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."
But he is also clueless when it comes to the GPL. What a maroon.
I didn't make it past the first three or four paragraphs, but no PHB is going to read further either. Court cases over GPL violation show that you can't use open source software the way you please? If he thought that before he's a moron and probably a sociopath. And the article seems to go on in that vein.
I read the article. In the first paragraph, the author acknowledges that the scope of the article does not include the changes between GPLv2 and v3.
Reading the rest of the article, the author does not seem to understand the basis of the GPL, and he engages in needless scaremongering.
It's a clueless work.
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
the GPL 3 license is NOT free software. It significantly restricts CERTAIN people from using it, thus is clearly NOT FREE.
GPL 3 is nothing more than anti corporate licensing, and has significantly diminished us all.
BSD is truly free license, and GPL 2 closely follows. GPL 3 is a huge step backwards, IMHO.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
That right there should tell you what you need to know about the guy's understanding of 1) the technical issues related to GPL software, and 2) the actual legal requirements of the GPL.
What a load of fear mongering bull. News flash: if you don't obey a software license you could get sued. How does that make GPL software any more or less risky than the proprietary alternative?
Look at it this way, if you violate a proprietary license, you get sued and lose a bunch of money. If you violate the GPL, you get sued, and you have the option to settle and open the code, or lose a lot of money. Seems to me the GPL is the less risky option.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
ROFL
short of a miracle new core Is going They're gone Mac These early of Its core Tossers, went out
Google: Bugs Bunny maroon
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
The GPL definitely has no problem with people using software to generate wealth.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
While many posters might quibble about the technicalities of the article, does anyone really quibble about the spirit?
Open source software is at adds with making a profit off of software. It just is. If the spirit of the Open source license is to make sure that the software and the derived works are free, then, it has to be free.
Even if the GPLv3 does nothing to compel web sites who hide their sources behind their pages, to open up, it was considered and it is ultimately coming down the pike from the FOSS community. Even if the GPLV3 does nothing to prevent someone from making a closed application on Linux, such activities are at odds with the spirit of the FOSS community and again, such restrictions are coming.
So the author's central warning is entirely accurate, even if his anecdotal evidence fails to match on some autistic level of detail.
There IS a business risk in investing in open source systems. Businesses invest in property, and if software is not property, or, what you invest in is made to be not property, then, in the sense that a business can earn an advantage and a return off of it, then, why should they invest in it?
This is my sig.
It's another greedy lawyer. His real interest is in covering big business and ways to make sure this "OSS"is made incompatible with current patent law. Ultimately I'm sure he's got lobbyists in Washington pushing to get legislators to want to regulate open source anything and maybe even make it illegal.
Just another damned greedy lawyer voicing is woes at OSS.
All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
This is obviously written from the perspective of "anti-free software."
"The new lesson is that the freedom belongs to the software, not to users." This is SO bogus and mis characterizes the whole point of the new GPL. The "freedom" is absolutely for the users, especially the end users. The restrictions quoted in the article have nothing to do with users, but everything to do with ISVs taking GPL software and screwing the users.
"Changes in the GPL impose other limits on the ability to leverage a proprietary position when open source is involved."
This is true, so, write it for yourselves then. Don't think you can capitalize on someone else's work and deny then the ability to capitalize on your modifications to their software, that isn't very fair.
I don't get what the issue is. If you want to develop closed source software, then so be it, however, don't take other's GPL code and try to close that off, that's theft. How hard is it for the reptilian lawyer brain to understand this very simple concept.
We even say what is needed to comply. But NOOO, they have to keep up with the FUD.
Last little bit:
"Edmund J. Walsh is a shareholder and a member of the electrical and computer technologies and the IP transactions groups at Wolf Greenfield."
Ahh, now I understand!
This article is confused and makes all sorts of horrible assumptions. In short, the author seems to believe that the only way people make money off free software by adding "differentiating" proprietary software to it. Since the whole point of the GPL is to prevent people from making the software under its purview non-free, it shouldn't really be surprising, then, that the author finds it a huge pain in the neck. Personally, I'd say the license is a success, and I suspect a lot of the companies making money from GPLed software would agree with me.
-- Brett Smith, License Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation
What a lousy, misleading article. He makes it clear upfront that he's talking about two separate things, but then he goes on to mix them together indiscriminately throughout the rest of the article. (1) If you build your business on GPL 2 software, you'd better read the GPL 2. People who don't are getting sued. (2) GPL 3 is different from GPL 2, and may be incompatible with some business models that GPL 2 is compatible with.
Re #1: Duh. Don't agree to a license without making sure you can abide by the license. Re #2: Similar duh, and it's relatively inconsequential because very little software is under GPL 3 so far. (The typical PHB reading this is probably not going to understand that GPL 2 doesn't automatically update GPL 3, but the article could easily leave you with the impression that it does.)
