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."
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!
Yes, I could see that. He's not red, because he's not a communist. And he's not yellow either, because he's no coward. He's not blue, because he's not sad. He's not green, because he seems to have experience. Yes, I think "maroon" could be a good word for describing him.
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.
As far as the commercial web services part, there are certainly issue in this area that are not clear and are being raised.
The debacle last month with ExtJS proved this. They relicensed under GPLv3 and then began trying to demand money for a commercial license from everyone who used their javascript library in a commercial web site, stating that you cannot use their library in your website under the GPL unless you open source all of the code used to generate your website (html, css, js, and any server side code like PHP, Ruby, or Python).
Many people contacted the FSF over this issue, and the response was pretty much "we don't know the answer to that, the courts haven't decided it, and it would have to be decided on a case by case basis".
In my opinion it is 100% possible that a GPLv3 project will be able to get a court to rule that if you use open source software to power a web site then all of the source code that generates that web site must be open sourced. Again the FSF has NO ANSWER to this question.
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
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.
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
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.
The debacle last month with ExtJS proved this.
ExtJS is a case where people want the developer mindshare of open-source development without actually releasing their code as open-source. They are trying trick after trick to avoid the implications of open-source development. Right now it's a weird interpretation of the GPLv3. Before that it was "we are releasing under the terms of the LGPL, but you aren't allowed to redistribute as LGPL because we aren't offering it as LGPL, just under the terms of the LGPL". Before that it was another trick. This doesn't mean the licenses in question aren't any good, it means they aren't acting in good faith.
Again the FSF has NO ANSWER to this question.
Of course the FSF has no answer to this question. Courts are the final authority when it comes to licenses. The same was true of previous incarnations of the GPL as well. The same is true of every other license. Until there is case law, it's all speculation.
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?
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.
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.
I disagree. I think this "maroon" isn't really telling people that "Open Source under GPLv3 is Bad" so much as he is telling people "Open Source doesn't mean what you think it means."
This is very evident in his opening paragraph: "Two recent events should give for-profit companies new reasons to re-evaluate the ways in which they use open source software as well as the extent to which they use it."
This is a "heads-up" to let people know that they need to be more careful with how they use other peoples' work. The GPLv3 doesn't change the fact that they should have been more careful before, but it does make abuse more risky. I think this is what Mr. Walsh is trying to point out.
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 ExtJS example is somewhat special because since it is javascript you clearly distribute their software. That's not the case for your database software, or the software you use to generate your HTML pages. However, even if using ExtJS required that you distributed your code under the GPL that's only problematic if you actually distribute the software that runs your web site.
Basically this sort of thing is pretty old hat in the Free Software community. Lots of companies, including MySQL AB and TrollTech, have proffered interpretations of the GPL that are more stringent than what the FSF has said it believes is defensible in court. The purpose of these interpretations has generally been to encourage people doing proprietary development using the vendor's tools from using the GPL version of the tool.
Personally, I don't have a problem with these tactics. If your project has grown to the point where you are concerned that you might get sued for copyright infringement, you probably can afford a commercial license. Alternatively, you can always use someone else's software.
The point is that just because someone at a Free Software vendor says you need a commercial license doesn't necessarily make it true. It's in their best interest to stretch what the GPL requires. Don't expect the FSF to contradict what the commercial Free Software vendors say either. After all, the folks at the FSF would *love* to wake up and find that a court had ruled in ExtJS's favor. That would give the GPL even more power than it currently has, and it would further their goal of making Free Software ubiquitous.
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
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
The cumulative number of errors of fact plus the lack of clarity in the meaning of his main points make this a highly incendiary and misleading article. As little as I may like GPL3 for other reasons, he paints a herring quite red several times over. The cases he points to are much simpler than he'd make them sound. I found this article insulting on several levels. I hope I do not to have to educate too many readers mislead by it in the future.
The article is very FUDdy in nature. For example: Well, clearly not. A reading of the GPL will generally show that the 'output' of a program isn't covered by the license unless, say, the output of that program reproduces part of itself or another GPLed work, for example. Complete FUD. FUD, FUD, FUD. The GPL's patent provisions only pertain to patents (whether currently existing, or existing in the future) that directly affect the particular software package conveyed. IOW, if Microsoft distributes the latest version of Samba, then it cannot subsequently sue the Samba developers or any recipients of the Samba code for patent infringement related to Samba.
My blog
Rather than "for profit companies", he most likely should have said "for profit software companies who want to use GPL'ed software as part of their software offering". The company that I work for is "for profit". It uses software, but does not develop it for sale or redistribution. So the fact that some of the software we use is GPL'ed is irrelevant.
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.
Of course, when he says "software" he really means "users," and when he says "users" he really means "developers," and that inaccuracy of terminology doesn't help him make his point clearly.
Of course, half the people talking about this issue make a similar mistake; there'd be a heck of a lot less argument about this sort of thing (as well as ancillary issues, such as why it doesn't make sense to argue that either the GPL or BSD license is "more free" than the other) if English didn't make it so hard to be precise.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz