD?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some pedantry here, but FreeBSD is an operating system whereas the BSD license is a legal document.

Re:GPL v2, v3 or *BSD?

[Brandybuck]

It's silly stuff like this that makes me avoid the GPL. Well, not avoid, that's impossible. But I do ignore it whenever convenient to do so. If someone wants to take me all the way to court over a "free" license, I will do so.

Freedom isn't about suing people over license violations. Only narrow minded leftist technocrats believe such rubbish.

Re:GPL v2, v3 or *BSD?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh please. Linspire produces basically nothing, they piggyback off the work of other copmanies. By getting a license that nullifies the GPL from an abusive monopoly, that draws revenue away from those actual working companies -- Linspire is killing their suppliers. Let's quote Eben Moglen:

"Eben Moglen: Oh, I beg your pardon, certainly, I, the question was so obvious that it needed no repetition: Could I explain the threat posed to GPLd softwares freedom by the Microsoft/Novell agreement?.

And Im going to speak in slightly more general terms than that, beginning with: Imagine a party which wants to eliminate Free Softwares freedom or at least hobble its developers in serious ways, so as to inhibit their ability to compete. Imagine that such a party has patents of uncertain validity but in large numbers, which it could conceivably use to scare developers and users. Imagine that such a party then begins to make periodic threats in the form, Gee, we have a lot of patents. Never mind how many. Never mind what they are. Never mind how good they are. We have a lot of patents, and someday something terrible will happen. Dont use that software.

Imagine that thats a strategy that the party adverse to freedom engages in because its better than suing. Suing is expensive. Suing is irreversible. And suing might actually cause you to have to explain which patents they are and why theyre any good. [Laughter] So threatening is better than suing, OK? Imagine a party who engages in recurrent threats every summer time, for years on end, on a sort of annual be very afraid tour, okay? [Laughter]

I know, it sounds absurd.

Imagine now that what happens is that the annual Be very afraid tour starts creating terrible pushback, because people call up who are the CEOs of major banks and financial institutions, and they say, Those people youre threatening are us. Were the largest, richest, most powerful people in capitalism, and we determine the value of your stock. We think you should be quiet now. OK?

That happens if you do this thing of saying be very afraid to people who have lots and lots of money and lots and lots of power and who control the value of your stock. They will push back. The business model of threatening to sue people works if the people are 12-year-olds. It does not work real well if they are the pillars of finance capitalism. So as a party engaged in annual be very afraid tours, youre going to start to get pushback by enterprise customers who say, Thats *us* youre threatening.

Now what if you could reduce their sense of being the people who are made afraid? What if you could find a way to give them quiet and peace -- and make a little money on the side -- so that the only people who are left quaking when you did your annual Be Very Afraid tour were the developers themselves? Now you would have given yourself a major ecological boost in swinging your patents around and threatening to hurt people.

Deals for patent safety create the possibility of that risk to my clients, the development community. If enterprise thinks that it can go and buy the software my clients make from some party who gives them peace from the adversary in return for purchasing a license from them, then enterprises may think they have made a separate peace, and if they open the business section one morning and it says Adversary Makes Trouble for Free Software, they can think, Not my problem. I bought the such-and-such distribution, and Im OK.

This process of attempting to segregate the enterprise customers, whose insistence on their rights will stop the threatening, from the developers, who are at the end the real object of the threat, is what is wrong with the deals.

So what you ought to do is to say to parties, Please dont make separate peace at the communitys expense. Please dont try to make your customers safe, if thats going to result in the destruction of the upstream rain forest where your goods come from. Were an ecological system. If you undermine community defenses, youre under

Re:GPL v2, v3 or *BSD?

[LinuxGeek]

I see your point, that you are not concerned about a MS lawsuit. I suspect that if you were a Linspire freak, that you would also use it as a server platform which would also invalidate the so called peace agreement.

I have been using Linux for about 13 years, so Linspire is not really targeted at me, but the target market will be buying the distro so they can get this imagined protection. That means they will be voluntarily giving up their GPL rights for that bit of temporary protection.

Their is a very large difference in the perceived threat between gnasher719 threatening to sue and Microsoft doing the same. In your example, the buyers of Redhat have not agreed to your terms, you merely made the offer. Now the terms I quoted above are part of the Linspire license agreement that is accepted while installing. Looks like a night and day difference between your example and the actual MS/Linspire pact. Please follow the groklaw story for far more qualified opinions than I am qualified to give.

What's the problem with GPLv3 for GCC?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the main "problem" seen by some of the GCC contributors is the "TiVo clause", that is, if you license under GPLv3 and distribute it, and the piece of hardware you want to run it on has something like TPC, or for that matter any other means to enforce that the binary be recognized by said piece of hardware, you must provide the means to make this hardware recognize your modified version.

So what? This does NOT extend to ALL hardware, only to "User Products" (like TiVo). Specialized hardware is explicitly left out:

A "User Product" is either (1) a "consumer product", which means any tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling. In determining whether a product is a consumer product, doubtful cases shall be resolved in favor of coverage. For a particular product received by a particular user, "normally used" refers to a typical or common use of that class of product, regardless of the status of the particular user or of the way in which the particular user actually uses, or expects or is expected to use, the product. A product is a consumer product regardless of whether the product has substantial commercial, industrial or non-consumer uses, unless such uses represent the only significant mode of use of the product.

That will not prevent a piece of hardware for specialized use to require that only a certain binary run on said hardware (e-voting machines, anyone?)! So what's the deal?

Does GPL v3 GCC imply compiling issues?

[KNicolson]

I've not studied the details of GPL v3, but I believe there will no new restrictions of programs built with a v3'd GCC. For example, we can still built our TiVo-ised closed source DRMed patent-encumbered for sale software without fearing the wrath of RMS, or at least no additional rwrath from him.

Re:Does GPL v3 GCC imply compiling issues?

[baadger]

My understanding is there has always been a clause in the licensing of GCC so that the small amount of GPL'd setup code compiled into C/C++ programs by the compiler doesn't 'infect' your application with the requirement to be released under the GPL. Of course it's a grey area, when turning C/C++ into assembly language there are going to assembly templates in GCC that are copied verbatim into your program.

The general consensus however is this doesn't effect your average user of GCC, only those developing proprietary extensions to it.

Re:Does GPL v3 GCC imply compiling issues?

[Asmodai]

With all due respect to the people hacking GCC, this is a grey area you do not want to worry about when compiling your code. Period.

Re:Does GPL v3 GCC imply compiling issues?

[tomstdenis]

I always thought that glibc/startup code was LGPL for that very reason. LGPL allows you to link against otherwise "gpl'ed" code but without the restriction that your application becomes GPL'ed [or LGPL'ed] itself. If I'm not mistaken that even allows static linking.

Tom

Re:Does GPL v3 GCC imply compiling issues?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Obviously. Just the smae way as it doesn't make your resulting program GPLd. Including GCC inside a Tivoised device is a different matter.

GCC currently includes some files that are always linked with the programs, to call constructors, finish linking/loading, calling main, etc. These are licensed with a GPL+exceptions (you can link as part of compiling). The relevant message on the list was:

It has not yet been decided what to do about files that are part of
  run-time libraries and are covered by GPL/LGPL + exception. Therefore,
  no changes to [them]
and (to the person dong the actual updating):
Please err on the side of caution; it will be harder to go back to V2 if
we accidentally make something V3 than it will be to go forward to V3 if
we miss something.

So runtime libraries and file with exceptions will stay V2 for the time being.

The only legal complaint so far has been:
Some end users need approval from their legal department for a
change of license of their software. This means that the users may need
legal approval for a bug fix because of the license change.

Which is reasonable. Then again, backporting bugfixes to V2 is being considered, if necessary, and any contributor can double-license if he wants.

Re:Does GPL v3 GCC imply compiling issues?

[Scarblac]

Of course. The GPL only comes into play once you go into the business of distributing gcc.

And even then, it's hard to see what would have been changed compared to GPLv2, unless you have a Tivo-like device, already allow users to change the gcc that comes with it for some bizarre reason, but then don't allow them to use that changed gcc. If that is the case, then GPLv2 -> 3 would matter.

Re:Does GPL v3 GCC imply compiling issues?

[Chandon Seldon]

I'm pretty sure it's "GCC with a linking exception" so as to be even cleaner than the LGPL. A lot of effort has been put into making sure that there are no license restrictions on code compiled with GCC.

Seen nothing of this.

[eddy]

I follow the GCC list (you know, where all significant contributors hang around), and the only thing I've seen discussed is what should happen to the old branches when GCC goes GPLv3, and if the change should come with a version change. The thread starts here.

Me thinks someone is on crack.

My problem with GPLv3

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that FSF has mis-used the trust developers have placed on them with GPLv3, by making it incompatible.

[Please let me finish before you mod me down ;)]

If I had placed some code in GPLv2, and did not pay much attention to the 'or later' clause, what essentially has happened now is that my code is also licensed with a license (GPLv3) which I do not necessarily agree with. GPLv3 is incompatible with v2, so basically somebody can add GPLv3 code to the project and then you have two incompatible forks, with the v3 fork being able to use the v2 code, but not vice-versa.

You can argue that the spirit is the same for GPLv2 and GPLv3. But my counter-argument for this is that it is the same "spirit" which argues that LGPL is bad (and glibc better move to GPL) or that all proprietary software is immoral. Everyone who liked GPLv2 may not agree with these sentiments.

I'm with FSF on their fight against DRM and software patents, but I think going about this by this way and actually alienating it own moderate following, has hurt FSF's cause than strengthened it.

If FSF really wanted to take the moral high ground, they should have called the incompatible license SGPL or some other name, and asked the developers politely to move to SGPL as GPLv2 is flawed by their moral standards and SGPL is the solution.

Re:My problem with GPLv3

[Timothy Brownawell]

I think that FSF has mis-used the trust developers have placed on them with GPLv3, by making it incompatible.

If it was going to be compatible, it would have to be the exact same license.

One feature of GPL is that it claims that the entire program has to be distributed under whatever terms, with no additional restrictions. So if GPLv3 has less restrictions that GPLv2, v3 code wouldn't be allowed to be distributed under v2. If it had more restrictions, then v2 code wouldn't be allowed to be distributed under v3.

If I had placed some code in GPLv2, and did not pay much attention to the 'or later' clause, what essentially has happened now is that my code is also licensed with a license (GPLv3) which I do not necessarily agree with. GPLv3 is incompatible with v2, so basically somebody can add GPLv3 code to the project and then you have two incompatible forks, with the v3 fork being able to use the v2 code, but not vice-versa.

Yes. This is why you should pay attention to what you agree to.

You can argue that the spirit is the same for GPLv2 and GPLv3. But my counter-argument for this is that it is the same "spirit" which argues that LGPL is bad (and glibc better move to GPL) or that all proprietary software is immoral. Everyone who liked GPLv2 may not agree with these sentiments.

Yeah, the only "spirit" that stays the same between them is the spirit of the FSF. The spirit of a license necessarily must be contained entirely within that license, and the contents of v2 and v3 are very different (from "share and share alike" to "share, and you must share everything").

If FSF really wanted to take the moral high ground, they should have called the incompatible license SGPL or some other name, and asked the developers politely to move to SGPL as GPLv2 is flawed by their moral standards and SGPL is the solution.

They asked for people to use the "or any later version" clause specifically so they wouldn't have to do this. Using that clause or not is a judgement call, as to whether you trust the FSF with your license (personally, I don't).

GCC summit in Ottawa

[Anonymous Coward]

The real news is actually the GCC summit in Ottawa (17-20 july 2007). I was there and it was interesting.

why does anybody care?

[xophos]

The only thing that even Linus didn't like about GPLv3 is the anti-tivoization section. Who would ship a devize that is locked down like tivo with gcc?

Re:why does anybody care?

[jimicus]

Well, a trick involving gcc has been used to work around the GPL in the past. The trick is this:

main.c:

#include stuff
#__INSERT__REAL__CODE__HERE

main(){
    call_real_code();
    exit 0;
}


The compiler is then hacked to insert the actual code which does the work where it sees #__INSERT__REAL__CODE__HERE, but this version of the compiler is never distributed.

Voila! You can distribute the above file under GPL and it doesn't do someone who wants to modify the code any good because they need your hacked version of the compiler. But you never distributed the compiler, so you're not obliged to distribute the changes you made.

I'm not sure this technique would be affected by GPLv3. You could still reveal "this is how you change the hardware to load any image rather than just the one we distribute" without revealing what your code actually was.

Re:why does anybody care?

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC GPLv2 defines source as the "preferred way of making changes to the program", not as the thing being compiled. In your case the source code is the changes to the compiler. Period. Not distributing it means you're under violation of the GPL.

What you're dong is akin to distributing the .asm or .o files. Sure, you can compile / build your program with them, but that's not the source code. That's not how you make your changes.

That's not to say you can't pull that trick more subtly. You might need some compiler extensions which are independant of your program, but all the logic for your program is there.

There are multiple ways to circumvent the GPL, but that's not one of them.

(And no, I'm not going to list them. I like the FSF)

Re:why does anybody care?

[cibyr]

IANAL, but I don't think that actually works. From the GPL (v2):

 

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

Somehow I don't think your main.c would count as the "preferred form the work for making modifications to it", and your modified compiler isn't normally distributed with the major components of the operating system on which the executable runs, is it?

Re:The sad state of Slashdot editorial line nowada

[geschild]

As you can see from my posting history, I don't do this often (can't remember to have done it at all, come to think of it), but Mod Parent Up!

A no doubt stupid question...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this a problem? Can source which is under the GPL2 not be compiled using this program, which is free for all to use, and retain it's GPL2 status?

Call all /. lawers (or not)

[inflex]

I'm a single-person software business, I don't hold any patents, I release by far a majority of my code under the BSD revised licence.

I -do- however have a portion of code that I keep locked up for a commercial application, if I start using a GPL v3 GCC will I be putting myself into peril?

