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.
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!
society Foo is NOT free. it significantly restricts the actions of MURDERERS, RAPISTS and CHILD MOLESTERS. thus it is clearly not free. laws are not nothing more than anti freedom licensing, and has significantly diminished all our freedoms. society Bar is a truly free place. it allows anyone to beat anyone else over the head with a cast iron pipe for no reason other than they enjoy doing it. laws that stop people doing what they enjoy is a huge step backwards, IMHO.
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
Are you really that fucked up to compare commercial activity with child molestation ?
...
GPL is NOT a fucking free license, you know and I know it and most of all, RMS knows it .
BSD is the license if someone is looking for true freedom.
Stop corrupting the true meaning of freedom with your activist orwelian definition of such
The article provides a nice explanation. Free is Freedom , but not for users (or second party developers), but for Software. The software is free to be developed without restrictions.
The article also explains the so called anti-corporate stance. The article says that it restricts the ability of companies to provide differentiated solutions, which is correct. As long as the differentiation exists only in software and the hardware is non-unique (even if DRM locked down), GPL will level the playing field. The differentiation has to be in the product, which I think is acceptable and promotes innovation.
BSD is a free license in the sense that its users are free to do what they want, but restricts the freedom of the software to be developed without restrictions.
http://slashdot.org/submission/1062723/Cheap-mobile-data-plan?art_pos=2
Version 3 of the GPL merely adds a few requirements to those of previous versions in order for someone to *distribute* the licensed work. There's no change at all for users. It continues to protect the 4 freedoms, so is clearly a free software license.
Not only that, he goes on to basically color all open source software as GPL3 software later in the article. There is lots of BSD and other licensed software out there basically free for companies to take and use as they wish as long as they abide by simple rules like keeping the attribution.
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!
Sometimes to protect the freedom of something, you must restrict the freedom of something else. At least that's the argument I've heard.
~ I am logged on, therefore I am.
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
Did you? Then how do you justify writing
? When you do RTFA, note the 6th and 7th paragraphs, from which I quote:
Clueless post, more like.
Do I disagree or agree with the article? Doesn't matter. Though I really do like the closing paragraph:
I'm here EdgeKeep Inc.
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.
If I release code under BSD, that code is always under BSD. If someone else releases a new product based on my code, they have to admit it -- but they can keep their code to themselves if they so wish.
... not that I'm biased or anything (checks name again)... nope, not biased at all...
I haven't lost anything, because no one took MY code and told me I couldn't use it anymore. Likewise, I didn't *TAKE AWAY* their ability to do what they wanted with THEIR WORK.
No freedom is lost under BSD.
Under GPL, if someone uses my code to do something else, then their code effectively becomes my code as well, and they have to play by my rules. Therefore, I am restricting their ability to access control over their own time and creative works. I have effectively limited the other developer.
"End users" by the definition probably don't give a crap if they can see the code. If they did anything with it, they'd be developers. I don't see how end users lose out either way -- license arguments really only affect other developers.
Mod parent DOWN. The author is highlighting the fact that GPLv3 is largely incompatible with proprietary software. Furthermore, he offers a prudent warning on patent use with regards to the legal landscape. Regardless of what you think you know the GPLv3 says, nobody knows for sure until a court rules on it. Judges are lawyers. Lawyers are asked all the time "what do you think a judge will say". Lawyers use the same criteria judges do to render an opinion. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong, most of the time the question is never tested. The article is NOT FUD. It is a qualified attempt to quantify risks.
Horsepuckey. OSS is all about protecting and creating wealth and making gobs of money.
I spent 2 years building an embedded panel. We could have bought some proprietary software and gone on from there. Instead we used linux, elinks, and some open source libs. We also used open hardware, and even sponsored the development of additional hardware. All of that allowed us to bring a full-fledged completely industry standard control panel that's ethernet enabled, has an industry standard web server built in, is easily field modifiable, and, best of all, has no license fees. Our competition uses proprietary technology. They have a 300 baud serial connection. We have wifi, 100 mbit ethernet, and web connectivity - all for about the same investment up front, with about the same hardware costs, and we pay no royalties.