With the filing of court documents, a philosophical debate about the proper place for software in society has become a business dispute with the risk of substantial consequences.
Well, no, it's not a risk. A risk refers to something you can't predict. If you agree to a license and then violate the license, that's not a risk, that's intentionally shooting yourself in the foot.
For-profit companies using open source software should take notice
He talks about "for-profit" like this all through the article. That's stupid. The GPL doesn't discriminate between for-profit and not-for-profit use. Of course the people getting sued are all for-profit companies. Is this a surprise? A nonprofit probably wouldn't have any motivation to violate the GPL, and anyhow you don't usually pick people to sue who don't have money.
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.
Huh? This is idiotic. Software doesn't have human rights. The GPL also doesn't place any restrictions on how software is used. In fact, you can use GPL'd sofwtware without even agreeing to the license. You only have to agree to the GPL if you want to modify the software and then redistribute it.
Any activity that leverages software for business advantage is likely to restrict the software's freedom
Hmm...say Joe's Garage uses Firefox and OpenOffice. Can anyone explain why that's likely to "restrict the software's freedom?" Or say Barnes and Noble runs Linux on their servers. Does that mean they're "likely to restrict the software's freedom?" What he really means is that if you try to violate the GPL by making OSS into proprietary software, you've got a problem. That's a lot narrower than "leveraging software for business advantage."
and the growing use of open source software by for-profit companies has been a growing irritant for free software advocates.
Oh, God, it just gets dumber and dumber. The OSS community wants users. Everyone I know in the OSS community is typically overjoyed that IBM got on the Linux bandwagon. They're happy that Google is generally OSS-friendly. They love it that more and more OEMs are offering machines with Linux preinstalled.
Find free books.
I stopped reading at "... new risks in the irreconcilable conflict between open source software and its widespread use by for-profit companies."
There are people out there who know law *and* understand reality. I can't say much about the author's relation to the former, but on the latter count... Waste of my time.
----
Not to be confused with Col.
A corporate attorney states that businesses which could do certain things under GPL2 cannot do these same things under GPL3 and look at the venom spew. Why all the fuss? He is entirely correct from a legal standpoint to warn business of litigation risk under a clearly more restrictive license.
Business adoption of OS has in the past been facilitated by working around the GPL2 restrictions. How the hell do you build a business advantage over a competitor when you are forced to divulge your developments to everybody?
A previous poster correctly noted that business will be forced to develop everything themselves - or use alternatives which make business sense. How amazing it is when what was a hobby for people becomes mired in profit. This begs a question: will GPL3 ruin open source development in the business world? If they cannot use or protect innovation why would business work in this space?
Is GPL3 a dead end scenario where only the only development is done by hobbyists and business never develop in it? Linux would not be where it is today without business support - IBM for example - so you pay a price for guaranteeing the software itself over all else.
I am sure it is worth it to some.
From the article:
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.
I disagree with several statements that the author doesn't understand the GPL. While the article does tend toward "scaremongering" I think the author has a pretty fair understanding and is looking forward from a legal point of view and he's a tad nervous about what he sees as potential areas of conflict.
Shop smart, Shop S-Mart.
If what you say is true: "then their code effectively becomes my code as well" then how do code forks occur?
Seriously, I am confused about this.
Anyone else feel like the pooooor proprietary software companies are the equivalent of someone complaining about his birthday presents?
Hey, nobody forces you to use it, you know? You can write your own if you don't like the GPL. Different from patents, the GPL doesn't prevent you from coming up with the exact same thing, on your own time and expense.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Risk to the vendor is defined as the amount of power their customers are going to have over them.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
There appears to be a goodly bit of confusion in this discussion about how the word "users" is employed. Some posts include the word to indicate end users, generally the consumers that purchase the end products and use the software included. Other posts seem to include the word to indicate anyone making use of the software, mostly intimating the developers who would leverage the software as part of producing the end product.
The lack of proper distinction here is causing a real absence of clarity in what people mean. AFAICT, there is as-yet little legal precedent in the US backing up any sort of EULA-type "agreement" that restricts how end users can actually use the end products. Corporations are increasingly trying to dictate various limits, but so far I'm not sure that case law really backs this up. As such, *all* end users are essentially free to do what they want with software under *any* license, within the (admittedly obfuscated, and currently imperiled) bounds of copyright.
Meanwhile, for intermediate users such as developers, there are much more cut-and-dried legal definitions for how and what folks can do. I think TFA is dealing mostly with this aspect (though I haven't completely RTFA). Just in terms of basic ethics, which might well be very foreign territory both for the author of TFA and the PHB target audience, most folks can agree that, if you're essentially selling something that belongs to someone else, that someone else has a say in how you go about doing so.