Incidently, I'm not in the US, but well... sort of, I'm in Australia, which is almost as good as another US state *sigh*.

Re:Call all /. lawers (or not)

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll assume that was a blissful sigh :)

Re:Call all /. lawers (or not)

[Anonymous Coward]

I -do- however have a portion of code that I keep locked up for a commercial application, if I start using a GPL v3 GCC will I be putting myself into peril?

Not at all. But if you stop updating GCC you may find you're no longer able to compile your code for modern platforms.

Re:Call all /. lawers (or not)

[kocsonya]

> I -do- however have a portion of code that I keep locked up for a commercial application, if I start using a GPL v3 GCC will I be putting myself into peril?

No, you won't. You want to *use* gcc, not distribute it. The GPL explicitely states that it deals with the redistribution of the program and it puts no restriction on its use. If you want to distribute GCC itsels, then the GPL restricts you. If you distribute code compiled with GCC, the GPL has nothing to do with you.

> Incidently, I'm not in the US, but well... sort of, I'm in Australia, which is almost as good as another US state *sigh*.

It seems to me that in the civil rights/privacy/witch-hunt departments we're getting a lead on the mothership :-(

Re:Call all /. lawers (or not)

[inflex]

>No, you won't. You want to *use* gcc, not distribute it. The GPL explicitely states that it deals with the redistribution of the program and it puts no restriction on its use. If you want to distribute GCC itsels, then the GPL restricts you. If you distribute code compiled with GCC, the GPL has nothing to do with you.

Great, that solves that then (since I won't be redistributing GCC at all, merely the binaries it generates).

>It seems to me that in the civil rights/privacy/witch-hunt departments we're getting a lead on the mothership :-(

Indeed. the whole Haneef situation, terrorist or not has been a colossal mess. Makes me somewhat happier to be living out here in the outback, not much though :\

Re:Call all /. lawers (or not)

[Bananenrepublik]

Well the previous answer wasn't completely accurate. There are a few parts of gcc that are included in your compiled binary, e.g. the startup code that is run before calling main() and the C++ library. They are licensed under the (L)GPL, but with an exception that allows you to use and distribute them any way you please in the result of a compilation. To make this clear: gcc puts no restrictions on the binaries it compiles.

A (Fruit) Fly in the Ointment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the advent of OS X Apple have made some not insignifacnt contributions to gcc as I'm sure IBM, Sun, HP, etc. have but Apple are to my knowledge to _only_ top tier hardware vendor that relies upon gcc as the core of its' OS build system.

Anyone care to speculate on how Apple might react to gcc going GPL3, perhaps they may actually fork it themselves...

Re:A (Fruit) Fly in the Ointment?

[Halo1]

gcc going gplv3 would not affect anything built with gcc in any way (and that includes Mac OS X).

Re:A (Fruit) Fly in the Ointment?

[Verte]

I think they mean will it stop them contributing, not using.. I'd say unlikely. If Apple, say, were likely to put their own patented code into gcc before, I don't see what the big difference is now- anyone could have taken their patented code before, straight from gcc, legal or not. Apple mainly contribute to the Objective C portions, and I don't think any of it would be patented. I'm not sure what IBM contribute, but given the recent patent deals, I doubt it would be a problem if they did contribute patented stuff.

Re:A (Fruit) Fly in the Ointment?

[ZachPruckowski]

It doesn't affect Apple much at all, as Apple has no patents on Objective-C itself, and GCC is already replaceable on everything it's included on (it's probably not included on the AppleTV or iPhone). Obviously, replacing GCC is risky on a Mac (could break Xcode), but someone could do it. Apple's only patents would be on the Cocoa/Carbon/CoreEverything frameworks (which aren't under GPL or LGPL), and so would be unaffected.

Grumbling

[jrumney]

Some key contributors are grumbling over this change and have privately discussed a fork to stay as GPL v2.

References? The only grumblings I can see in the GCC mailing lists are about the version number change that accompanies the GPLv3 upgrade. A few developers feel that a license change is not a new feature so the first GPL version should be 4.2.2, not 4.3. And one developer who complains that not allowing backported patches to stay under GPLv2 will be a burdon to companies offering support for older versions (eg Novell, Xandros and Linspire).

Re:Grumbling

[lowlands]

And one developer who complains that not allowing backported patches to stay under GPLv2 will be a burdon to companies offering support for older versions (eg Novell, Xandros and Linspire).

Given the fact that these companies have sold out to Microsoft frankly I could not care less. Let the corporate sock puppets at Novell et all figure out how to commercially leech on the GPLv3'd work of the developers. Not allowing backports to stay under GPLv2 will ensure that Novell et all & Microsoft are rapidly closing in on a dead end. But let's not kid ourselves that this will put an end to it. Microsoft will be relentless in pursuing ways to hurt the F/OSS Community were it can. We should not give them an inch and not allowing GPLv2 backports is following that strategy nicely.

Just my 2 cents

[nrgy]

I'm in the vfx industry and over the years I've picked up programming plugins for the applications I use. Now I don't use other peoples code because frankly I'm just doing math calculations and using the internals of the applications they are being coded for.

That being said all this GPL3, tivo this tivo that stuff is confusing the hell out of me. I release my plugins free to anyone using the applications they are designed for, I don't however release the source code. You can call me lazy all you want and generally I will agree you are correct, but this license mine field that I have to worry about when making my plugins on Linux is getting annoying to say the least. I work long enough days making the stuff you see on tv and the movies look pretty so I don't have time to go following up on all this license news.

Fault Windows all you want but the worries you have with licenses on Windows is slightly less then Linux, notice I SLIGHTLY easier. I'm halfway tempted to switch my development to a Mac and dump my Linux support to not worry about it ever again. This is pretty sad since I ENJOY Linux, I've been running nothing but Linux the past 5 years. I have better things to do then worry "Opps, shit did I link with something that requires I release the source".

Like I have said in all my previous posts I like Linux, I like it a lot, but I'm sorry to say I don't view the FSF as the best people representing Linux. This is just my very small insignificant opinion and I have no problem with others disagreeing, if things keep going the way they are though I might just have to start looking at another platform. And no I don't say this because I think people care whether I use linux or not, I say it because I DONT WANT TO USE ANYTHING ELSE.

Re:Just my 2 cents

[Anonymous Coward]

> I don't use other peoples code

Then you have no problem. If you link against a lib, check the license. Most libs are BSD or LGPL and permit linking without requiring you to release your source.

> I'm halfway tempted to switch my development to a Mac

What compiler do you think Apples XCode uses?

> if things keep going the way they are though I might just have to start looking at another platform.

I'm witness to the awesome power of FUD.

Re:Just my 2 cents

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason you don't have problems on Windows is you're either using a commercial compiler or one with a different license, right? What does that have to do with differences between Windows and Linux?
You have to keep track of the licenses of all libraries/tools you use on Windows as well.

In this case you're OK as long as you just use the compiler for compiling your code (linking against libc/libc++) as (from what I understand) only the compiler will be put under GPL3.

If you want to use freely available libraries/tools you have to accept their license, otherwise just don't use it, simple really.

Re:Just my 2 cents

[nrgy]

> What compiler do you think Apples XCode uses?

My not knowning this is from my lack of knowledge with Apple so forgive me for not knowing. If I at some time do decide to switch platforms I will have to read up more about each one and the pro's and con's that each have.

> I'm witness to the awesome power of FUD.

This has nothing to do with FUD, am I wrong for disagreeing with the way the FSF is handling things as of late? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and mine just so happens to be that if things keep going the way they are I may decide to look to other operating systems. Why would I stay with a community when I don't agree with the way they practice things?

It's not that I have a problem with OSS, I like the general idea of it and I applaud anyone that is part of the community, even I have released source code for a plugin that I created which used GPL source code. On my webiste www.nfxplugins.com you can download the package of plugins and you will see I have included the source for a plugin that used the Reihnhard04 method of tone mapping source code.

Re:Just my 2 cents

[tokul]

Fault Windows all you want but the worries you have with licenses on Windows is slightly less then Linux, notice I SLIGHTLY easier. I'm halfway tempted to switch my development to a Mac and dump my Linux support to not worry about it ever again. This is pretty sad since I ENJOY Linux, I've been running nothing but Linux the past 5 years. I have better things to do then worry "Opps, shit did I link with something that requires I release the source".

Then don't use GPL-licensed code in your proprietary software. If you use third party code, you don't own it and you must check copyrights. With GPL you must follow copyright laws or you must follow GPL. Without GPL you still must follow copyright laws.

Like I have said in all my previous posts I like Linux, I like it a lot, but I'm sorry to say I don't view the FSF as the best people representing Linux.

First F in FSF stands for Free. Your proprietary software is not free.

Even if you don't like GPL, you still can use Linux. You only can't distribute Linux with your proprietary modifications.

Re:Just my 2 cents

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and mine just so happens to be that if things keep going the way they are I may decide to look to other operating systems.

No you're not. The GPLv4 explicitly disallows you from having any opinion on how the FSF works or you lose your right to have an opinion.

Re:Just my 2 cents

[Anonymous Coward]

Fault Windows all you want but the worries you have with licenses on Windows is slightly less then Linux

This is simply not true. Free Software grants additional freedoms that copyright restricts. Typical proprietary software EULAs add additional restrictions beyond what copyright already restricts. As a general rule of thumb, everything you can do legally with proprietary software, you can also do with Free Software.

Now sure, you get a lot more discussion of licenses in the Linux community, but that's because they care about stuff like this. You, on the other hand, are a shining example of somebody who just doesn't give a shit, and the Windows world is full of people like you. So that's why you don't see lots of discussion there - not because you have more freedom, just because everybody just goes "meh".

Re:Just my 2 cents

[reed]

This post has nothing to do with GCC and GPLv3, it's pretty much off topic. Why has it been moderated up?

Re:Just my 2 cents

[nrgy]

If only I could take my "currently +2" remaining points that the AWSOME SUPERTASTIC MODS have given me and slap you with a +2 cock block. :D

Re:Just my 2 cents

[Anonymous Coward]

Free Software grants additional freedoms that copyright restricts. Typical proprietary software EULAs add additional restrictions beyond what copyright already restricts. As a general rule of thumb, everything you can do legally with proprietary software, you can also do with Free Software. The Tivoization clause makes this untrue. It is a restriction outside what copyright covers and actually has a lot in common with a EULA. As for the latter statement, I can make a medical device with proprietary software. The GPL3 explicitly forbids you since FDA regulations require you to Tivoize any devices you make if they're going to get approval. Even considering the ridiculous clause about industrial vs personal use, the GPL3 claims that if a device can be used in your home (such as a hospice situation), even if it is only intended for hospital use, it is a personal device and thus subject to the anti-Tivoization clause.

Yay for overly complicated licenses written in convoluted lawyer speak!

Re:Just my 2 cents

[tolonuga]

> "Opps, shit did I link with something that requires I release the source".

that can't happen. all that can happen is "sorry, you can't use this unless your code is under a compatible license". and if that is the case usualy
you say you are sorry, drop using that library/whatever and you are fine. worst case: you are forced to take your software off the market till the situation
is fixed (wouldn't affect your windows or mac os X version unless you use the same library there too), and in theory someone could sue you for compensation
of damages. But all the cases I followed that never happened.

don't let the fud get to you. some people claim if you combine A with B then A is suddenly under the same license as B. that is not true. but: you are not
allowed to combine A and B unless their licenses are compatible. and if you make a mistake usually it is good enought to stop combining A and B or find
some other compromise.

without investing too much time you can figure out which combinations are ok. don't worry too much, take come basic care and you will be fine.

Re:Just my 2 cents

[Chandon Seldon]

The license issues are not OS-dependent.

All three operating systems allow you to write programs under whatever license you want to run on them, and provide full sets of system libraries that can be used without license restrictions.

The only time you need to worry about what the GPL says is if you use GPL'd code or libraries (LGPL libraries are safe). That's pretty much equally possible on Windows, Mac, and GNU/Linux - yes, it's possible for a Windows or Mac OS program to include GPL code by mistake.

Even further, GPL license issues aren't that big a deal. If you screw up, all you need to do is remove the GPL'd code from your program.

Re:Just my 2 cents

[Anonymous Coward]

Go ahead, enlighten him about the four freedoms. It will obviously convert him over...

Re:Just my 2 cents

[Todd Knarr]

There won't be an issue with GCC, under either GPL v2 or v3. The compiler's license only matters if the code you wrote is a derivative work of the compiler, which means it physically includes code that's part of the compiler, and the small bit of code that's part of GCC that must be included in the compiled code is explicitly exempted from the GPL provisions (the terms are essentially BSD-no-attribution).

You might want to also consider that you have the same worries using Visual Studio as you do using GCC. Code compiled with MS's compiler needs the same bit of code from the compiler included in the final program as code compiled with GCC, and for the same reasons. There's also several library files that may be needed for VC++-compiled programs, depending on which options you use when compiling. Those files are classified as "redistributables", and they are under a license. The terms shouldn't be a problem for normal programs, just as the GCC bits aren't a problem for normal programs, but if you're worried about the GCC issues you need to worry about the same issues in Visual Studio for the same reason.

Re:Just my 2 cents

[iabervon]

Don't accept the license on GCC (or binutils, or the Linux kernel, or...). When you get any of these, you become the owner of a copy of the software, and you can use that copy under fair use doctorine without any license. The only thing you have to care about are programs and libraries that your plugins compile against (that is, header files, and, if you need to link against anything, whatever you link against).

The GPLv2 (I'm not sure about v3) specificly states that it does not cover using the program; using a GPLv2 program is like reading a book you own, unlike using a proprietary program which is licensed for your use but which you do not own (so that you can be bound by EULA terms). There was a draft of the GPLv3 which was not Free in this sense, but I believe that got fixed.

