Slashdot Mirror
GPLv3's Implications Hitting Home For Lawyers
Specter writes "The GPL version 3 is getting some attention in legal circles, especially as it relates to its interaction with proprietary software and patents. Edmund J. Walsh penned an article for Law.com discussing the GPLv3 and the risks it poses for hardware and software companies."
The lawyer making the post is 100% hype and false information. The only reason they're interviewing a lawyer is thats the only kind of person who can make a false statement and still defend themselves legally. Thus it's called "bending the truth", especially with phrases such as (from the article) "Open source software had its origins in the free software movement. By now, most open source users understand that free refers to freedom, not to price. The new lesson is that the freedom belongs to the software, not to users. You are not free to do whatever you want with the open source software and may find yourself in a legal fight if what you do restricts the freedom of the software."
What part of having the open source software and doing whatever you can with it to benefit your own company is denied? Nothing. It's a matter of distribution. Nothing at all is stopping you from making changes for your own companies use and not giving it to anyone else. If you sell it to someone (thus commercial), then it is an entirely different ballgame.
From the GPLv3 faq: "Do I have "fair use" rights in using the source code of a GPL-covered program?
Yes, you do. âoeFair useâ is use that is allowed without any special permission. Since you don't need the developers' permission for such use, you can do it regardless of what the developers said about itâ"in the license or elsewhere, whether that license be the GNU GPL or any other free software license."
Yep, GPL3 is the kiss of the death for business. Its 100% political, anti-corporate, and reactionary. I have less sway at my job to promote OSS now.
Richard Stallman is correct though, he doesnt write licenses for business he writes them for ideology. So the big "year of the linux desktop" to compete with MS or Apple will never come because ideology trumps practicality. RMS doesnt mind OSS being shelved to the hobbyist arena. Some people do, but the "mob" has spoken. Such is ideology.
Using BSD code isn't ANYTHING like killing me and stealing my wallet. It's like me leaving stuff out on my lawn with a sign saying, "Take what you want -- just tell people where you got it."
BSD license is an invitation to take and use. No, this is not a holy war, but the GPL -- especially v3, is by its very nature political to a level of religious zeal equaled only by supporters of Ron Paul or Barak Obama.
> No freedom is lost under BSD.
BSD enables Microsoft.
Microsoft being given a gift that allows them to continue
their abusive ways does infact cause a loss of freedom. It
becomes easier for them to abuse their partners, their end
users and people who would prefer to avoid them entirely.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The BSDL is an invitation for evil men to take and use the code in order to abuse you.
Anarchy vs. democracy or communism.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Although the lawsuits are not about changed provisions in the GPL, both events are muscle-flexing by the free software community and, taken together, may foreshadow new risks in the irreconcilable conflict between open source software and its widespread use by for-profit companies.
What "irreconcilable conflict"?
Imprimus, the GPL provides an amazing business opportunity for companies like Trolltech and Linden Labs to harness the efforts of the open source community for their products, without opening up the possibility of some company taking the open source product and competing with them on a level ground.
Secundus, Companies that don't pay attention to the license they're using can get into trouble, but that's true for all licensed software: even Microsoft's occasionally had to pay for drifting over the line with licensed software and patents now and then.
Tertius, GPL is not synonymous with open source software. There's open source software running right now in your desktop, Edmund, open source software distributed by Microsoft or Apple... most of it's not GPLed, it's distributed under the BSD license and the MIT license.
Therefore, there is no such irreconcilable conflict, and using language like that is enough for even someone like me who has been often enough critical of the GPL to consider this article nothing more than a troll.
You know, like, copyright is "imaginary property" when it comes to ripping music and movies, but of course it is a valid concept when it comes to shoving the GPL down other people's throats.
Or: government regulation is bad. Unless of course, it prevents IT jobs (and only IT jobs!) from moving abroad.