-----
The assumption that anyone can own what are essentially ideas (i.e. book plots, computer code, artistic designs, etc.) is the foundation of the whole concept of intellectual property. If we accept that such ideas can be owned, then we must accept all the rest of the baggage of ownership that goes with this position -- including the stipulation that selling someone else's things as your own, without proper permission, is in violation of property rights.
The GPL in all its various forms simply attempts to define that proper permission. If folks don't like what such permission entails, fine -- bloody well don't use GPL-covered code. They're still completely free to develop their own code that does what they need it to (note that I'm totally ignoring the whole issue of patents, which is plenty of grist for another mill or twenty). Whining about not getting a free ride just makes people look like wankers. Whine, whine, whinge. Meh.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
This article is FUD, but it is actually well founded FUD.
EG, the GPLv3 is specifically designed to limit the "set top box" model, as the provider can no longer treat it as a sealed appliance if GPLv3 code is involved (the anti-TiVo clause).
The GPLv3's patent liscence clause is deliberately broad:
A contributor's essential patent claims are all patent claims owned or controlled by the contributor, whether already acquired or hereafter acquired, that would be infringed by some manner, permitted by this License, of making, using, or selling its contributor version, but do not include claims that would be infringed only as a consequence of further modification of the contributor version. For purposes of this definition, control includes the right to grant patent sublicenses in a manner consistent with the requirements of this License.
Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and propagate the contents of its contributor version.
Likewise, the recent lawsuits have made it clear that the FSF crowd has grown more willing to carry the GPL into court, and as another poster mentioned, there is the ExtJS's use of the GPL: Since the Javascript gets into the final product (the page), you can argue that by using ExtJS, your web site page, as rendered, is now GLPv3, the same problem Bison used to have before they changed it from being pure GPL, not to mention the attempt to "atheroize" the GPL because of the "googleization" problem.
Test your net with Netalyzr
Reading the rest of the article, the author does not seem to understand the basis of the GPL, and he engages in needless scaremongering.
Typical GPL zealot reaction "Oh noes! you don't understand GPL! you are teh suckzorz!!!"
The fact is that the GPL v3 does have its implications and that such implications become treats to any company willing to use software under such license.
The solution to that is just to stop using such programs, or LEARN about the risks that using them exposes. And that is what the paper is about.
Of course, I did not expect such objective reactions from slashdot...
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
It was - and is - a marketing tool by a privately held company.
Here's the history for those who don't want to follow the link. ExtJS has developed a JavaScript framework. They originally licensed as "LGPL", but with the added proviso that it was only for non-commercial use. Since the whole point of the LGPL is to allow commercial apps to link with it, this made little sense. Now they've gone to GPL3.0, only for non-commercial use, which is a little more honest about their intent.
Apparently some have tried to fork the original "LGPL" code, but since it never has been released without the "no non-commercial apps" restriction, using any forked code in a commercial product is copyright infringement.
This has nothing to do with the GPL3.0 or the LGPL. It has to do with one company, and the restrictions they've put on their licenses.
And so what? They wrote the code. They get to license it.
As I see it the creators of some software relesase this software under the GPL, which grants you certain liberties you would not have if the software were released under a more classic closed source commercial licence (think Microsoft/Adobe/Apple...). I think that if you are to use the work of the original creators you should abide by their wishes/terms. If you won't/can't then dont use their work and create your own software doing the same function.
As far as I am concerned, this is a non-issue: it doesn't matter what licence software is released with, you need to understand that licence before using the software in you own products, if at all! The difference between commercial licence and GPL is that the GPL gives you more freedom from the start, while placing certain limits on how much secrecy you can 'afford your products.
1: not likely to ever happen, but play with the thought.
I'd rephrase that as ".. the irreconcilable conflict between users and those who wish to limit the maintenance options available to those users."
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
and just before the gp discredits my whole post because I put a ' in your's, let me correct
yours yours yours yours
There.
p.d. Inglés no es mi lengua materna.
ÂGracias!
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Read all about it.
violating a copyright is not murder, rape, or child molestation.
learn to think.
Yes, the GPL is more restrictive than the BSD. But many free software advocates see that as a good thing.
The ideas behind the GPL, I think, are 1) stop msft from using their embrace-extend-extinguish strategy. 2) stop proprietary developers from using the code without giving anything back.
I've read the GPL as well as several articles about it, and I still don't know the answer to my simple question:
If my PHP application is using the open source database layer ADODB, can I close-source my entire application (except the ADODB directory) ?
If anyone could answer that for me, they'd be this girl's hero.
The GPL wording needs some serious work IMHO.
Who cares what this dude, esq., writes?
The GPL is now a known, accepted threat. It is a force to be reckoned with, an enemy to plan carefully against.