Re:Just my 2 cents

[Anonymous Coward]

The Tivoization clause makes this untrue. It is a restriction outside what copyright covers and actually has a lot in common with a EULA.

This is completely false. It works the same as the GPLv2: if you want to distribute copies of other people's code, you have to agree to various things. In comparison to copyright alone, which does not let you distribute copies at all (outside of fair use, which also applies to GPLed code), the GPL - any version - has less restrictions.

Perhaps you are mixing it up with the idea they floated a long time ago about web services etc? That would have been EULA-like and a restriction beyond copyright, but that never even made it into a draft, let alone the final version.

As for the latter statement, I can make a medical device with proprietary software. The GPL3 explicitly forbids you

That corner case has nothing at all to do with the subject of this discussion, somebody complaining that writing applications/plugins for Windows is more free because there's less license talk.

Yay for overly complicated licenses written in convoluted lawyer speak!

The GPL is one of the least "convoluted lawyer speak" licenses around.

Re:Just my 2 cents

[david_thornley]

I'm in the vfx industry and over the years I've picked up programming plugins for the applications I use. Now I don't use other peoples code because frankly I'm just doing math calculations and using the internals of the applications they are being coded for.

Then you don't need to worry about any version of the GPL, since you're not using other people's code.

That being said all this GPL3, tivo this tivo that stuff is confusing the hell out of me. I release my plugins free to anyone using the applications they are designed for, I don't however release the source code.

So you're clearly not releasing under any GPL version, so it doesn't affect you.

Fault Windows all you want but the worries you have with licenses on Windows is slightly less then Linux, notice I SLIGHTLY easier.

Huh? Every actually looked at a MS license? The GPL is easier, in that you can exercise any right permitted under copyright law without looking at the license, unlike MS EULAs.

I have better things to do then worry "Opps, shit did I link with something that requires I release the source".

Aside from the fact that nothing requires you to release the source (you can always withdraw the product), if you go around linking with other people's code and distributing it (the only way you can be restricted by the GPL), and you don't pay attention to licenses, then you're potentially in a heap of trouble. The FSF will only insist that you comply with the license terms, and you can either release under the appropriate version(s) of the GPL or stop distributing the linked code. There are other copyright holders out there that are, shall we say, less forgiving.

If you take away anything from this, remember that you are bound by the license whenever you link to somebody else's code and redistribute. You do have to follow up on license news if you do this, and the worry you will have if you use Microsoft code is considerably greater than if you use GPLed code.

Like I have said in all my previous posts I like Linux, I like it a lot, but I'm sorry to say I don't view the FSF as the best people representing Linux.

The FSF doesn't represent the Linux project in specific (and there are significant differences between the FSF idea of software freedom and Linus Torvald's), but rather a wide range of software. Like it or not, they do represent a whole lot of what makes up a Linux distro, including some very important parts.

if things keep going the way they are though I might just have to start looking at another platform. And no I don't say this because I think people care whether I use linux or not, I say it because I DONT WANT TO USE ANYTHING ELSE.

Then don't. If you're just using Linux, the licenses don't matter to you. The differences in the licenses only apply when you're using other people's code and distributing the result. Nor do I understand "if things keep going the way they are", because there isn't all that much happening. What there is is a lot of astroturfing and FUD about how horrible GPLv3 is, and a lot of misunderstanding. This is pretty much standard for Linux and other GPLed free software, since there are a lot of people who'd like to see free software just go away.

Re:Just my 2 cents

[Anonymous Coward]

The Tivoization clause makes this untrue. It is a restriction outside what copyright covers and actually has a lot in common with a EULA. This is completely false. It works the same as the GPLv2: if you want to distribute copies of other people's code, you have to agree to various things. In comparison to copyright alone, which does not let you distribute copies at all (outside of fair use, which also applies to GPLed code), the GPL - any version - has less restrictions. "You can use/modify/distribute this software as long as your hardware complies with our political ideology" feels more like a EULA, perhaps a D(evelopers)ULA, to me than the GPL2 did. It is trying to impose terms regarding hardware production on a developer via copyright much like how a student copy of Visual Studio might (haven't bought a student copy of anything since Borland C++ 5.0) say that you can't use the compiler to make commercial binaries.

As for the latter statement, I can make a medical device with proprietary software. The GPL3 explicitly forbids you That corner case has nothing at all to do with the subject of this discussion, somebody complaining that writing applications/plugins for Windows is more free because there's less license talk. That corner case is very valid to some of us and highlights why we think the GPL3 is an inferior license to the GPL2. It also exposes the paradox of "Free Software" in that it would rather have you use proprietary software than use free software if you can't replace the software on a device. The only way to ensure the freedom of the user is to make sure that they're a slave instead of an indentured servant.

The GPL is one of the least "convoluted lawyer speak" licenses around. The GPLv2 is one of the least convoluted licenses. The GPLv3 very much requires a lawyer to parse and, at least to my lay eyes, has far more loopholes than v2. That includes a loophole to the loophole GPLv3 was meant to close. Tivo can now lease you a box instead of letting you own it outright. For the low, low setup price of $200 and a mere $16.95 per month, you too can lease a Tivo of which you are not the owner and thus have no right to modify. What? It's the same price as buying it outright already but now Tivo gets to keep the hardware too? Yep... great foresight into fixing the "loophole" FSF. Coming next month: GPLv4 banning Tivo from using their software outright followed by v4.1 banning another company, v4.2 banning another, etc.

Re:Just my 2 cents

[m50d]

This has nothing to do with FUD, am I wrong for disagreeing with the way the FSF is handling things as of late?

What has changed? What is the FSF doing differently from the way they were 2, 5, 20 years ago? All that's changed is the amount of FUD being chucked around.

I have better things to do then worry "Opps, shit did I link with something that requires I release the source".

And what is your magic way of avoiding this problem on other OSes, except by changing it into "Opps, shit did I link with something that requires I don't distribute at all"? Do tell.

Re:Just my 2 cents

[Anonymous Coward]

"You can use/modify/distribute this software as long as your hardware complies with our political ideology" feels more like a EULA

Sure it does. But that's not an accurate description of any version of the GPL.

That corner case is very valid to some of us

Sure. But do you agree that it's got no part in the argument about how comparatively complicated licensing is for plugin/application developers on Windows and Linux?

It also exposes the paradox of "Free Software" in that it would rather have you use proprietary software than use free software if you can't replace the software on a device.

Straw man. Show me one person, anywhere, that has said that. There are more Free Software licenses than the GPLv3. Furthermore, the freedom that the FSF want to protect has always been the freedoms of the end-users. That's why they promote the GPL instead of a BSD-style license. GPLv3 is merely a refinement of these ideals, not a departure from them.

The only way to ensure the freedom of the user is to make sure that they're a slave instead of an indentured servant.

You're arguing that you want the right to restrict the freedoms of the users, arguing against a license that attempts to protect them, and you characterise the GPL like that? Hypocrite. What end-user makes DRM-encumbered hospital equipment?

The GPLv3 very much requires a lawyer to parse

If you're serious about complying with any license, you need a lawyer. That's the nature of law, I'm afraid. Modern legal systems are out of control.

at least to my lay eyes, has far more loopholes than v2.

By your own argument, your opinion is worthless.

That includes a loophole to the loophole GPLv3 was meant to close. Tivo can now lease you a box instead of letting you own it outright.

What makes you think that's a loophole the GPLv3 was meant to close? The anti-Tivoisation aspect of the license was to ensure that end-users could do what they like with their own property. It wasn't there to let them mess around with other people's property.

For the low, low setup price of $200 and a mere $16.95 per month, you too can lease a Tivo of which you are not the owner and thus have no right to modify. What? It's the same price as buying it outright already but now Tivo gets to keep the hardware too?

What stopped them doing that before? What's stopping a competitor from undercutting them? What does this have to do with the GPL?

Re:Just my 2 cents

[Anonymous Coward]

"You can use/modify/distribute this software as long as your hardware complies with our political ideology" feels more like a EULA Sure it does. But that's not an accurate description of any version of the GPL. Stop sniffing RMS' underwear... that's exactly what the Tivo clause provides. Your hardware must comply with our ideology to use software licensed under a license we created, even if we didn't create the software.

That corner case is very valid to some of us Sure. But do you agree that it's got no part in the argument about how comparatively complicated licensing is for plugin/application developers on Windows and Linux? I could tell you that the gravity of earth doesn't make any difference to how heavy the sun is but that doesn't mean earth's gravity doesn't affect us. The Tivoization clause makes the GPLv3 much more complicated than the GPLv2, the clauses are trivial to circumvent (meaning putting them there is pointless unless you're doing it for political dick-waving) and the wording can turn any industrial device into a consumer device if it can be installed in a home, even if it was never meant to be. The FSFers are so busy smelling their own farts, and spending two weeks trolling places like lkml, that they can't see what a stinker they made.

By your own argument, your opinion is worthless. Can you show me your law degree? If not, your opinion has just as much weight as mine. As a GPLv2 developer, the GPLv3 bothers me and I'm free to criticize an "upgrade" (as the FSFers classify it) of the license which I use which negatively affects my software (by forcing me to maintain forks of other code since the new license is incompatible with the one I use).

What makes you think that's a loophole the GPLv3 was meant to close? The anti-Tivoisation aspect of the license was to ensure that end-users could do what they like with their own property. It wasn't there to let them mess around with other people's property. All the FSFers consider tivoization a loophole that needed to be closed. In fact, it was so important that they wanted it closed even though it would mean the GPLv2 is incompatible with the GPLv3. However, all the FSF managed to do was ensure future devices would use proprietary software (making sure end users are as un-free as possible) or would be leased (again, making sure end users aren't free). But hey, lets not let reality get in the way of dogma. That the method of closing the loophole has a loophole is now a feature, not a bug.

What stopped them doing that before? What's stopping a competitor from undercutting them? What does this have to do with the GPL? Because it shows how truly short-sighted the supposed visionaries are over at the FSF when they drafted the language of the GPLv3.

Re:Just my 2 cents

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop sniffing RMS' underwear... that's exactly what the Tivo clause provides. Your hardware must comply with our ideology to use software licensed under a license we created, even if we didn't create the software.

Stop trolling. Pointing out simple facts is not "sniffing RMS' underwear". The GPL does not cover use. It covers distributing copies. The fact that you are disagreeing tells me that you haven't even bothered reading any version of the license and are just going on hearsay.

I could tell you that the gravity of earth doesn't make any difference to how heavy the sun is but that doesn't mean earth's gravity doesn't affect us.

Your analogies suck.

The Tivoization clause makes the GPLv3 much more complicated than the GPLv2

But that's not the point the OP was making. Read back over the thread. He wasn't saying "the licenses are too difficult", he was saying "the fact that I need to deal with licenses is difficult". And even if you pretend that was his point all along, the GPL is still far less complicated than any EULA I've ever seen.

the clauses are trivial to circumvent

If you are referring to the "circumvention" you just mentioned, then I don't think changing business model from selling devices to renting devices is "trivial".

the wording can turn any industrial device into a consumer device if it can be installed in a home, even if it was never meant to be.

What makes you think that? I agree that the line isn't especially clear, but the license does make it clear that intent and normal use matters. I don't think you are being honest when you state this as a fact rather than your opinion.

The FSFers are so busy smelling their own farts

Oh, I see. You're just an adolescent troll with a fixation on Stallman's arse. You aren't worth bothering with, you've clearly got an axe to grind and a childish mind. Don't bother responding unless you manage to grow up beforehand.

Re:Just my 2 cents

[Billly Gates]

I wonder about glibc? That is gnu and the FreeBSD team uses their own libc that is bsd licensed to avoid the potential legality. Bill Gates said the GPL was viral in this area and he is right as its what RMS wanted when sharing ideas.

So does your hello world program have to be gpl because of the lgpl license of the glibc?

Re:Just my 2 cents

[Todd Knarr]

Yes and no. If you dynamically link against glibc (the default situation for every compiler and system I know of), then the LGPL explicitly says that you do not have to place your work under the GPL. This is, BTW, the primary purpose of the LGPL: to make exactly this exception to the GPL for libraries.

If you staticly link against glibc, it becomes a bit more complicated. The LGPL says you don't have to place your work under the GPL just because it's linked against an LGPL'd library, but that you do have to provide the user with a way of modifying the LGPL'd portion (the library code) and relinking it with your program. In practice this means distributing your program as object modules and providing all the makefiles or compiler/linker commands to let the user perform the link step and produce the executable. You'll also have to provide usable copies of all the other libraries your program uses (unless they come standard with the target system), you aren't allowed to foist off the problem of getting all the neccesary libraries on the user. This can be problematic if your program uses non-open-source libraries, since you may not have a license to distribute standalone copies of them (ie. not linked into an executable). But to be honest, static linking has enough technical issues that I'd recommend not doing it regardless of licensing. It's a maintenance nightmare for you (having to re-release executables every time any of the linked-in libraries has a bug-fix release) and a headache for your users (who have to deal with those re-releases and programs with library versions that don't match their installed versions and have incompatibilities with installed configuration and data files) and it's usually best to just Not Go There.

Who is disagreeing with the license change?

[kune]

I have just looked at the GCC mailing list. There is some discussion how to make the change the best way and what happens to backports. But I have to see now a message, which explicitly states, that he will fork GCC. I think this is overblown.

Patent protection + internationalisation = good

[H4x0r Jim Duggan]

C'mon. v3 gives more patent protection to developers and it is written in more internationalised language. It's hard to see what people could complain about in terms of GCC.

Re:Patent protection + internationalisation = good

[twistedcubic]

It's hard to see what people could complain about in terms of GCC.

Not if they didn't bother to read it, and just accepted Linus' ignorant rants on faith.

WTF - claim of fork has no substance

[H4x0r Jim Duggan]

I just read the linked-to email and found no mention of grumbling developers talking about forks.

On what grounds did Slashdot say this is true???

Re:WTF - claim of fork has no substance

[Threni]

> On what grounds did Slashdot say this is true???