Who has the market advantage?
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.
I think you need a lesson in supply and demand.
you write the software once and can sell a billion copies with no overhead costs to you. Do you think dell or apple can sell a million computers without buying a million computer cases? if everyone was a millionare how much would a loaf of bread cost?
Software by it's very nature means unlimited supply of the product thus making it worthless. Novell, IBM, Red Hat, etc are making Billions by not selling software, but by selling the service, and customization of said software for particular needs.
Software doesn't follow standard economic rules of supply and demand. Stop trying to pretend that it does.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
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.
Tell that to frustrated Tivo users. Don't like GPL3 software? Use software with a BSD license. But getting the code and locking it in so that users can't modify THEIR software inside your box, isn't what we could consider "freedom".
You're still thinking commercially. ALL software should be free. The only reason why companies use "secret" software is so that they can implement their proprietary extensions and charge for them.
You know, like the iPhone.
It seems the lawyer gets some of it, GPLed software truly is free software.
As far as BSD vs GPL, they are both open source licenses for free software but they both have their restrictions. If you don't consider GPLed software to be free software then BSD licensed software is not free either as there are still restrictions, i.e. you cannot remove copyrights from the code and claim it to be your own.
The BSD license is more acceptable to businesses who see open source as a resource to be harvested but never invested in. The GPL is not and is designed to keep the software free. Does this mean the GPL in any of its forms is "anti corporate licensing"? Absolutely not, it simply enforces the give and take nature of open source, it in no way stops corporations from using the software to enhance their business as long as they are not in the business of leeching free software and attempting to create false monopolies and false supply limitations with the same software.
Really I find the entire anti-GPL fray to be an outlandish waste of time and effort, the GPL is not forced on anyone, if you don't like the license then stop coveting the code, pay the cost and develop your own stinking code.
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
the GPL 3 license is NOT free software. It significantly restricts CERTAIN people from using it, thus is clearly NOT FREE.
It doesn't restrict anyone from USING it.
It prevents 'other people' from RESTRICTING you from using it. If YOU are those 'other people', it prevents you from preventing other people from using it.
BSD is truly free license
Yeah it is, if you are lucky enough to get something BSD licensed. No guarantee that's going to happen even if all the projects it was based on were BSD, it might be all locked up proprietary when you obtain a derivative software.
People who write GPL software want the end users to be able to modify and redistribute the software. That's freedom. And the GPL ensures that goal is met.
What freedom do you get with the 'truly free' BSD? You get the 'freedom' to restrict people further down the line so that they can't modify or redistribute the software. Ever wonder what people 'down the line' think of this truly free BSD software? Oh wait... they didn't get any. By the time the software got to them it wasn't BSD anymore, it wasn't free anymore.
I don't think your rant really applies; companies aren't all murders, rapists and child molesters. I would go so far as to say most haven't done any of those things. The GPL isn't functioning as a punishment for violating some law.
As a developer, if I want to use GPLv3 code, I'm restricted, right off the bat, whehter or not I have actually done any "harm" to GPL'ed software. Also, you can look at the GPLv3 as a tool to restrict those that did adhere to the terms of v2, but in ways the writers of v2 hadn't considered or made clear in v2. Essentially, it looks like they threw a hissy fit, even though v2 was being followed to the letter, because someone else didn't do exactly what the FSF wanted (but didn't encode into the license).
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."
And it seems that often they can't even be bothered with those simple rules.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
"The author is highlighting the fact that GPLv3 is largely incompatible with proprietary software."
Not really - most of the text seems to be claiming that it's incompatible with commercial use, which is the opposite of most peoples' interpretation.