Good work, Stallman.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
The choice of words like "irreconcilable conflict" make clear the authors' stance, and his lack of understanding of the nuances of the issue. Even Stallman has never been against "for profit companies" and many selfsame companies can and do make money from free software. Similarly the cases he cited lower down (e.g. the modified software) are not a case of free software advocates challenging a company's right to use the system more a company's attempts to violate the contract under which they got the software. That is no different than a company taking software they purchased and making modifications against the purchase agreement. In either case they get sued.
While I do not always ascribe to the libertarian tautology that all laws are contracts in this case the two are the same. Free software is no different than other software. Both come with licencing agreements and both come with a price. In the free-software case it is a price of $0 and a more permissive contract but a contract just the same, and it carries the same penalties (vis a vis lawsuits).
This guy hasn't really dealt with it like that and seems to be of the Gates mindset of free software as something to be freely taken.
From reading the article, it seems like this guy is one of the old guard, trying to convince everyone that FOSS is dangerous to their business models and to act accordingly. The problem is that he is right--the people, not companies, that create Free Software have a different business model in mind than a corporate-dominated one based upon lock-in.
Verizon Wireless is a great example of corporate lock-in: the entire system on every phone is written to corporate spec, and if it had any free software as a part of the operating system, they would have to open-source a lot of it because they were not following the rules of the GPL (assuming they were using, say, a network stack culled from Linux). So either they play the game by the rules of the copyright holders, or they write their own software at their own expense.
But a clueful open-source company will be careful not to let their proprietary software get get too close to the FOSS they use, or better yet, make it company policy to GPL every last piece of code they write. This is where the article begins to expound FUD, because anything you write with the aid of a FOSS program (EMACS, Eclipse, I'm writing this in Firefox) does not have to be under a free license. And even more, any open-source company will be careful not to base their business model on being proprietors of software but as something else, such as selling another service like support.
I immediately thought of Hostess Cupcakes. Don't ask me why. I'm taking a copy of the GPL and heading to the store to see if they'll give me some, Or Else.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
Given that this is /. and the number of GPL zealots that there are here, it is no surprise that there are so many responses that tell of, pretty much, functional illiteracy when it comes to reading this article. As has been mentioned above, this is NOT about a misunderstanding about the details of the [L]GPL, but rather a "heads up" about the ramifications of using someone else's work. As in, you better read the fine print on that license. This guy even said exactly that in the article.
The only thing that this guy consistently did wrong was confuse open-source with "free" software (as in RMS's definition, not dictionary). Quite frankly, as an advocate of the BSD license (_not_ a zealot mind you) I'm rather irritated that this guy is lumping me in with the GPL people. No, I'm not like that, I don't want to shove my opinions down "your" throat.
But, welcome to the "us v.s. them" BS that RMS wants.
The thing that I find sad is that when a lot of companies get together to release code under an open-source license, much of the time, it's actually free-er than the GPL. Newlib and Insomniac Games Nocturnal project are two good examples. Not to mention the closed source, non-restrictive libs offered by commercial entities such as Apple and M$. It's kinda sad that I get more freedom as a developer when using closed source libs rather than much of the "open-source" libs out there.
"PJ: This article is either slightly offensive due to the fear mongering, or funny, depending on your mood, but the bottom line is, at least they begin to comprehend that the GPL does have to be respected. You can't just grab the code and do whatever you want with it. So that's progress.
But imagine an article that noticed the Microsoft EULA and decided that the risk of using the software was too high because you can't do whatever you want with the software, due to the EULA. You can't do whatever you want with most software, proprietary or open source/free software. Anyway, be aware of a couple of things.
One, Linux comes to you under GPLv2, not v3. Second, under either license, there are no restrictions on internal use, only for distribution. Three, the rules for certain embedded products are not the same as for software that is intended to continue to be developed and modified. Finally, the 'payment', so to speak, for mixing GPL'd software in your own code in your distribution or product isn't money. It's code. That's the deal. There are no hidden gotchas. Just read the license.]
davecb5620@gmail.com
Not true, but oft-cited on Slashdot. There are a number of cases at district court levels that have backed EULAs and a few appellate court cases too.
The ones that lose are typically those that impose huge burdens on the consumer: changes in law, venue, arbitration, etc. A recent case placed a limit on non-transfer clause, but the court hinted that the original purveyor was probably in breach, not the person that was actually sued.
There's a now out of date article from a couple years ago by Mark Lemley that discussed "terms of use": http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=917926
Furthermore, EULAs aren't just software oriented. There is a long history of cases that impose restrictions from contracts that consumers don't get until, arguably, it's too late.
Simply not true; see above.
And I'm not sure what is imperiled about the bounds of copyright. If anything, they're about to be extended: http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/06/acta-call-to-arms-no-more-secret.html
The funny thing is, many corporate entities would probably agree with you. A number of places I know have zero tolerance for OSS in their workplace, but those rebellious techies use it anyway.