I don't believe "Slashdot" has taken a stance on this issue one way or the other. You could poll readers, I guess, or email the submitted directly and ask for their opinion.

Re:WTF - claim of fork has no substance

[a.d.trick]

On the grounds that it would attract more page views. If you're in a good mood you might excuse them on the account that they thought this might encourage good discussion, but that's a bit of a stretch for such obvious flaimbait.

meanwhile, the evidence is missing

[H4x0r Jim Duggan]

It's worth noting that the linked to article actually contains nothing about GCC developers complaining about GPLv3.

Re:meanwhile, the evidence is missing

[Anonymous Coward]

Having actual sources removes the Uncertainty and Doubt from FUD.

Re:meanwhile, the evidence is missing

[NickFortune]

It's worth noting that the linked to article actually contains nothing about GCC developers complaining about GPLv3.

Very true, and it would be foolish to assume that we heading for the sort of apocalyptic sundering of the community prophesied by GPLv3 skeptics. On the other hand, I think it's undeniable that the community is divided over the issue.

How serious the objections are, and how large the dissenting camp... that remains to be seen. If the FSF consultancy works as intended there should be little in the way of serious opposition. On the other hand, if they've placed Stallman's political agenda ahead of the needs of the community (as some have suggested) then we may be in for a rocky ride.

Either way, we'll find out soon enough.

Re:meanwhile, the evidence is missing

[bberens]

I was under the impression that the GCC project had special wording added to the GPL so that you didn't have to GPL your project simply because it was compiled using GCC libraries and such. Am I correct in this? If this is true, I don't understand what the big deal is about migrating GCC (in particular) to GPL3.

Anyone?

Re:meanwhile, the evidence is missing

[itsdapead]

Thats the libraries, not the compiler itself.

If you re-distribute (a future GPLv3 version of) the compiler (or, I think, the libraries in a reusable form rather than just a program linked to them) you will be agreeing to the GPLv3 (since nothing else gives you permission to re-distribute that compiler) although that doesn't mean the GPLv3 extends to the whole distro. This will affect (amongst others) the makers of Linux distributions and Apple (OSX comes with GCC).

Also, although the Linux kernel isn't linked with glibc as such, there are chunks of code in it acknowledged as "hand optimised from glibc" and suchlike - which probably doesn't come under the exemption. Now, obviously, this comes from the LGPL2 version of libc, so that is not an issue until and unless important patches to libc appear under GPL3 and the kernel devs want to incorporate them. Not a big deal - but if you want to find some way to apply GPLv3 retrospectively to Microsoft, be careful what you wish for!

Re:meanwhile, the evidence is missing

[NickFortune]

I was under the impression that the GCC project had special wording added to the GPL so that you didn't have to GPL your project simply because it was compiled using GCC libraries and such. Am I correct in this?

I belive the issue there is around the C++ standard libraries, and yes, there's an exception in that case.

If this is true, I don't understand what the big deal is about migrating GCC (in particular) to GPL3.

I don't think there are any technical or legal issues around GCC and the GPL (IANAL). Personally, I think it's purely political, in the sense that a lot of people who would like the GPLv3 to fail in general are going to oppose it every chance they get, and in particular in a high profile project like GCC.

That said, there's a temptation to dismiss all critics of the new licence as astroturfers for MS/Tvio/whoever, and I don't think that's wise. This is the first time the FSF has exercised the power implicit in all that "... or later" boilerplate, and it's easy to form the feeling that they're throwing their weight around, especially in that attracts so many individualists and libertarians as the Free Software Movement.

I think this needs sensitive handling from the FSF, or they risk seeing opposition to the wait-and-see camp. I'm just worried it'll turn into an outing for the "if-you-don't-like-it-use-windows-instead" crowd.

Re:meanwhile, the evidence is missing

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the first time the FSF has exercised the power implicit in all that "... or later" boilerplate

What? There's a reason why the previous GPL was called version 2. Hint: it's not because it was the first version.

Re:meanwhile, the evidence is missing

[cyphercell]

I'm "wait-and-see", I'm "if-you-don't-like-it-use-windows(or something else)-instead", but I have absolutely no intention of making an outing out of that position. Personally, I'm a pragmatic OSS user and I absolutely hate it when contentions like this come up, but at the same time I think RMS is extremely smart, often seeing directions in the industry nobody else does. The FSF is an interesting group all together, their agendas are quite different than those of the rest of the industry and that will always cause tension in some areas, but I think most everyone involved will ultimately just want to get back to work and the FSF has a vested interest in making that possible.

Re:meanwhile, the evidence is missing

[NickFortune]

There's a reason why the previous GPL was called version 2. Hint: it's not because it was the first version.

Just because there was a GPLv1, that doesn't imply that the "... or later" boilerplate was widely used (or indeed used at all) before version two. Still, feel free to prove me wrong.

Like the subject line says - your evidence is missing.

Re:meanwhile, the evidence is missing

[NickFortune]

I'm "wait-and-see"

A rational position

I'm "if-you-don't-like-it-use-windows(or something else)-instead" but I have absolutely no intention of making an outing out of that position.

Well, if that boils down to "the guys who do the work get to choose the licence" then I completely agree. The trouble is that a lot of FSF agitators use it as an all purpose mantra to silence any and all criticism.

And it gets a bit silly after a while: Have doubts about the Tvioisation clause? Tough - use windows instead. Don't think it should be called GNU/Linux - use windows instead. Think Richard's beard could use a trim? Well you just better uninstall Linux and use Windows instead.

The annoying thing is that it makes no sense! The licence doesn't say anything about thought police - it doesn't mandate acceptance of the FSF's political goals - all it requires really, is that you share your improvements with the other users. But once the faithful get going, they're like the sheep in Orwell's Animal Farm: "Four Legs Good, Two Legs Better!"

And I know you're not doing that - I just needed to rant about it.

The FSF is an interesting group all together, their agendas are quite different than those of the rest of the industry and that will always cause tension in some areas, but I think most everyone involved will ultimately just want to get back to work and the FSF has a vested interest in making that possible.

I agree entirely. I can't think who else would or could push this angle, and I think the FSF on the whole does excellent work. I just think that some of their more zealous converts are quite frequently counter productive. Not that that's a new problem for the movement, I suppose...

Re:meanwhile, the evidence is missing

[dougmc]

Having actual sources removes the Uncertainty and Doubt from FUD. In theory, perhaps. Not in practice.

gcc 2.96 was just under a million lines of code -- I've no idea how big gcc 4.2.1 is. In any event, if Microsoft (or whomever) were to claim that gcc 4.2.1 had a back door (here's a famous hypothetical (?) example) but not give any details, then it would be difficult (i.e. very time consuming) for somebody (knowledgeable) to go over all million+ lines of code to certify that it does not exist.

Having source helps take the bite out of FUD, yes, but it doesn't remove it completely. Merely having the code is not enough -- you need to have the skills to understand the code, and the time to properly analyze it. Either that, or you need to trust somebody else to do this for you.

So, yes, I have the source code for gcc. I believe that it has been eyeballed by dozens (hundreds?) of people way smarter than I am, looking for problems. Most of these people probably report their problems to the maintainers, who I assume fix them when they're serious enough. A few are bad guys, looking for holes to exploit. (Well, gcc probably isn't nearly as exploitable as some daemon like Apache, but there are ways it can be abused.) In any event, merely having the source isn't enough to prove to you that it's good (efficient, secure, reliable, not patent encumbered, not copyright infringing, etc.) code. You have to actually look, and know what you're looking at -- and very few users actually do this.

Re:meanwhile, the evidence is missing

[Anonymous Coward]

He meant the sources of discontent over GPL3, not source code.

Old news submission

[H4x0r Jim Duggan]

It's strange that people talk about "the rift" and then link to emails from Januaray while ignoring that since GPLv3 was released last month there've been no rants from Linus.

Binutils

[Asmodai]

And no one noticed yet that binutils already went to GPLv3?

Re:The sad state of Slashdot editorial line nowada

[Lonewolf666]

This is sad because Slashdot used to be a place where, when a new version of software were posted, the discussion were directed to the changelog and the new features, fixed bugs, and this particular article didn't even mentioned that. It was a cheap shot at GPLv3, a license that seems to have lots of people that dislikes it, people that aren't even affected by it in the first place. GPL doesn't cover use, only distribution.

This article is not about technical issues. As far as I know, there is no significant dissatisfaction in the community about the technical quality of GCC. But asking questions about the legal future of the project is also legitimate.
The article may exaggerate, and you might disregard it as idle speculation ;-) But what will happen with the GCC license is still a valid question.

And ultimately, if this leads to a fork it may affect end users as well (compatibility problems between official GCC and the fork?).

EGCS link also unclear

[CarpetShark]

The whole EGCS link is also unclear. If I recall correctly, EGCS was a fork to OPTIMISE gcc, not to subvert it.

Re:EGCS link also unclear

[Per Abrahamsen]

Mostly EGCS happened because Richard Kenner, while widely recognized as an excellent compiler engineer, wasn't that good a maintainer. In particular, the Cygnus people felt that their changes to the C++ front-end was too long to get in to the mainline tree. The egcs branch tried to "modernize" the development process with open mailing lists and anonymous cvs access, as opposed to the traditional ("Cathedral") approach.

Officially the egcs was an experimental branch of gcc, and there was never a feud between the Cygnus guys between egcs, and the FSF. The FSF could thus make egcs the official gcc branch without losing face, the experiment had simply been a success.

The "link" to egcs is simply because the submitter is a troll. That gcc would change to GPL3 has been known and accepted since the whole GPL3 process started, and those developers who cared have responded by getting involved in the GPL3 process. The rare protests have been from non-developers only, and have seem more motivated by misguided Linus worship than by anything else.

Re:EGCS link also unclear

[CarpetShark]

Ahh, interesting stuff. Thanks for clearing that up :)

Re:EGCS link also unclear

[fsmunoz]

Completely offtopic, but I bow my head in respect before one of the Fathers of the Church.

Re:EGCS link also unclear

[drinkypoo]

Completely offtopic, but I bow my head in respect before one of the Fathers of the Church.

Completely offtopic, but if you were any further on his dick you'd have to be a wrinkle.

Re:EGCS link also unclear

[Creepy]

I happen to agree with Linus [sometimes] and could care less about worshiping him - it's my opinion that the GPL v3 is more the FSF/RMS's political agenda and not what is best for OSS developers. While I'm not a fan of software patents or DRM, invalidating them via a clause in a license is a purely political move (I think the anti-DRM stance was ditched, but the patent one still remains).

I honestly have no problem with people using GPLv3 like with gcc - in many cases, it's perfectly good. I don't like the ideological aspects, but in some ways Microsoft threw the first punch by asking for royalties from several vendors and getting payout from some (like Novell) and the FSF is responding. Still, I'm not sure if the license is the place for that response - I'd rather see a lawsuit that forces Microsoft to show its patents and prove them unintuitive (like so many of them).

Re:EGCS link also unclear

[fsmunoz]

Forgot your meds? Just because you "feel better" doesn't mean you should stop fucktard.

Re:EGCS link also unclear

[LingNoi]

While I'm not a fan of software patents or DRM, invalidating them via a clause in a license is a purely political move

Invalidating?! Patents arn't voided. If you contribute code that YOU have patented to an open source project you can't then take the project to court. That doesn't void or invalidate the patent!

Why should you care about people having software patents in an open source project in the first place? Is there something you wanted to patent and exploit? What? Since the patent isn't voided, just that you can not bring a lawsuit on anyone to do with the project you just added code to whats the problem?

What you are complaining about is not being able to bring open source projects to court for infringing on patents you added code to.

Forking ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some key contributors are grumbling over this change and have privately discussed a fork to stay as GPL v2. Where are your sources for this FUD slashdot?

I seem to recall...

[jonadab]

Didn't there used to be a cc at one point distributed under the BSD license? What ever happened to that, anyway?

Re:I seem to recall...

[dosius]

It still exists, doesn't it?

-uso.

Re:I seem to recall...

[Anonymous Coward]

There are actually, several, like nwcc. They're not good enough. If kencc was BSD, then it would be a better option than the tcc or nwcc, which are both kinda crippled. nwcc being only half-compliant and tcc not supporting anything outside of the i386 platform.

LLVM

[Per Abrahamsen]

Actually, LLVM is (or was, I'm not sure what the current status is) a candidate for a new middle/backend for GCC.

Re:LLVM

[Anonymous Coward]

The GCC maintainers elected not to use LLVM, and instead use their own home-grown Link Time Optimizer (LTO). It seems they thought abandoning GCC's back end after the recent SSA merge was too drastic and would alienate developers. There is also a concern about LLVM being written in C++, as opposed to C, and its effect on maintenance and boot-strapping. Ultimately, everything must be okay'ed by Richard Stallman, since he's the original author of GCC, with GCC being the flagship project of the FSF.

Competition is good.

Re:LLVM

[samkass]

Yes, but you don't need GCC at all in order to use LLVM to compile all the way from source to binary, once you have a new front-end. Now that Apple has such a front-end for the languages they use (and one which, from early benchmarks, performs significantly better than GCC), I see GCC's days as being numbered at Apple. Add to that the fact that there is certainly no consensus on GPLv3 yet, and GCC could easily deprecate its popularity by jumping to GPLv3.

Re:LLVM

[Anonymous Coward]

You are wrong. LLVM is not completely replacing GCC at Apple any time soon. Hopefully it will get to the point where they can use it for use in their development tools, but it isn't there yet. Apple does not have a C, C++, and objective C front-end yet; they have a limited C frontend. Seriously, you are clueless... where did you get this stuff from?

Re:LLVM

[samkass]

I got it from here (PDF). While they call "obsoleting GCC" a "non-goal", it's almost certainly a goal of other folks that the FSF has targeted, such as TiVo, and therefore I could see people using Apple's work as a starting point.