(this is achieved in the article by suggesting that commercial anything requires placing restrictions on other peoples' software)
There are plenty of clues that this article differs substantially from the plain language of the GPL, for example suggestions that you could be sued for merely using the software (what does freedom 0 say again?)
Users want to develop on the code aswell. Users can be companies, experienced software developers and even regular old Joe, who just wants to have an annoying bug fixed in his favorite software package. The nonexistent distinction between users and developers is exactly the reason why BSD is less free than GPL.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
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
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.
Not only that, but he used the settlements of lawsuits from GPLv2 code to demonstrate what GPLv3 is doing to businesses. He also went on to imply that provisions of the Affero GPL were provisions of the GPL itself. Nothing in this article could be described as informed.
It was basically "I heard some things about the new GPL, and that there were some lawsuits about open-source code, so I'm going to write a definitive article explaining all the nuances and traps that businesses should be afraid of."
http://www.mhall119.com
How the hell did you get modded insightful? Laws are not the exclusive province of those that would restrict freedom. The jailing of a murderer GRANTS freedom to the entire non-murdering portion of the population by GRANTING them the freedom to walk in public without fear of getting killed.
Women are free to walk at night because the jailing of the rapist GRANTS that freedom. Society BAR is the society only a maroon (nods to previous genius) would support.
load "$",8,1
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.
You can use GPL code however you want, it explicitly states it is not a usage license. What you can't do is distribute GPL code in a manner that gives those who receive it less freedom that it gave you.
BSD gives you the right to give, GPL gives you the right to receiving.
http://www.mhall119.com
They don't care until $APPLICATION_THEY_DEPEND_ON stops being maintained or the manufacturer of $EXPENSIVE_HARDWARE_THEY_BOUGHT decides it needs more money so the people that bought its hardware should better move on and buy a new $EXPENSIVE_HARDWARE_THEY_BOUGHT and, to `motivate' them, stops releasing drivers...
End users do not care about licenses in the same way as people being subjected to experimental drugs unwillingly do not care: they do not know they care.
I thought the aspect relating GPL_3 and web page design bares some attention so. I can see scenarios where use of software using the GPL_3 becomes actually impossible; if I have implemented closed source software for part of my site it might become impossible for me to use open source on others because I either don't have source code to give or am contractually obligated to keep it secret.
As far as "we have to wait and see what the courts will say" the article is actually informative.
I'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
http://www.mhall119.com
Since I've been modded "troll" already, and since you've taken at least a civil enough tone, I'll try to clarify what I mean.
Free is Freedom, except for people with whom the FSF and RMS disagree with on whatever principle they're trying to stand on. Much of the additions to the GPL from v2 to v3 have to do with issues arising from how certain people USED GPLv2 software. The likes of RMS have political ax to grind, and it shows up in the GPL3.
If I recall correctly certain parts of the GPL were written expressly to privide a certain "lockout" (ie prevent hacking) of a particular device. While the code was provide under GPL v2 for all the GPL2 software, someone didn't like that they couldn't hack it up like they wanted.
This isn't about "free" code (it was available) it was more about how someone figured out a way to keep control over the free code in the device they were selling.
If you want code open, then let it be open. If you want to control how or who uses your code, then don't make it free. At least be intellectually honest about it. The result of GPL3 is exactly the same as a EULA that restricts who and how software is run.
In this case, RMS is wrong. If RMS was truly about "Free" as in "freedom" he would have chosen BSD style license, which has even less restrictions. I even go further and will predict to you that GPL4 will be even more restrictive as people figure out ways around the restrictions of GPL3 that RMS doesn't like. Care to make a wager?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
"BSD is the license if someone is looking for true freedom."
No, it forces me to attribute the work to original author, thus not free - and you know it.
The lack of that subtle distinction, in the written work of a reputed expert in IP issues is fishy and suspicious.
entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
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.
The GPLv3 doesn't require you to make source code available for web services. The related Affero GPL versions 2 and 3 do, however, since some web developers thought this was a loophole in the GPL. RMS didn't seem to think it was, but instead the FSF reviewed the Affero license and authorized its use of the name GPL as well.