Even those that are more accommodating are nevertheless hesitant because OSS comes in so many flavors, not just GPLv#. This makes managing obligations next to impossible.
While, I'm sure there are some that would like to commercially exploit the work of others, this is NOT the usual posture in which most companies encounter GPL/OSS. It's usually because some 3rd party contractor used it in a package the company intended to commercially sell or because an employee decided it would make their life easier. Then the problems become VERY acute.
Well, he either a.- does not understand the specific nature of the GPL or b.- is making a concerted and tricky attempt at discrediting the possibility of GPLed work use in commercial applications.
you post clarifies the point precisely, and it applies to TFA as well: the GPL does not contain any provision on USE of the software, only on derivative development and distribution, and that distinction is perfectly clear to anyone who even bothers to read the frickin' license. You are saying that the GPL has implications and that these implications become threats and that the only solution is to stop using gpled sotfware, or understand the restrictions that the GPL inmposes on the use, when there none. That is a lie, and you are either a lier, or an ignorant.
Por ultimo, y en una nota mas personal: no es culpa de nosotros los "zealots" que la gente no comprenda las sutilezas de la GPL, la diferencia que hay entre uso, distribucion y derivacion, y las necesidades que la GPL tiene de restringir ciertas derechos para la proteccion de la libertad. Que salgas con ese tipo de comentarios son el principal impedimento a una discusion razonable mediante la exposicion de argumentos, puesto que lo unico que se hace es recurrir a argumentos ad-hominem y otras falacias retoricas, de las que tu mensaje previo es una joya. y un excelente ejemplo de FUD y sus efectos en la opinion publica.
entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
My main problem with the GPL and the 'slashdot zealots' that come out on both ends, is that it is difficult for the to maintain a rational view when looked at across IP in general.
GPL exaggeration: Don't ever use GPL to build upon without releasing the code, copyright is our friend and hammer.
Musician exaggeration: Dude, wtf, so you wrote a song 20 years ago..you think you deserve to live off of it forever? Copyrights last waaaay too long as is!
My main problem with the GPL is that I am not free to use it the way I want to. I understand the reasons why to some extent, but the reality is that as software becomes ever and ever more complex, you become reliant on other people's code to get to the 'good part' (ie. I don't need to write my own TCPIP stack to use the internet, my own display drivers to talk to draw on the screen, etc). I recently started working on an ebook reader for my PDA in C# (http://www.slainwilde.com ). One of the things I wanted to do was add in MS Reader LIT ebook decompession for non-DRM ebooks, and to do it on the PDA device itself. But some of the things I wanted to do (live streaming from the lit reader CAB rather than needing to unzip it completely to a full file), I couldn't really do it if I still wanted the possibility to use some off-the-shelf C# component to get the program out there faster. At least in my understanding of the license. And yet this library uses Public Domain code right and left without batting an eye. Again, not that it shouldn't. But it basically means that I will either have to not have those features I want, or I will have to go to a lot more trouble to avoid using some off the shelf component that could save me a week or two of effort.
Not everyone can be a 'subject expert' in everything they want to use to build a program. It made the whole project less appealing to me in a certain sense, every time I looked at some piece of code and saw how it would shape my ability to use it without jumping thru hoops. I'm not saying I have the answers, just that the problems are real for even the 'guy in a basement' trying to do something fun.
http://blog.slaingod.com
Thats free as in "free society". You're free to do as you wish, except to deny others the freedoms you yourself were granted.
That's pretty damn free. Only sociopaths think that's not free, because a sociopath only thinks about what they get. A sociopath feels like they are repressed by not being able to own slaves.
BSD is free as in anarchy. It's a great license, but like anarchy itself, it doesn't stop someone from setting up their own fiefdom.
The enemies of Democracy are
I admire anyone who uses a Heinlein quote properly in their sig. Kudos.
My Spanish is lots worse than your English. There is nothing of substance wrong with your post's grammar or spelling. So, just because the author views disagree with your's you claim that the raised points are FUD? Not precisely. The article throws a lot of cautionary alarms, and doesn't back them with any facts. That's what makes it FUD. Typical GPL zealot reaction "Oh noes! you don't understand GPL! you are teh suckzorz!!!" I used no such language or locution. Of course, I did not expect such objective reactions from slashdot... It's just my opinion. *looks around* It is a discussion board, right?
No, I'm not an attorney. I had a few contract law courses, and I have studied the GPL for my own interest. I am no zealot. I have released software and creative output under both commercial and free licenses.
I also try to remember, each day, that I might be wrong on any issue at any time, being human.
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
My impression was that the case law remains somewhat patchy, with still-substantial room for interpretation. Is this incorrect? And are you (or is anyone else) able to expand on EULA legality / enforceability in other places, such as Canada or the EU?