Re:LLVM

[Anonymous Coward]

> While they call "obsoleting GCC" a "non-goal", it's almost certainly
> a goal of other folks that the FSF has targeted, such as TiVo,

So how long have Tivo being distributing GCC for?

If you think the type of petty vindictiveness you're hinting at holds any sway in the business world, you're wrong.

Re:LLVM

[Anonymous Coward]

GCC could easily deprecate its popularity

WTF?! Do you have any idea what "deprecate" means?

Re:LLVM

[samkass]

The only one being petty and vindictive that I can see is RMS. He's managed to win the PR fight somehow by getting people to call his new restrictions "closing loopholes". Anyway, your point is valid about TiVo redistributing GCC, but certainly there are many people who love GPLv2 but for which GPLv3 is unpalatable. Thus, I would be amazed if almost every single product going to GPLv3 didn't fork or have some BSD-style replacement in the coming year. Even if Apple's LLVM work is in its infancy, I'm sure it will accelerate as more people jump on board this as a replacement for their own GCC needs in order to lessen their exposure to RMS's whims.

Re:LLVM

[Anonymous Coward]

Thus, I would be amazed if almost every single product going to GPLv3 didn't fork or have some BSD-style replacement in the coming year.

Ummm... lol...

Fuckwit.

g.c.c. failure

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes we know that this a great product. However its only useful for those in the linux environment. GCC is only optimized for the linux kernel, If were to compile it in any other unix enironment you will get a slower performance of your application on that other unix environment bases

Re:g.c.c. failure

[david_thornley]

If you compare gcc to the compiler supplied on Apple's MacOSX, I think you will find that the performance is at least similar....

Re:g.c.c. failure

[ozzmosis]

you know gcc is the compiler supplied with Mac OS.. right?

State of GCC development

[Anonymous Coward]

The state of GCC quite sad, actually. It is looking more and more like an academic playground for compiler ideas. Now, academic playgrounds are fine, but GCC is the Free Software compiler and the most important compiler for almost all of Linux, LAMP stacks, Samba, FreeBSD, etc..

GCC performance hasn't improved in years. You don't have to believe me for it, just check the GCC developers own performance tracking:

https://vmakarov.108.redhat.com/nonav/spec/compari son.html

Essentially, it says that GCC has gotten slower at compiling and the generated code is no faster. Quite a sad result given the amount of contributors and large "improvements" that are constatly made.

What did improve is standard compliance. GCC is very good there now. But so are the latest Microsoft and Intel compilers. And they *do* generate faster code in newer versions.

Essentially, if this situation keeps going on, Free Software will have to cope with a growing disadvantage compared to Windows, just because its compiler is stagnating. That's quite sad.

The only glimmer of hope is that nowdays many optimizations aren't turned on at -O2 because they're so slow. Maybe those can turn the tide somewhat. But if you look at a Linux installation, -O2 is still the most used flag. And the situation is sad :(

Re:State of GCC development

[SnarfQuest]

But so are the latest Microsoft and Intel compilers. And they *do* generate faster code in newer versions.

Really? Ok, show me where I can see their benchmarks for code running on the Power, the Alpha, the Itanium, or any other non-intel based processors. Maybe some NetBSD/VAX, Linux/Alpha, or other non-Windows based systems. The Intel compilers do run on some Linux systems, but they have to be 86 based.

It's much easier to do intel-only optimizations in intel-only compilers. However, MicroSoft fanboy desires otherwise, there are other chips out there.

Re:State of GCC development

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft currently makes compilers for x86, Itanium, x64, and PowerPC (Xbox360). Benchmarks for the latter may be a bit difficult to come by because of the restriction of NDA's around it.

Re:State of GCC development

[cthulhu11]

Moreover, recent releases don't even build and run properly, so I have to stick with the 3.4.3 Sun distributes anyway.

Possibly, but not legal ones

[Chemisor]

I maintain a more or less portable OSS project (uSTL - an STL implementation) and I have had to make at least a few changes for each compiler release. Sometimes it happens due to new warnings that catch potential bugs I didn't know about. Sometimes it is due to policy changes (like the stricter aliasing rules in gcc 4), and sometimes there are new features I want to take advantage of.

Since I am strongly opposed to GPLv3 and anything that uses it, I am not going to upgrade my gcc any further than 4.2.1, which I'll probably do today. This means that uSTL, and my other five projects on SourceForge, may have problems compiling on later gcc releases, even though I will not intentionally put any incompatibilities in my code. Not being able to predict the future, I don't know whether these problems would be minor ones or major ones, but I do know that unless they expose some fundamental problem with my code, I will reject any bugs related to them and state explicitly that any gcc > 4.2.1 is not supported and never will be.

Now, you probably wouldn't care about this. After all, I only had a few thousand downloads - a minute fraction of the developers in the world. And you might say "oh, who needs this guy's code anyway?" But I have a feeling I'm not the only one, and I do occasionally contribute to projects other than my own. Perhaps you don't care if you lose my skills and the skills of all those other developers, but I suspect that they do all add up to quite a bit, and while you might not notice it at first, the GPLv3 camp might get lonelier and emptier as time passes.

Re:Possibly, but not legal ones

[Chandon Seldon]

I strongly doubt that there are many other people in the world who are sufficiently obsessed with hating GPLv3 that they'll go through contortions to avoid using any application with that license. I can see not wanting to release code under the new license - especially if you work for Tivo and think you need to prevent your end users from exercising their freedom to modify the GPL software you distribute.

Re:Possibly, but not legal ones

[Chemisor]

> I strongly doubt that there are many other people in the world who are
> sufficiently obsessed with hating GPLv3 that they'll go through contortions
> to avoid using any application with that license.

Be serious. Avoiding a particular version of gcc and refusing to support it can hardly be called "contortions". Avoiding other GPLv3 software is no more difficult; there is no loss of any kind since everything anyone needs is available under a non-evil license. The only loss sustained here is that of the GPL community losing users and developers, and I doubt there are many tears shed at FSF over that.

Re:Possibly, but not legal ones

[VanessaE]

...and this begs the question: What does GCC's license have to do with your code's license?

There are already exceptions written into the license that expressly allows you to link against other programs without fear of those programs' licenses tainting yours. The FAQ mentions libstdc++ as an example. Furthermore, does not the GPLv3 explicitly state that an end user does not have to accept the license in order to use the software?

Frankly, I think all this noise about GPLv3 is nothing more than FUD.

Re:Possibly, but not legal ones

[Chemisor]

> this begs the question: What does GCC's license have to do with your code's license?

Why, nothing, of course. The effect of the gcc license in my case is not that it would directly affect my project, but rather that my project is affected by the fact that I don't want to use a GPL3 gcc or any other GPL3 software.

Re:Possibly, but not legal ones

[Anonymous Coward]

I will reject any bugs related to them and state explicitly that any gcc > 4.2.1 is not supported and never will be.

Please make sure to put that in big bold letters on your web page, so people know they have to migrate or fork your project.

This weekend I have to look for an STL implementation with bounds checking. Now I know not to bother looking at yours. Thanks.

Re:Possibly, but not legal ones

[Anonymous Coward]

> Sometimes it is due to policy changes (like the stricter aliasing rules in gcc 4)

There was no policy change between 3 and 4 with respect of aliasing. Just GCC is now more able to take more advantages of what the standards say about aliasing. If you want to mention a policy change, it was in 2.95 and then reverted in 2.95.2 and then turned back on for 3.0.

>Since I am strongly opposed to GPLv3 and anything that uses it

You mention this but without any backing of why.

Re:Possibly, but not legal ones

[Chemisor]

> Please make sure to put that in big bold letters on your web page,

If you visited the site, you'd see that I already did.

> so people know they have to migrate or fork your project.

Oh, please do! Unlike the members of the GPL camp, I love it when people use my code. After all, what other reason can there be for publishing it? It is all under the MIT license, which, unlike the GPL, does not tell you what you can not do with the code, so you can fork, fudge, or make a profit from it, all of which are perfectly ok with me.

> This weekend I have to look for an STL implementation with bounds checking.
> Now I know not to bother looking at yours. Thanks.

Well, that's your loss, because uSTL does indeed have bounds checking.

Re:Possibly, but not legal ones

[Chemisor]

> There was no policy change between 3 and 4 with respect of aliasing.

The change I am referring to is the new error you get when you alias a pointer and then dereference it. I use it extensively in my library to generate more compact code. For example, if you have a struct with two shorts in it, an implicit copy constructor would be created with four movw instructions. By casting the pointer to the struct to an int, you can write a copy constructor with only two movl instructions. This technique worked fine in gcc3, but gcc4 gives an error because it is more aggressive in rearrangements and the generated code will not work in some cases. I have to do various asm workarounds to make it work.

> GCC is now more able to take more advantages of what the standards say about aliasing.

And I am quite happy about that. I just want the ability to turn it off for a specific code block, which is not currently possible.

>> Since I am strongly opposed to GPLv3 and anything that uses it
> You mention this but without any backing of why.

I have no interest in repeating the same tired arguments over and over. Hell, you can see hundreds of them in every post on GPL3. Go and read them.

Re:Possibly, but not legal ones

[Orkie]

"You mention this but without any backing of why." Why should he? The reasons behind the dislike are totally irrelevant, that fact is, he doesn't like it and so won't use gcc. I'm sure if you look through the rest of the comments for this story, you'll find all the arguments he would put forward anyway, so it'd be a waste of time to repeat them.

Re:Possibly, but not legal ones

[Anonymous Coward]

Since I am strongly opposed to GPLv3 and anything that uses it... Are you also opposed to GPLv2? Since you are using the MIT license for uSTL-and your other comments show a certain disdain for the "communist" FSF-I would think you would also be opposed to GPLv2. GPLv3 is only moderately more anti-business than GPLv2. Either of them would seem to be incompatible with your philosophy.

Re:Possibly, but not legal ones

[Chemisor]

> Are you also opposed to GPLv2

Generally, yes, but I do not find it quite as offensive. Linus's arguments are pretty much the same ones I'd give for the difference.

I will already not contribute any code to a GPL project, although I have helped a few, including gcc, with testing, code review, and bug reports. But GPLv3 really crosses a line for me, so I don't want to touch it at all in any manner.

Re:Possibly, but not legal ones

[rhendershot]

A Standard Template Library (or Terminal IO library like http://sourceforge.net/projects/utio/) that doesn't keep up with C++ (a la the stable trunk of GCC), that has but one developer, that has not seen a release since Q3-2006, well...

Pardon my bluntness but that's not really such a loss.

I'm sure you have your reasons. I haven't seen them enumerated here; just the constant barrage that you don't like GPLv3. Not even a word about key points. While there may be many reasons posited in the conversations here, surely not ALL of them pertain to your decision.

Correct me but how are your libraries affected by the license of GCC again? Not at all.

amazing...

Re:Possibly, but not legal ones

[Chemisor]

> A Standard Template Library that doesn't keep up with C++ (a la the stable trunk of GCC),

Pardon my bluntness, but gcc is not C++. It is gcc that is supposed to be keeping up with C++, not the other way around, and the C++ standard has not changed in years.

> that has but one developer, that has not seen a release since Q3-2006, well...

Well, that's because it's more or less done. The library has a standard, well-defined interface, mostly derived from the C++ standard. The interface is complete and I do not expect to add any more features; it's meant to be a small library, not the kitchen sink. I have a few changes in the queue, mostly additional size optimizations, and a few very minor fixes, but I have a hard time justifying another release. Maybe in a few more months.

Another way of looking at it is that the code is of excellent quality, and doesn't need to be fixed very often.

> Pardon my bluntness but that's not really such a loss.

Me? A loss? I doubt that my absence will be particularly noticed or missed. I was simply pointing out that I am not the only one and lots of developers can add up to a lot of projects, code, and effort, of which mine is just a small part. You might not miss just me, but will you notice when they all pack up and leave your GPLv3 la-la land? I rather think so.

> I'm sure you have your reasons. I haven't seen them enumerated here;

That's a whole other discussion, and a redundant one at best, since thousands of Slashdot comments have already enumerated those reasons. Here, it is irrelevant. My only point is that I will not use a GPLv3 gcc, and that may affect you if you want to use my code. Note that I am in no way obligated to support your GPLv3 platform, any more than I am obligated to support Windows, or PDP-11, or whatever other obscure thing you may be running.

I've a good idea!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Fork it!!!

Forking GCC-4.2.1 to GCCF-4.2.2 where GCCF is a fork of GCC-4.2.1 because GCC-4.2.2 is dangerously GPLv3'ed.

Fork them too: GCCF-4.1.3, GCCF-4.3.0, GCCF-4.0.x, GCCF-3.4.7, etc.

I'm not violating the GPLv2 license to permit to fork the GCC-4.2.1 code.

Please, put a hosting www.gccf.org or ftp.gccf.org to redistribute the code for compiling of the Torvald Linus's kernels.

Re:I've a good idea!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait for GCC-5.0.0 with the GPLv5 licence of the son of Richard Stallman Junior!!!

Many years ago, ... it had a revolt because of GPLv3 ...

Many people are dead actually ...

Re:I've a good idea!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the matter if this scenario ocurrs?

1. "Mark Mitchell" from CodeSourcery is the leader of the GCC project.
2. Mark changes the license of the current GCC project from GPLv2 to GPLv3.
3. Another leader named "Paco" of another foundation named "NoMeFolles" forks the current GCC previous to GPLv3 and names it to "GCCaliente".
4. They develop independently and in parallel.
5. Later years, Paco wants to change the license of GCCaliente from GPLv2 to GPLv4mine ideaded by the same Paco.
6. Another another leader named "Raul" of another foundation named "NoMeFollesMasPijo" forks the current previous to GPLv4mine and names it to "GCCuloTeLoHinco".
7. And so repeatly other and other time until infinitum. "GOTO optimized to 3.". Forget the Dijkstra's words.