The Affero GPL is fairly uncommon as far as I know, but as long as you keep to the GPL and away from the Affero GPL, you should be fine.
My reasoning is that, well, everybody has the right to choose the license for their own work-- even if it means restricting it. I am not one of those people that believes that everybody should be forced to release their code as Open Source. I would never require that, because some people don't want to do that. I've seen the moral objectivist (which I am not, but bear with me) argument of 'power' versus 'right', and I think forcing people to release their work is a power. It is not a power, in my eyes, to do whatever you want with your own work, that's your right. I've seen it argued the other way, and the other way simply baffles me.
So then, why would I let somebody close up my work? Well, the answer is that anybody who uses my work in the creation of a new work, and licenses that work differently, isn't really affecting my work at all. My work is still open source, still available. What that means is that the only thing which they are really restricting, or changing the restrictions of, is their own work-- the changes to my work-- which can't be gotten by alternative means. So, in my eyes, me letting them close the source up if they wish is exactly the same as me letting them close the source of their own original work. Anybody who thinks that they don't have the latter right, wouldn't believe they have the former, and as far as I can see, anybody who thought they didn't have the former right would think they didn't have the latter.
-Devin Jeanpierre
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.
They mean free as in freedom, not price. Some of this software costs a lot of real money to develop.
If you think "free software" cannot pay salaries, look again: there are lots of programmers paid to work on free software full time right now.
They aren't the majority, but there are quite a few.
Something changed in GPL3, where code becomes almost secondary to how the code is used. It no longer cares about the code, or changes to it. It cares more about who, how, and what it is being used for.
No matter if you agree with the changes or not, you have to admit that the changes have nothing to do with improving the code, because GPL2 already handled this perfectly fine.
The changes have nothing to do with improving the code, which makes the changes philosophical, and restrictive.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Charge for support or for some other service.
No one is pissed about any USE of GPL2 software. It's the distribution they care about. Freedom 0 is the right to use the software, and that applies no matter how you plan to use it. Distributing it in such a way that you remove Freedom 0 from other users is a different matter.
The GPLv3 is no more or less "intellectually honest" than the GPLv2 was, and the "political ax" is no different. The agenda of the GPL was, and is, to give end users the freedom to modify the software, redistribute their changed versions, and put those changed versions to effective use. The changes in the GPLv3 are there because some companies figured out a way to sneak around that last one. In this case, RMS is wrong. If RMS was truly about "Free" as in "freedom" he would have chosen BSD style license, which has even less restrictions. Maybe you should let him define what "free" means to him instead of substituting your own definition. Come on, you might as well be complaining that the BSD license takes away your "freedom" to distribute the software without a copyright notice or to use the authors' names in your advertising. I even go further and will predict to you that GPL4 will be even more restrictive as people figure out ways around the restrictions of GPL3 that RMS doesn't like. Care to make a wager? If by "RMS doesn't like" you mean "subvert the intended goals of the GPL", then I agree with your prediction. Is that supposed to be a surprise?
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
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.
If a company does not sell (or provide) any software, but rather some service that isn't easy to duplicate, programmers can get paid regardless of whether all software is free or not. Customization and integration, as well as development of internal specialty software are not likely to stop even if all software would be made free.
Honestly, I can't see why people bitch so much about which license is superior.
At least in terms of what's best for the software, and therefore for the users of the software, they present different and mutually exclusive benefits. GPL forces anyone who makes improvements to the code (and releases them) to provide source, thereby giving back to the community. BSD allows those who can't (or won't, or think they can't) release their own work to use and modify the open code. These folks might give back in the form of binary-only programs based on the original (a mixed blessing, in my opinion), or by releasing select patches to the community, while retaining whatever secrets they wish.
As for which is better for a given piece of software, you'd probably have to take circumstances into account and apply a bit of game theory. I think how much freedom you end up giving, either to the users or to the software, is more a question of math than ethics.