By "imperiled", I meant from the point of view of the end user, mostly regarding fair use. I should have made that explicit.
Interesting. Does this suggest then that the main threat to corporations is more from any management failure in due diligence in controlling a company's code assets?
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
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.
There is no need to distinguish between users and developers, when it comes to the GPL or other free software licenses. The distinction is solely between users and distributors. If all you do is use the software -- whether that use involves clicking on buttons in the default GUI or breaking out gdb -- the GPL places no obligations on you. If, however, you distribute the software, then it does -- regardless of whether you've done any development at all.
Set top boxes often have to provide anticircumvention as a legal requirement for the media they are using. For ANY GPLv3 device "No covered work shall be deemed part of an effective technological measure under any applicable law fulfilling obligations under article 11 of the WIPO copyright treaty adopted on 20 December 1996, or similar laws prohibiting or restricting circumvention of such measures.". That right there is a dealbreaker.
And what electronic devices support NO updates? Even my "car", as a sealed box, has some degree of upgradability on the electronics. If the choice is NEVER be able to update or provide open access, you can not build many viable businesses as a "sealed box".
The GPLv3 is deliberately anti-business. Why should people be shocked when business attorneys figure that out?
Test your net with Netalyzr
You can say all day long what GPL is *supposed* to mean. But in the end, we've seen many stupid cases where what the lawyers and judges ignorant of technology redefined the entire document by putting a particular spin on a particular section. We see this with the constitution too. There is very little precedent for these documents yet so it is still flexible-- and even when there is precedent, occasionally a random lawyer will think of some new spin- get it to the supreme court in a state or country and have everything overturned.
I generally agree with everyone on our common understanding of GPL myself. But if it is in a lawyer's financial interest to understand it differently, then they will do so.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I agree. Good job Stallman. Many people have an absolute and irrational hatred of giving people absolute control over their own software. You are one of the few people who not only understood the threat, but actually stood up and did something about it, to the point where even IBM backs you.
There are definitely aspects that are open to debate--there are few areas of law that are set in stone. But, I think that there is a self-perpetuating myth on Slashdot that EULAs remain largely untested. The fact of the matter, courts apply the same rules of contracts to EULAs as they do to anything else.
There are definitely some areas where courts more liberally seek to help consumers OUT of EULAs, but those tend to be the same places that courts do the same thing for regular contracts.
I can't expound on foreign law.
Maybe. I'm not sure it's the main threat. It is definitely a threat. It is also the threat that brings the legal issues associated with OSS/GPL to their attention.
The problem is that once it becomes an issue, it is difficult and expensive to rid yourself of problem given the very viral nature of the rights. Even if a company decided against using the code, but looked at it, there is arguably a potential copyright infringement problem if the company releases something similar.
OSS is a problem for many software business NOT in the business of "free."
"closed source, non-restrictive libs"
:)
.. :)
"Newlib and Insomniac Games Nocturnal project are two good examples"
Tell us about Newlib and Insomniac, compare and contrast with the GPL license
davecb5620@gmail.com
"My main problem with the GPL and the 'slashdot zealots'"
.. :)
My main problem is with people who use the word zealots in the first sentence
davecb5620@gmail.com
"can I close-source my entire application (except the ADODB directory"
.. :)
What did the ADODB people tell you when you asked them?
ADOdb is dual licensed using BSD-Style and LGPL
"The GPL wording needs some serious work IMHO"
Which bits, specifically
davecb5620@gmail.com
No, the GPL acts to prevent you from restricting the freedoms of downstream developers, in that sense the BSD license is restrictive.
davecb5620@gmail.com
...as another poster mentioned, there is the ExtJS's use of the GPL: Since the Javascript gets into the final product (the page), you can argue that by using ExtJS your web site page, as rendered, is now GLPv3... I don't think that could be argued, nor do I think Ext would want to. As evidence I first cite the fact that ExtJS has both open source and commercial licenses. I presume the OSS license is to allow modification of ExtJS itself, which some might find useful or necessary. In those cases, modifications to ExtJS must be similarly licensed. But in no instance would this imply that software built on top of ExtJS's interfaces has in-built OSS virulence.It is clear from their license FAQ that they intend ExtJS to be used to make applications without the applications themselves being bound to any kind of license. The previously-controversial "Assets clause" is intended to protect the brand identity of ExtJS, and as such only says the assets can't be used separately. (It doesn't say that applications having the "ExtJS look" are all GPLv3!)
It's good that the courts are being called in, because it's easy to get muddled about the concept of a "derivative work" if you don't understand both the technical and legal aspects of the software. The courts will continue to help clarify what distinguishes "use" from "derivation," and in the long run this should be beneficial to everyone.
-- thinkyhead software and media
A better example would be if you took the database system's source code and added a set of C++ interfaces to give it additional features, such as encryption or embedded scripting - things you might only be able to do by extending the source code. You'd be obligated to release your added source code.