Re:I've a good idea!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

After i did read the GPLv3 licence ... blablablabla ...

Can i brainfuck/obfuscate the GPLv3 source code for the dizzying community?

LLVM / C++ backend is a total showstopper

[Anonymous Coward]

There is also a concern about LLVM being written in C++, as opposed to C, and its effect on maintenance and boot-strapping.

Thank goodness that sanity prevailed at FSF.

It's no surprise that the C++ faithful see everything through C++ tinted glasses, but gcc is VASTLY broader than C++ alone, and tying it to a LLVM backend would compromise the project badly in its broader role.

Re:LLVM / C++ backend is a total showstopper

[Anonymous Coward]

It's no surprise that the C++ faithful see everything through C++ tinted glasses, but gcc is VASTLY broader than C++ alone, and tying it to a LLVM backend would compromise the project badly in its broader role.

Huh? Are you implying that LLVM only compiles C++ code? GCC is written in C, can it only compile C code?

LLVM currently handles C, C++ and Objective-C (on OSX only) quite well, though with a bit of work on llvm-gcc it could easily handle Ada (Duncan from AdaCore is working on this), Java and Fortran. LLVM is also used to compile the OpenGL shader language, both by Apple internally and in a branch in Mesa. There's also a working llvm-qemu prototype using LLVM's JIT.

GCC isn't nearly as broad as LLVM. GCC is a compiler. LLVM is a compiler toolkit, JIT, static analysis and dynamic analysis framework, an instruction set, and a compile-time link-time and run-time optimizer. By contrast, GCC supports more languages in and produces code for more backends out. The difference is that LLVM can grow new front-ends and back-ends, but GCC can't grow LLVM's features.

Re:LLVM / C++ backend is a total showstopper

[drinkypoo]

The objection is that requiring C++ dramatically increases the bootstrap requirements because now you have to build a bigass C++ compiler just to build any compiler. Whereas if it's written in C you only need a dinky little C compiler, which is small and simple and if not ubiquitous (lots of Unix systems don't come with a compiler... those fuckers!) at least a lot more common than a C++ compiler. It also tends to take a lot more to build the C++ compiler, greatly increasing the bootstrap time, which is annoying.

Re:LLVM / C++ backend is a total showstopper

[Goaway]

So you want to throw out a far superior optimizer, which would speed up pretty much all code compiled in gcc, to shave some minutes off bootstrapping, which happens... statistically speaking, never?

Re:LLVM / C++ backend is a total showstopper

[drinkypoo]

So you want to throw out a far superior optimizer, which would speed up pretty much all code compiled in gcc, to shave some minutes off bootstrapping, which happens... statistically speaking, never?

I'm not saying it's a valid reason, I'm saying it's a valid argument (because it's true.)

There are other reasons as well; it tends to take dramatically more memory even to compile a program in C++ than to compile one written in C. I'm not sure if that's a truism, though. But it is an issue for limited systems. You can cross-compile a toolchain for them if you must build on them, but now we're talking about another PITA.

duh

[Vexorian]

Obviously many guys are worried about a compiler getting GPL3, they wouldn't be able to modify the compiler and then include the compiler in some tivo like device or whatever GPL3 would make GCC troublesome... Not really getting it, sounds as if some fudders want to call GPL3 dangerous whenever possible...

Re:The sad state of Slashdot editorial line nowada

[Anonymous Coward]

Sad, sad, sad, this used to be a cool blog with real "news for nerds" but lately it seems more interested in generating polemic and the page views that accompany it.

If nerds really are that unhappy with the news provided by Slashdot, there has been nothing making them visit it or stopping them from starting a new website.

Could someone please elucidate?

[Anonymous Coward]

Forgive my ignorance here, but is there something in the GPL relative to the use of a tool govern it's releasability with or without the GPL?, i.e. does the use of the GCC compiler tools to create a program automatically put it in GPL land?

Obviously linking to GPL'd library code does, [BTW, I am not totally illiterate in the theory behind the question and I would assume that 99.99% of the GCC-compiled Linux 'ware out there does use GPL'd libraries...] But I do still have the question and would like to see some discussion of the details.

Second question is similar to the first -- as a programmer who hasn't played in C++ land since Windows was v95 -- if it even possible to publish a "Linux compatible" program without the GCC libraries?

Insignificant?

[mgiuca]

Although this minor update would otherwise be insignificant, it will be the final GPL v2 release So, the fact that it didn't change licenses yet somehow does make it significant?

The license of glibc is much more interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Anything you compile with GCC can be under any license; GCC doesn't force stuff to be under e.g. GPL. Thus, the license of GCC isn't really an issue.

In contrast, if glibc some day moves to LGPLv3, what will happen to GPLv2-only applications and libraries (git, Qt, MySQL, ...)? LGPLv3 is incompatible with GPLv2-only. I wonder if distros will be able to ship both LGPLv3-glibc and GPLv2-only apps linking against glibc in binary form.

Re:The license of glibc is much more interesting

[m50d]

In contrast, if glibc some day moves to LGPLv3, what will happen to GPLv2-only applications and libraries (git, Qt, MySQL, ...)? LGPLv3 is incompatible with GPLv2-only.

The copyright holders for those GPLv2-only applications will add a special exception to their license, like was done for Qt back in the day. Or they'll move on and allow GPLv3. Either way it's not a big issue.

Wrong?

[remmelt]

???

They do, right?

You can't take the code, implement new features in it, redistribute it WITHOUT the new stuff also being GPL. That's likely the most annoying restriction to closed software people.
What about all the modems and other hardware that use the Linux kernel and are obliged to include the source code? Definitely a restriction.

These restrictions enable us (other coders) to build upon builders instead of reinventing (and patenting) the wheel, making them good things in our view, but they're still restrictions when compared to the total freedom you have with public domain stuff.

Re:Wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

Point being that the gpl restricts *distribution*, not *use*.

Re:Wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

You almost got the point.

Because the "*distribution*" of the resulting product is restricted, my right to "*use*" the product is also restricted.

Re:Wrong?

[McGiraf]

Use != distribute , distribute != use

Why should it be written for you?

[Anonymous Coward]

You get all the power you need: you decide what license to release YOUR code under.

The GPL thinks of the USER of the software and tries to ensure that the user is the aim of the freedoms. It is written for the user. If the developer doesn't like their code being under a license written for the user and not for the developer, then they can pick another license. The user doesn't get to pick a license, they get the license they are given.

So to answer your points (such as they are)

Yes, the GPL isn't written for developers
So what? If you don't like the aim, use a different license.

Re:Why should it be written for you?

[Hatta]

Of course the GPL is written for developers. What good is the source code to non-developers? They just recognize that as a developer the right to look at and modify the code you're using is more important than your right as a developer to deny others that ability.

Re:Why should it be written for you?

[jythie]

Not really.

GPLv3 does very little for 'developers', in fact it makes life more difficult for people who actually develop software. The group it does help are people who buy consumer devices (notice how industrial ones are exempt?) and want to fiddle around with them by putting different software on them. These people are not 'developing' for the platform, they are playing with it.

And keep in mind, GPLv3 does nothing to change a tinker's ability to look at or alter code, it merely stops embedded systems manufacturers from using a signing system on the hardware to prevent unauthorized software from running on it.

Re:Why should it be written for you?

[Hatta]

These people are not 'developing' for the platform, they are playing with it.

What's the difference? A coder is a coder is a coder.

Re:Why should it be written for you?

[jythie]

The same difference between a hobby and a profession.

Someone playing with a platform is doing it for their own (and community) fun.
Someone developing for a platform is making their living off it and intends some part of their work to be sold to users.

There is also a matter of scale. Someone playing with a system might burn 10-20 hours a week on it, while a professional might be investing 40-60 hours/week on it.

I admit I am playing with a conceptual difference here, but GPLv3, in embedded space, is really gearing twards one conceptual group over the other.

Re:Why should it be written for you?

[jythie]

Actually, the other main difference. Someone playing with a platform only risks things for themselves and other 'take no responsibility' people who download their changes.

When you are developing for a platform professionally, you and your company are responsible for building stable code that will effect non-coders who purchase the device. They are also responsible for dealing with 'my widget doesn't' work!' customer complaints, which a hobbyist can choose to ignore if they want to with any financial repercussions.

Re:Why should it be written for you?

[Hatta]

Clearly there is a difference between professional and amateur coders. But why is that relevant to the rights one should have?

Re:Why should it be written for you?

[jythie]

Because the GPL only applies to what you distribute, so it puts no requirements on people who buy a device and play with it, but it does dictate the behavior of the person who develops and distributes devices.

The FSF also specifically caters to people who are NOT writing software for sale, so when it comes down to 'who's freedom is more important' they will tend to side with their core group.... non-professional coders, hobbyists, service-oriented coders, and web-centric coders. Notice how the GPL doesn't effect what any of those groups can program or how their hardware must behave?

Re:Why should it be written for you?

[Hatta]

it does dictate the behavior of the person who develops and distributes devices.

Whether amateur or professional.

The FSF also specifically caters to people who are NOT writing software for sale

Except that selling GPL software is specifically encouraged.

I really think the GPL is value neutral on whose rights it protects. The right to view, modify, and distribute is there for everyone's benefit.

GPLv4?

[koehn]

Not trolling here, but what's to keep somebody from coming up with a license called GNU Public License v4, defining their own wicked terms along with it, and picking up all the GNU software with the "or later" clause in it?

Does the FSF have the trademark on GNU Public License? What is the third party called it something else, but declared it to be a newer version of the GNU Public License?

Re:GPLv4?

[Anonymous Coward]

"GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE

Version 3, 29 June 2007

Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed."

This is why if you hear anyone discussing legal issues with GPL, they point out that the GPL gets its "teeth" from copyright law. Of course every license out there gets its strength from copyright law.

Re:GPLv4?

[koehn]

I'm not talking about changing the license on an existing piece of software, or changing the GPL at all. I'm talking about controlling what body can release it's own "new" version of the GPL and how that control is maintained.

Re:GPLv4?

[Todd Knarr]

What prevents it would be this clause in the recommended language for placing a work under the GPL:

This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

Note the "as published by the Free Software Foundation" in there. Something called the General Public License published by someone other than the FSF wouldn't qualify under that language. Section 14 of GPLv3 has similar language, so the "or any later version" language in the license wouldn't include any purported GPL version published by someone other than the FSF.

Re:GPLv4?

[wikinerd]

IANAL but I think that FSF's publication of GPL licences could be considered a service to humanity, and since FSF is an organisation, it should have the right to use trade marks and service marks. Since the GPL is a well-known "service" (licence), perhaps it could be considered a service mark. Therefore, if another entity publishes a "GPLv4" licence, the FSF could require it to change its name since FSF was the first to use the GPL name for the service of a copyleft software licence.

Re:GPLv4?

[Scarblac]

This is what the fine license says:

14. Revised Versions of this License.

The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the GNU General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies that a certain numbered version of the GNU General Public License "or any later version" applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that numbered version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of the GNU General Public License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.

I don't think your idea would have a chance in hell.

Nothing about hardware there

[Anonymous Coward]

It just says if you use hardware to lock down the user you distribute GPL3 code to, you cannot use GPL3 code. It doesn't say you must tell the user how to install GPL3 code, it doesn't say you must open up your DRM it just says you can't distribute the code. Keep your hardware locked up and use other code.

Under GPL2 you must give the user everything that makes the binary if you distribute a GPL'd binary. Well, with a Tivo, they've given you a derived product of the GPL binary but not the signature changes. You can't re-create the EXACT SAME BINARY because you don't have the signing code. I would argue this is a violation of the GPL2 if I ever bought a Tivo. One reason I didn't has been bourne out: why did Tivo remove the ad skipping? Why then could users not put ad-skipping back in? DRM.

Re:Nothing about hardware there

[jythie]

They removed the ad-skipping because if they didn't, they would have to stop making Tivos.
They couldn't let people add them back in for the same reason. If they wanted to keep making their machines for 99% of people, they had to stop 1% from changing the software on them.

So now they will probably have to stick with GPLv2 code, or switch to something non-linux based. So say goodby to any contributions back to the community they could have made.

Re:Nothing about hardware there

[tomhudson]

It says you can make DRM, but you have to distribute the signing keys as well - kind of defeats the whole purpose.

Also, your goal when you do modifications isn't to create the exact same binary - the "exact same binary" wouldn't have your mods. You're free to take their source, mod it, and run it on other hardware. The gpl v2 says nothing about proprietary hardware, and last time I looked, most hardware is proprietary, not just Tivo.

Really, just take what you want from their source, add the features to mythtv, and use your own hardware. Or buy hardware that supports modding - there is some, you know. And you're free to build your own.

Cutting off your nose to spite your face

[goombah99]

There's two back to back Slashdot articles on the main page. One is on how microsoft is insinuating it's tongs into the Linux ecosystem and setting up a protection racket. Initially companies like linspire and Novel pay the first installment. But then the GPL code you got from Linspire or Novel is now tied to them and not redistributable. That is, and redistribution requires are tithe to MS or they won't transfer the immunity from law suits to the new copy. So that entirely breaks the idea that GPL software it redistributable. It makes one so angry one wants to strike back with the GPL v3 which says if you confer immunity to one then you confer it to all.

But then I think about all these companies that want to create things out of the GPL'd code. These are commercial firms and they need to indemnify their customers that using their products won't expose them to risk. They want to use Linux not BSD but this is going to make them think twice.

The middle ground here is to make sure large parts of the GNU are GPL v2 and LGPL. But if core things like GCC are gong to GPLv3 then it gets weird. Even BSD-dervied works like Apple OSX use GCC.

I don't like it.

"conceded defeat"?

[toby]

Where's EGCS today, then...

Re:"conceded defeat"?

[dtremenak]

EGCS became the official "GCC" for version 2.95. The EGCS bazaar-style development model was adopted and the EGCS maintainers became the GCC maintainers. So, I'd say "conceded defeat" is pretty accurate.

Well now we know

[blueZ3]

What the ???? step is in

1. Download GPL software
2. ????
3. Profit!

Re:The sad state of Slashdot editorial line nowada

[Just Some Guy]

Sad, sad, sad, this used to be a cool blog with real "news for nerds" but lately it seems more interested in generating polemic and the page views that accompany it.

Slashdot has always been this way. It's particularly noticeable if your opinions are outside the Slashdot mainstream, such as we few conservatives who have to listen the "Republicans want to eat your babies" stories that inevitably flood the Politics section every election cycle. If you believe that Republicans really do eat babies, you don't notice those stories. If you don't believe it, they stick out like a sore thumb.

This is getting a bit off-topic, but it supports my point: people notice the inflammatory rhetoric when it's their pet belief that's being demonized. Until then, it just hides in the background.

I guess that would mean that it daemonizes. But that's different.

The other way round

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not the GPLv3 which is incompatible to v2. The GPLv2 is the one conflicting with most other open source and free software licenses. GPLv3 is in fact less incompatible. (Which of course, doesn't help mixing v3 and v2-locked-in code.)

Re:The other way round

[phantomlord]

The GPLv2 existed long before the GPLv3. It is double speak to claim that something invented 16 years prior was invented with the intention to be incompatible with something that would come almost two decades later.

Lets put it this way... "It is not the Patriot Act which is incompatible with the Constitution. The Constitution is the one conflicting with most other foreign legal systems and UN policies. The Patriot Act is in fact less incompatible*."

*Since it is more along the lines of what third world dictators would do and there are more of them than free first world countries.

Difference between the EGCS fork and this

[Todd Knarr]

The EGCS fork had one big thing different from this work: time and weight of code. EGCS happened because GCC wasn't being maintained, wasn't being updated to support new CPUs and wasn't accepting contributions. EGCS ran for quite a few years and amassed a considerable volume of code by the time GCC restarted. The FSF "conceded defeat" and merged GCC into EGCS simply because there was too much code that was only in EGCS and it simply wasn't feasible to replicate that many years worth of work. In any GPLv2/GPLv3 fork of GCC, the GPLv2 branch won't have a mass of code and time in existence to give it weight. The GPLv3 branch won't either, but it will have the advantage of the name and recognition as the "official" branch in the community. It'll also be able to use any contributions to the GPLv2 fork that are under v2-or-later license terms, while the v2 fork won't be able to use any contributions to the v3 mainline. Unless the GPLv2 fork attracts a lot of the major GCC contributors and convinces them to change their license to GPLv2-only, I don't see a v2 fork staying viable for long under those circumstances.

So why can't the USER put it back in?

[Anonymous Coward]

Aftermarket allows over-amping your car, but that isn't the fault of either the car manufacturer or the produced of the aftermatket part. If the end user puts them together, they are the ones liable for any problems.

And if Tivo MUST stop the user from changing how the Tivo works, either

a) change your model
b) write your own code
c) don't sell, lease

They did this because they could. Not because they had to (they made and sold Tivos before)

Re:So why can't the USER put it back in?

[jythie]

Yes, but no big powerful companies are in a position to sue Ford out of existence if people make after-market mods. Tivo faces very real legal threats that it really can not afford to fight.

As for your options... (b) is what they will probably have to do, which will once again make life worse for everyone, including the 1% who want to tinker. (c) will not help since the tinkerers will then start complaining that they are not being allowed to buy thier Tivo (since leasing is apparently also evil). (a) just doesn't make sense.. their 'model' in this case is 'not get sued into bankruptcy'.

And yes, they used to be able to sell Tivo before that had features like this, and they got threatened for doing it. They didn't wake up one day and say 'hey! let us screw our users and take away a really popular feature for no reason besides feeling like jerks!'.. they woke up one day and said 'if we keep this feature, we very well might not be able to sell ANY Tivos again, so sacrifice one feature to save the rest'.

I also find it amusing that the people who want to tinker with their Tivo are failing to support Neuro's DVR. So instead of rewarding a company that is trying to appeal to the FSF people, they are punishing a company that isn't 'doing enough'.

And the FSF wonder why embedded companies don't like them. People aren't willing to vote with their time or their wallets and help companies that do get it.. all they do is whine and make life difficult for companies that are giving back but still close their device.

Re:rms response

[Anonymous Coward]

also, lots of butt secks

Recopyrighting...

[Anonymous Coward]

...how is it possible?

If I contribute code to some GPLv2 project, do I also give the project maintainers the right to expand and/or change the licence later to something else (more restrictive) like GPLv3.

Excuse my ignorance,

Sincerely

Anonymous Coward

Re:Recopyrighting...

[AnyoneEB]

The GPL as used by the FSF has a clause saying any later version of the license may be used. So code licensed under that is effectively multi-licensed GPLv2, GPLv3, GPLv4 (even though it currently does not exist), .... Linux's license does not have the "or later" part of the license, so it is GPLv2 only, although a contributor could dual-license their contribution as GPLv2 and any other license they want, including GPLv3.

Cell Binaries?

[Doc Ruby]

Does GCC 4.2.1 generate binaries for the Cell uP? Does it have a way to generate the separate PPC/SPE code to run parallel DSPs with the builtin scheduler? Optimized for the Cell? From the same source code that could run on just the PPC (eg. recompile Linux/PPC OpenGL to Cell for SPE rendering)?

Re:Cell Binaries?

[lederhosen]

I think the vanilla gcc can only make use of the PPC core, I am *not sure* about this however. A version of gcc can be downloaded from "Barcelona supercomputer something" and is able to compile both for the PPC core as well as for the vector cores. The PPC part can be compiled to both 32 bit and 64 bit memory model.

If the code is not in the main gcc, I think there is no legal thing that hinders you from merging the stuff.

Re:Cell Binaries?

[Doc Ruby]

I've used a GCC that IBM souped up to generate Cell PPC/SPE/scheduler binaries. I thought the BSC compiler was different, not GCC, but maybe I got them reversed.

I want to see whether the Cell GCC is in the main GCC product, benefiting from the other revisions. And whether its Cell code is being optimized properly for the Cell in new generations, from the same source code (that would work on Cell) that GCC can compile to other targets (if it would work on them), like GCC does for the other targets (and languages). I want to see if "Cell GCC" is evolving along with the rest of GCC.

But you are correct that the GPL allows me to merge other Cell compilers (like the Cell GCC I used) into a "GCC-4.2.1.Cell" that I make and distribute myself. That answer is in fact more on topic to this story than my question.

Old lines must remain GPL2 for security fixes

[davidwr]

I can see new features going GPL3 only. But security and other all-but-mandatory fixes must not impose a license change. For some value-add customers this means they cannot pass on important security fixes to their downstream customers without adopting the GPL 3.

This puts them in a bind: Recreate the security fixes themselves, leave their customers unprotected, or adopt the GPL3. The first is expensive and the third option may not be an option.

Run that past me again?

[NickFortune]

So that entirely breaks the idea that GPL software it redistributable.

You know, I don't think it does. GPL software is still GPL software, even if MS say they probably maybe won't sue you but only if you buy your distro from an approved commercial source. All that happens if you don't follow MS's tacked on terms and conditions is that you lose the promise not to sue unless they really really want to - which was pretty much worthless in the first place.

So the software is just as re-distributable as it was before. Nothing has changed, much as MS might like us to think otherwise.

It makes one so angry one wants to strike back with the GPL v3 which says if you confer immunity to one then you confer it to all.

I suppose it might do - but that's not the way it happened. The GPLv3 was devised as a preventative measure against the day when someone tried to enclose free software using a patent thicket. Microsoft's recent fun and games only arrived in the closing stages of the GPLv3 review process.

These are commercial firms and they need to indemnify their customers that using their products won't expose them to risk.

Lost me there. Suppose I use a GPLv3 compiler, compile a completely unrelated product with it, and sell it to you under a commercial licence? How does that expose you to any additional risk?

Re:Run that past me again?

[goombah99]

These are commercial firms and they need to indemnify their customers that using their products won't expose them to risk.

Lost me there. Suppose I use a GPLv3 compiler, compile a completely unrelated product with it, and sell it to you under a commercial licence? How does that expose you to any additional risk?

Well let set aside GCC since what happens there I'm not clear on. But suppose someone redistributes some GNU entitity as part of their package. Let's say SAMBA or make. Perhaps they are even using GCC to compile make and optimize their code on the customers machine, so they are redistribution GCC. That for example, might apply to apple. And of course they don't want their customer, who's some fortune 500 travel arrangement company, to have to worry that they could face some sort of ruin if a lawsuit reached through to the customers. So their customers ask for indemnification. But that company does not want to indemnify the planet for SAMBA or GCC, just their customers. As I understand it that selectivity is not possible with the GCC. Maybe I don't understand it correctly?

Re:Run that past me again?

[HiThere]

Caution: IANAL
As I understand it, what they would need to do is unbundle the warranty, and sell it separate from the software (or hardware, if the software is embedded). In this way the indemnification would not be a part of the GPL licensed work, but would be a separate option.

Re:Run that past me again?

[goombah99]

Well yes, that would be the same situation as a third party selling insurance. Much like is being done now.

But economically that is not viable in common cases I suspect. It has to be a compelled purchase if there are any economies of scale. That is, if 70% of the customers opt out but 30% want to opt in, then the cost of the warrantee may become too expensive for the opt-in. And one can see the economies of scale: Mounting a legal defense is a fixed cost even if you win. (if you lose the damages may be proportional of course). Meanwhile opt-outers can benefit, even retroactively, from any favorable legal precedent set by the opt-inners legal defense. Conversely, the under protected opt-outters, mounting a feeble defense may set a bad precedent for the opt-inners if they lose.

Thus one wants everyone in to make it affordable. That won't happen if it's unbundled.

Re:Run that past me again?

[Znork]

"All that happens if you don't follow MS's tacked on terms and conditions is that you lose the promise not to sue unless they really really want to - which was pretty much worthless in the first place."

Of course, this ignores the most fundamental aspect of the issue; I donate my code freely so that it should be Free for any user. Microsoft has no right to attemt to extort the people to whom I've donated code. What's next, they gonna hold up African kids for their red cross food rations? Hey, maybe that's something Monsanto could think about a bit.

Which is why any code I write will definitely be upgraded to GPLv3. I have never intended for my code to make it easier for those who wish to enrich themselves by taking power over others. They can do it like every one else; provide value on a level playing field.

Re:Run that past me again?

[NickFortune]

Well let set aside GCC since what happens there I'm not clear on. But suppose someone redistributes some GNU entitity as part of their package. Let's say SAMBA or make. Perhaps they are even using GCC to compile make and optimize their code on the customers machine, so they are redistribution GCC. That for example, might apply to apple.

I think we can set Apple aside as well. After all Apple are big enough and prosperous enough to sponsor a GPLv2 fork if they think they need it, and they have enough lawyers to decide if they need it or not. I'd be more worried for the small businesses. But even so, under what circumstances does it make more sense to distribute source code upgrades rather than a binary firmware download? I can't see if happening, myself.

But let's suppose it does...

And of course they don't want their customer, who's some fortune 500 travel arrangement company, to have to worry ... But that company does not want to indemnify the planet for SAMBA or GCC

Well, the rule is that your downstream recipients have to be able to pass on all the rights you grant to them. So if your travel agency has a sideline selling travel agent software, you could be in trouble. On the whole though, I'd say your exposure was small to non-existent. Also, what stops you from indemnifying your own software, and disclaiming the rest? A lot of commercial concerns sell stuff bundled with GPLv2 software and it has big notices saying (in effect) that GPL stuff has only the rights and warranties supplied by the original licensor - I don't see why the new licence should change that practice.

But that company does not want to indemnify the planet for SAMBA or GCC, just their customers. As I understand it that selectivity is not possible with the GCC. Maybe I don't understand it correctly?

I can't see what would prohibit it. The obvious case here is TiVO, where they are going to be required to release the lockdown keys for their hardware if they use GPLv3 software. But that doesn't mean they need to licence their proprietary code under the GPL, be it version two, three or whatever; they just need to provide the info needed for the downstream recipients to run modified copies.

And since the proprietary bits aren't GPL'd, they can just indemnify that, and let upstream take care of the GPL'd bits as above.

JUst in case I forgot earlier: IANAL

Re:Run that past me again?

[NickFortune]

Of course, this ignores the most fundamental aspect of the issue

mmm... I was challenging the assertion that Microsoft's patent agreement prevented GPL'd software from being freely distributed. I wasn't suggesting that Microsoft's actions should be beneath our notice. And really, I think that freedom to distribute is the fundamental aspect of the issue.

That still isn't to defend Microsoft's actions in any way, of course.

Re:Run that past me again?

[HiThere]

If it has to be a compelled purchase, then perhaps it's unjust. I can imagine the existence of valid arguments against this proposition, but none occur to me.

Re:The sad state of Slashdot editorial line nowada

[G Morgan]

It was a cheap shot at GPLv3, a license that seems to have lots of people that dislikes it, people that aren't even affected by it in the first place. GPL doesn't cover use, only distribution. I'm not affected by the people in Gitmo either, perhaps I shouldn't be concerned about that.

Not being affected by something is the weakest reason not to hold an opinion about something ever.

GCC is an Application.

[Duncan3]

GCC is an application, not a library, that mean noone cares what the source code license is because IT DOES NOT MATTER. If all the Web 2.0 BB has shown us anything, it's that the source code license has no effect on anyone anymore. Do developers care what the license on the LAMP stack is? Of course not.

The GPLv3 guys have just taken their obsession with dark lord Gates to the point where they are looking completely nuts, even to us open source advocates. They are trying hard to fork everything because of it.

Can Microsoft use GCC under v2? Yes.
Can Microsoft use GCC under v3? Yes. OH NO!!!

So why does anyone care? What a bunch of bull.