The only ethical dilemma I see is whether ideas can be owned, and to what extent -- and if you're applying licenses, there's at least some implicit acceptance of the idea of IP. After that, it's just up to your personal preference what you'd like to see done with your code.
The key to the GPL is that the restrictions only apply when you distribute the code or a binary to another party.
BSD is truly free license
Yeah it is, if you are lucky enough to get something BSD licensed. No guarantee that's going to happen even if all the projects it was based on were BSD, it might be all locked up proprietary when you obtain a derivative software.
Theoretically, that holds water. Code A could be licensed under BSD, adopted by a company, and released as a binary blob as Code B.
After that, there is a range of possibilities. One is that B is basically a rebranded version of A, without much noticeable improvement. In this case, end users can just grab A instead. The other end of the spectrum is that A was a half-baked mess, and the company overhauled it to produce a great product. In this case, I'd be pleased if they released B under a similarly free license, but if they did 90% of the work on the project, then it's about 90% as fair for them to be able to keep it locked up as it is for a completely in-house proprietary project.
Basically, as the amount of "stealing" increases, the company's relevance in the market decreases.
That said, I could see an argument in the middle range, where A was pretty good, and B was just a lot better, that the company has let the community do the bulk of its work, but holds control over the best-in-class product. That strikes me as somewhat unfair. On the other hand, everyone who contributed to the BSD licensed code knew that could happen, which would seem to make it fair.
Back in reality, though: Can you site an example of BSD licensed software getting gobbled up by suits, and the end users left without free options?
I guess there's OS X -- then again, I'm using FreeBSD today, and enjoying it quite thoroughly.
And this is a problem for me as the author of a GPLv3'd work how? My deal offered to you was "You can use my work as the basis for yours, but you have to let others do the same thing with yours as you did with mine.". Yes it may put a crimp in your plans to not let anyone else do that, but why as the author should I let you freely use my stuff as the basis for your product without any compensation in return? Just as with anything else, you either pay your supplier the price he wants, negotiate a different deal with him and pay according to that deal, or go without whatever the supplier was going to give you. Sure it'd be nice if the supplier just gave you stuff and never asked you to pay, but business doesn't work that way.
Is it anti-business for a businessman to demand that people pay him for what he's selling them? To say that if the customer isn't willing to pay, they don't get to walk out the door with the product anyway? I don't think so.
> "BSD is the license if someone is looking for true freedom."
>
> No, it forces me to attribute the work to original author, thus not free - and you know it.
What do you think of releasing the software into the public domain? Is that free?
I have seen lots of arguments, on Slashdot, claiming that PD reduces freedom, by letting MS use it without attribution or a requirement to contribute their changes back to the source (ignoring that everything is going into the public domain, eventually, unless Disney convinces the right people to extend copyright to eternity). I think that some people here are not so interested in freedom as in achieving their desired state, where they are free to do what they want, and restricted from doing what they did not want to do, in any case, and are not willing to accept that reasonable people can disagree where the divide should be.
RMS's defining moment was when his printer wouldn't work. The printer driver had a bug and he could not fix it because the driver's source code was not available.
This was his printer (well technically his department's) and yet he was dead in the water - there was nothing he could do to fix it. Buying another printer was not an option - the money had been spent. Sure he could try to reverse engineer and printer driver from scratch and write it correctly. But with no guarantee of success that sure sounds like a poor way to do things.
So he decided that such a situation sucks, sucks big time, and so he decided to make a difference and change the way the world works so that other people would not find themselves in such a situation.
THAT's why "build your own tivo" is not good enough for people like RMS.
That's rather irrelevant.
Without the GPL or equivalent approaches, it is impossible to do anything. With it, you have at least the possibilty of doing something. It is irrelevant whether `doing something' means `hiring the only person in the world capable of doing something' or something else.
No licencing scheme is going to magically turn everyone into people capable of doing what they want.