Another example would be if you modified GIMP to make it respond to network messages. You'd be obligated to release the source code for those extensions. But if you then write a piece of software that sends messages to GIMP over the network to control it, you are fully within your rights to keep that software closed even though it interacts with GIMP - even relies on it. In that case it's not a "derivative work" but a "helper"
A good - though possibly not perfect - test of whether a work is a derivation is: Is your work of the same nature as the original product.
I like the "atoms, molecules, cells, organisms" analogy. A molecule is not a derivation of an atom, because it doesn't do what individual atoms do. A cell is not a molecule, and an organism is not a cell. All these inventions have their own emergent rules. No level is a derived work of the level below.
Take two molecules, however. If you and I independently invent a molecule that breaks down sugars, neither one is a derivative work of the other. Only when I modify your molecule do I create a derivative work. What if I invent a molecule that - when paired with yours - improves its efficiency? Is that a derivation? No. It interacts with your molecule's input and output, but it doesn't derive from it.
Follow this analogy as far as you want, keep the concepts simple and restrict your definitions to those that rely on the marriage of form and function, think in terms of heredity.... this should help clarify things.
-- thinkyhead software and media
The article talks a lot about risk, but I don't think there is any risk.
The GPL is clear. It may be that the terms of the license are unacceptable, and that a business cannot use GPL, but that can be determined ahead of time by reading the license. While the terms of the license may seem onerous to a business, it is straight forward to comply with them. Since the requirements are straight forward, if a business attempts to comply with the terms of the license it will succeed in doing so. Thus using GPL software does not expose the business to litigation risk.
Sooner or later all software goes into the public domain--even Microsoft software and GPL licensed software. All good software should be archived, so that future software vendors can be defeated when they assert that their functionally identical software deserves copyright protection. So, be mellow. Archive software. Wait. Time will cure your problem. No need to get agitated and unduly spastic. Listen to the lawyer-man. Be cool. Comply with the terms of the copyrighted software you incorporate into your program. All is good. Nobody is trying to hurt you . . ..
Why GPL is bad?
Because, its creater want the world to be solely OSS, he force it inches by inches.
Why every software should be licensed in the same way? Is liberty not important in coder's world?
a) write your own damned software if you want to be a scrudge about it That's not always possible in Slashdot's home turf. The United States has software patents. b) don't violate the license in the first place. For computer programs, there's a well-known method of reverse engineering for interoperability. It separates "dirty" people with access to the original program from "clean" people who write all the code. This is possible because it's possible to view the output of a program without viewing the program itself. But this doesn't apply as easily to works other than computer programs, such as art and music assets that go into a video game: once you've seen a work, you have "access" to the work. That's how George Harrison got sued for accidentally copying part of Ronald Mack's "He's So Fine" into Harrison's "My Sweet Lord" and lost.
"Under prior versions of the GPL, it was generally accepted that open source and proprietary software could peacefully coexist so long as the proprietary software interacted with open source only through defined interfaces."
This is bogus. This is true for the LGPL but not for the GPLv2. You cannot link a proprietary project with a GPLv2 lib. But you can link a proprietary project with a LGPL lib.
"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."
This is bogus, too. Most issues are there with the GPLv2, too. "You are not free to do whatever you want with the open source software". That's the point of the GPL -- all versions. Besides that, the author does not understand what "free" means in the view of the GPL. The GPL's restrictions are there that the software remains free.
Trust a lawyer to spend three pages to only hint at, but never actually come out and say, "Don't steal shit."
I thought you were referring to the whole stack - as in, you could write an app and build an innovative new hardware platform that uses it and sell as many as you can without paying any licensing per unit.
Now that I see you're saying that Microsoft's generosity extends only to the compiled libraries and runtimes required for your application to function in a separately licensed Microsoft operating environment.
I don't think you're in the odd category of programmers this article is discussing. I'm also surprised you think this is worth mentioning. I had thought by now software tools that did not offer this were a historical oddity long forgotten.
So... These free and paid for tools - how are their cross platform capabilities? Can you write once and compile for various platforms? Note - by "various platforms" I am not referring to "all the modern versions of Windows."
Help stamp out iliturcy.
The fact that TFA does not distinguish between these licenses upfront shows the hopelessly poor knowledge or questionable intent of the author. He's doing an "IP" on the term "opensource" - obfuscation, confusion, deliberately misleading propaganda term.
I'll state it nicely for newcomers to the opensource license issue:
All opensource licenses are not the same.