Take to the logical conclusion

[Anonymous Coward]

DRM and signed code is the ONLY way to get code running on a computer. So you have the code but nothing to run it on. What was the point of the exercise?

clang source code

[Wesley Felter]

How about the source code? http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/

Politics...

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on, no-one thinks Republicans eat babies.

they might sell them, or
Enslave them in third world sweat-shops, sure,
but not eat them.

So?

[paulxnuke]

Considering that the vast, vast majority of gcc users are in fact USERS, not contributors, what real difference does it make?

Given that they *do* use gcc, it's even possible that the majority actually cares what the license is (I'm an outspoken exception), but if every single contributor outside the core team decided to protest by keeping patches private, I can't see it making much difference in the grand scheme of things.

If you are uneasy with GPLv3

[stites]

"The trouble is that there's nothing now to be done about it, but to see how the dice fall."

Right, if you are uneasy about GPLv3 (as I am) then it is not necessary to take drastic action now. Just wait and see how everything works out. Don't committ to GPLv3 until it proves itself. If experience shows that GPLv3 has serious flaws then the projects which have committed to GPLv3 will probably create a later version of the GPL which corrects the flaws in GPLv3. A more drastic mesure would be for a project that finds itself in trouble because of GPLv3 to fork back to the last GPLv2 version of the project and abandon the GPLv3 version.

I think that the most likely outcome is that GPLv3 will be replaced by a better version which corrects the flaws in GPLv3. But it will take time before the consensus of opinion will come to that conclusion.

------------------
Steve Stites

Re:The sad state of Slashdot editorial line nowada

[SEE]

Sad, sad, sad, this used to be a cool blog with real "news for nerds" but lately it seems more interested in generating polemic and the page views that accompany it. Right. Because Jon Katz was such a technologically sophisticated analyst, not a blowhard polemicist.

It's not bull

[YesIAmAScript]

Apple will fork. Count on it.

Apple makes a lot of money off DRM and keeping their systems under their own control. And the GPLv3 works against that.

So there's at least one major company right there.

Will your hardware run without the GPL software?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do the people to whom you distribute the software have the same rights as you?

I wonder what if you distributed them separately? Hmm..

Binaries created with GCC&GPLv3 are GPLv3 as w

[Anonymous Coward]

If GCC is GPL'd, wouldn't all the libraries it includes fall under the category of GPLv3 as well? libstdc++-v3 for instance.

It seems that binding against standard libraries in the future would mean your binary HAS to be GPLv3 as it would contain GPLv3 code. That doesn't bode well for someone who wants to use an alternative license. Someone tell me I'm wrong!

Major Inaccuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

"Mark maintains GCC. He's basically the project leader."

That's a very inaccurate description of the organisation of gcc development and of Mark's role in it. Mark is the release manager. He is responsible for organizing the release branches and process. This is not any kind of 'project leader' role. Leadership comes from the SC.

hmmm

[sybesis]

What is so bad about GPL3... If people don't like it...use something else and find work around...Xandros, Novell, Linspire...if they can't use that anymore because it is a gpled 3...Thats their problem. they could make a fork if they want...But someone would have to tell me how is it better for the rest of the community...?

Bogus. Poser.

[Anonymous Coward]

" Since I am strongly opposed to GPLv3 and anything that uses it, I am not going to upgrade my gcc any further than 4.2.1 "

    Fair enough, it's your right to throw a tantrum and stamp your little foot if you want, but it's purely political showboating on your part. It's not like the new license on the compiler would actually affect you in ANY way at all - it doesn't apply to /your/ code that you compile *with* gcc, and since you're not distributing gcc itself, gpl v3 in the compiler is utterly irrelevant to you.

So this is just political posturing, and your crocodile tears for your poor users are thoroughly specious, since you're the one holding them hostage in the pursuit of making a public demonstration of your political point of view. It's a massively unprofessional attitude of you, you are cutting off your project's nose to spite your users' faces, and it gives me cause to doubt whether the "skills" you claim would really be such a great loss to the open source movement, or whether we could really do without someone whose ego so far outweighs their desire to contribute.

Re:The sad state of Slashdot editorial line nowada

[david_thornley]

What's a conservative doing worrying about slurs to Republicans? The Republican Party was conservative in the 1970s, and has been becoming more radical ever since. The current Republican party seems to believe in wildly unbalanced budgets, massive intrusions into personal privacy, and a highly aggressive foreign policy. Barry Goldwater and Gerald Ford must be spinning in their graves.

Re:Bogus. Poser.

[Chemisor]

> Fair enough, it's your right to throw a tantrum and stamp your little foot
> if you want, but it's purely political showboating on your part.

Well, of course it is. That's what all protests are. Sometimes it pays to keep your seat on the bus for a better cause, and sometimes it furthers that cause.

> and your crocodile tears for your poor users are thoroughly specious, since you're the one holding them hostage

That's not exactly true. I am not holding them hostage; I am giving them a choice - GPL3 software or me. A perfectly free choice, just like the one GPL projects give their users to not touch their code or switch to GPL. Turnabout is fair play.

> It's a massively unprofessional attitude of you, you are cutting off your project's nose to spite your users' faces

Not at all. I am simply exercising my right to choose whom I do business with. Some forms of discrimination are illegal, such as on race, sex, or religion, but discrimination against GPL fanatics is still perfectly legal. The result of my actions is that people in the GPL camp would be less likely to use my project (in the hypothetical long run, anyway; a GPL3 gcc hasn't even been released yet), which suits me very well. I fully expect normal people to follow suit and boycott all GPL3 software, and those people (who are precisely the sort for whom I would most like to write for) will never have any problems compiling my projects. I call this getting exactly what you deserve.

> we could really do without someone whose ego so far outweighs their desire to contribute.

Indeed you could, because the premise of FSF's communist philosophy dictates that nobody is allowed to have an ego of any kind. If you join their commune, I wish you luck, because its members are expected to have a perpetual "desire to contribute" without getting anything in return. For myself, I prefer the capitalist system, where I am paid for my efforts instead of being a penniless slave to society.

Re:Bogus. Poser.

[david_thornley]

That's not exactly true. I am not holding them hostage; I am giving them a choice - GPL3 software or me. A perfectly free choice, just like the one GPL projects give their users to not touch their code or switch to GPL. Turnabout is fair play.

You're holding them hostage. If they rely on your uSTL, they may be prevented from moving to a later version of gcc. You, on the other hand, are refusing to move because you dislike GPLv3, not because you are going to have any problems whatsoever with using a GPLv3ed gcc.

Given that, I'd only use uSTL if I was willing to maintain it myself, and that would be the reaction of most people.

I fully expect normal people to follow suit and boycott all GPL3 software, and those people (who are precisely the sort for whom I would most like to write for) will never have any problems compiling my projects.

You're delusional. Hundreds of millions of people use Microsoft products without worrying about the license, and Microsoft licenses are more restrictive than any GPL version, and they're more likely to have an effect than the gcc license. What makes you think there's going to be three people (including you) who will boycott new gcc versions because they don't like the license?

If you join their commune, I wish you luck, because its members are expected to have a perpetual "desire to contribute" without getting anything in return. For myself, I prefer the capitalist system, where I am paid for my efforts instead of being a penniless slave to society.

No, they're expected to have at least an occasional desire to contribute, in exchange for getting excellent software. Alternatively, they're expected to improve the software when it's in their own interests. The FSF is quite insistent on the ability to sell GPLed software; if you can't use software commercially, it isn't free by their standards.

So, why are you maintaining a free software project (or, if you prefer, open source)? Are you being paid? If so, did you consult with your employers/customers? If not, why are you intent on being a "penniless slave"?

Re:Bogus. Poser.

[Chemisor]

> You're holding them hostage. If they rely on your uSTL, they may be
> prevented from moving to a later version of gcc.

Not at all. They are welcome to make whatever changes, if any, that are required to make it work. And, since uSTL is distributed under the MIT license, doing this places no obligations on them for doing so. I think that is quite reasonable and quite a bit more than what you'd get from a GPL'ed project.

> Given that, I'd only use uSTL if I was willing to maintain it myself

That's true of all OSS projects. I will probably keep maintaining uSTL, but there is no reason for you to expect that. Most projects are eventually abandoned. Some get new maintainers, some just vanish into black holes on SourceForge. This is true of commercial software as well. Microsoft could go out of business in five years and then where will your Windows installations be? At least with uSTL, like with all other open source projects, you get the option of maintaining it yourself. It is better than having no such option, as with commercial software, and is one of the main reasons for using open source software in the first place.

> What makes you think there's going to be three people (including you) who will
> boycott new gcc versions because they don't like the license?

The american entrepreneural spirit. In this country we have been traditionally opposed to communism in all its forms, preferring our free market society. It may be changing now, but most people still hold such beliefs, and will instinctively revile GPLv3, which is profoundly anti-business.

> No, they're expected to have at least an occasional desire to contribute,

Or be branded "freeloaders" and face social ostracism from the community. Oh, sure, it doesn't matter much to me, since I couldn't care less what GPL fanatics think, but I'm obviously not a member of that community. If I were, the pressure would be far more real. This is rather beside the point though. The point is that you get no incentive for doing your work. No, "getting excellent software" is not an incentive, because one, it isn't that good, and two, you get it anyway, whether you contribute or not. I was born in the Soviet Union, so I know exactly how this works. Everyone gets paid the same, no matter how much they work, so nobody works. That's communism for you.

> The FSF is quite insistent on the ability to sell GPLed software

In theory, but not in practice. Read my earlier rant on this subject. Hell, you can even get it from the horse's mouth; RMS himself repeatedly states that his most cherished goal is the destruction of all commercial software.

> So, why are you maintaining a free software project (or, if you prefer, open source)?

Because it isn't worth anything. You just go and try setting a reasonable price for uSTL. Would you pay $10? $5? How about $1? No? I didn't think so. You can't compete against free. Sure, I believe my implementation is a very good one, but would anyone really care? Yes, you can reduce C++ overhead by a factor of four if you use uSTL, but in today's world of terabyte hard disks and gigabyte RAM sticks, nobody cares enough to pay any money for such a reduction. Another reason is that it isn't really my work; I only implemented a standard, there isn't that much original work in it. I wouldn't feel correct in charging money for something I didn't do.

I keep it open source because it costs me nothing. I don't really gain anything from it. I've had perhaps less than ten bug reports in the entire lifetime of the project. Nobody contributed any code. So why bother? Because someone might write some good software with it. Something nice, small, and blazingly fast. Sure it hasn't happened yet, but it might, and it costs me nothing to keep the project on SourceForge.

Note that I did not say that the "nice, small, and blazingly fast" project

Re:The sad state of Slashdot editorial line nowada

[Just Some Guy]

Well, I'll certainly give you that one. I'm a conservative, so I usually tend Republican (although we have a great Democrat senator here that I fully support). I'm liking Ron Paul these days because he actually seems to remember what being a conservative means.

Re:Bogus. Poser.

[Anonymous Coward]

They are welcome to make whatever changes, if any, that are required to make it work. And, since uSTL is distributed under the MIT license, doing this places no obligations on them for doing so. I think that is quite reasonable and quite a bit more than what you'd get from a GPL'ed project.

Just out of curiosity, if someone sent you a patch with changes to make the library work with a GPLv3 GCC, would you merge them into your official code base? I suppose you could make the argument that you cannot test them, so provide an alternate unsupported version... But would you even do that?

Re:Bogus. Poser.

[Chemisor]

> Just out of curiosity, if someone sent you a patch with changes to make the
> library work with a GPLv3 GCC, would you merge them into your official code base?

Probably no. That rather depends on the patch. Let's say gcc 5.4 has some nifty new warnings that tell you how to rearrange your code to make it compile smaller, even with gcc 4.2.1. I would merge such a change. But say gcc 5.4 has decided that __attribute__ syntax is no longer acceptable and changes it to some other mechanism, like back to #pragma or whatever. I would reject such a change.

> I suppose you could make the argument that you cannot test them, so provide
> an alternate unsupported version... But would you even do that?

No, I would politely tell them to maintain their own version, if they feel like it. I may help them out if they need something explained. I might even link to it. There is already one such fork, for the Symbian project, which I decline to merge into the mainline. There are numerous very platform-specific things in it, and I have no interest in supporting such a marginal platform. The only burden in this scenario lies on the maintainer of the fork, and it is not a very heavy one, since the library code has been quite stable for a while now. I make releases once a year or so, and pulling my changes into a fork should really not be that hard. The Linux kernel maintains several trees in this manner, so this development model is very well tested and established. Now, if I could only switch to git...

Not really a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't have to be the SAME keys. They don't even need to give the keys. As long as it will RUN the unsigned code, there's no need to give out the keys. The code that ISN'T signed (or is signed by a different key) is therefore provably not the "official" code and can be unsupported except under obvious hardware problems.

Where's the problem?

It really is a problem.

[tomhudson]

Except that the possibility of running unsigned/unproven code is enough to remove a device from certification.

In your scenario, there's nothing to prevent someone from running malicious code, doing what they want, then re-installing the certified code. Who gets the blame?

Really, the GPLv3 is screwed up because it is targeting something that is none of its business - hardware. GPLv2 is fine. It does the job. So is the BSD license. So are a whole bunch of other licenses. The GPLv3 was a political statement, not a real license.

Re:Linux with zfs would be an instant hit.

[linimon]

While you're waiting for that to happen, you can get FreeBSD-current (which will, before the end of the year, become release 7.0), and get ZFS now.

Re:Bogus. Poser.

[linimon]

> It's a massively unprofessional attitude of you, you are cutting off your project's nose to spite your users' faces, and it gives me cause to doubt whether the "skills" you claim would really be such a great loss to the open source movement It's really amazing what people think it's fair to say to someone that they disagree with. I'd be interested to hear what software the poster of this rant has written. To me, it sounds like the author is a fan of Open Source, not Free Software. The distinction, at least to me, has never been clearer.