They are very different and cannot be dealt with in a small one-page treatment. a round of lawsuits filed by the Software Freedom Law Center against for-profit companies using the software for commercial gain. Four companies to date, the largest of which is Verizon Communications Inc., have been sued for violation of the GPL. Nobody forces you to copy or use GPLed software - please be technically competent to write your own - or take any source code released under other "permissive" licenses so that you are much "freer" - but be aware of the dangers of that "freer" license - lots of fragmentation, inability to borrow from GPLed projects, absence of widespread technical support if things go wrong for you technically, and so on.
Another thing is that the GPL does not prevent you from using the code in any way inside your organization - it only disallows arbitrary and source-less redistribution of modified code taken from a previously GPLed codebase.
In simpler words, you cant steal from the community's work, add or modify something (please check subtract), sell it using a new name, and also not offer the source.
If you offer the source, and attribute correctly, you can pretty much charge anything, a billion dollars as well, for even the binary only.
That's what RedHat and Novell do, for example.
You can make a lot of money on GPLed software, but you cannot steal, cheat or deprive the end user of modifications just because you made them.
Charge or no charge is not a topic here. Clear?
You are free to choose any opensource license.
In the case of ExtJS, the license at the time of downloading the source applies. Simple.
ExtJS or any contributor cannot change the license of terms going back in time.
He's already released it as GPLed, matter closed.
The new version, he may choose to do something else about, provided no other user has contributed - because he owns the new version.
Of course, as the new version is dual-licensed, you can always go download the old version and hack it the way you want.
If you want the new version's features, then he's the owner of the thing and you have to listen to his conditions.
Equally, he should (not "must") keep publicly available the old version of ExtJS that he had GPLed without "dual-licensing" concerns.
In any case, no one can prevent an earlier GPLed version to be distributed around freely under the GPL - let us call that "undying" software - software that cannot die or go away. Once GPLed, that piece of source code is a permanent member of this cosmos, available to anyone for redistribution freely - if one of those redistributors gives those copies for zero price, well, the software is also permanently zero-price.
IANAL, but programmers should obviously be able to understand this much - provided of course, that you read the license before you start coding using that as a codebase for your project.
Using a program or using source code without reading the license is like voting a dictator to power in the hope that his handsome looks will lead to good governance - dangerous, at the very least.
Hackers have long memories. It works both ways.
They, IBM, RH, Autozone and Daimler amongst others have already paid millions in total to lawyers because according to SCO they didn't understand the license the propriatory code was licensed under.
Or they've paid millions because SCO has misunderstood the license they had for the code in their business.
But I suspect you won't see your argument applies to propriatory even more than to GPL3 because you're in a hate religion over the GPL3.
So that's where you get your problem with the GPL3 from. YOU have misunderstood the reason for the GPL.
Imagine if the printer that RMS wanted to fix had had driver code available but could not be used with the printer unless signed by the manufacturer. Would he have now been able to fix the bug that the mfg didn't want to fix?
No.
Since this scenario was the origin of the GPL, how does using DRM to stop the user installing a new GPL version on their device help?
In the context of BSD vs GPL posts:
BSD: BSD gives more freedom to users, because you (the user) can modify it a sell it as proprietary.
GPL: GPL gives more freedom to users, because you can't modify it and sell it (to users) as proprietary.
BSD and GPL advocates do seem to be usually referring to different groups of people. It isn't for licensing purposes that the clarification is needed, it's for discussion.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
A lot of posters are jumping to the conclusion that the article's FUD is because Mr Walsh is against the GPL.
I think it most likely that the purpose of instilling Fear Uncertainty and Doubt with the article is get more clients.
There is a lengthy article on GPLv3 vs Patents written by a law scholar in last years Open Source Jahrbuch 2007:
http://www.opensourcejahrbuch.de/download/jb2007
Article would be here:
http://www.opensourcejahrbuch.de/portal/article_show?article=osjb2007-07-05-boecker.pdf
From the article: "... Any activity that leverages software for business advantage is likely to restrict the software's freedom ..."
So this is a piece written by a lawyer and this statement is an comp sci/business topic. Here is a good example to refute this statement:
GOOGLE - do they not leverage a lot of open source software and last time I checked they seem to be just a little profitable???
... if music be fruit of love, play on
do as i say, not as i do
Even if the GPLv3 does nothing to compel web sites who hide their sources behind their pages, to open up, it was considered and it is ultimately coming down the pike from the FOSS community. Even if the GPLV3 does nothing to prevent someone from making a closed application on Linux, such activities are at odds with the spirit of the FOSS community and again, such restrictions are coming.
Sources? This is a brand new claim I have yet to see in any other forum. Considering that GPLv3 is barely a year old, color me highly skeptical that anyone is actively planning this right now.We are the 198 proof..
All I can say, is that the judge that handles any lawsuit on this had damn well better not screw it up.
It's nice to see a /.'er recognize just how powerful the court system, and its judges, really are.
I just hope that the court system doesn't screw it up the way it's been doing with the RIAA's subpoena requesting rampage.