A Year of GPLv3

javipas writes "GPLv3 and LGPLv3 were released one year ago, on 29 June 2007. Palamida, who tracks Open Source projects, has made a study of the current situation of these licenses along with AGPLv3, which was released later, in November. The number of projects that have made the transition to these licenses has grown over the last months, and it seems than AGPLv3 has captured a great interest lately. Black Duck Software, a company that tracks Open Source projects too, has made its own study with similar results, and although GPLv3 and its variants have a good adoption rate, the interviews published on the Palamida site (Stallman, Chris Di Bona) show that the acceptance of GPLv3 has still a long way to walk."

Comments

Didn't even know it was "done"...

[bradgoodman]

I'm not "joking"..I mean - I don't recall seeing it being used in anything I've come across to-date. I'm not saying it isn't used - or maybe I haven't noticed it. I think in reality - the fact that Linux didn't use it means that certainly Linux modules didn't too - and it really got gummed up from there.

Re:Didn't even know it was "done"...

[pembo13]

I'm pretty sure Samba uses.

Re:Didn't even know it was "done"...

[Anonymous Coward]

and it really got gummed up from there.

Much like your sentence structure. Seriously, what? We have punctuation for a reason.

Re:Didn't even know it was "done"...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I don't recall seeing it being used in anything I've come across to-date.

Does Qt or OpenOffice ring a bell?

Re:Didn't even know it was "done"...

[rubycodez]

One out of three piles of words you wrote was a sentence.

Re:Didn't even know it was "done"...

[Ant P.]

I don't recall seeing it being used in anything I've come across to-date. I'm not saying it isn't used - or maybe I haven't noticed it.

Here's a few from a half-arsed package manager search in my already-installed stuff:
cp, mv, ls, tar, qt4, rsync, wget, cdparanoia, gnutls, gnupg

Re:Didn't even know it was "done"...

[jlarocco]

Uh, how about GCC and just about everything else maintained by GNU? If you're using Linux, chances are you're using a lot of GPL 3 stuff without even knowing it. Stallman isn't entirely crazy for wanting it called GNU/Linux

Re:Didn't even know it was "done"...

[XenoPhage]

Do people even look to see what license a particular piece of software is using? I know I install software all the time, and I don't bother looking at the licenses unless I'm using it for development.

Re:Didn't even know it was "done"...

[Isauq]

Stallman isn't entirely crazy for wanting it called GNU/Linux

It's highly unfortunate that very, very few people care. If he didn't want the tools to be used, one could contend that he wouldn't have opened the source. So he rewrites a lot of BSD tools, slaps his name on them, releases them for free (again), and then complains when people see that he saved them the trouble of doing the ports themselves? Sorry, IMO, it's RMS' fault that RMS is a complete wool-eyed whack-job.

Re:Didn't even know it was "done"...

[sumdumass]

What distros are shipping GPLv3 stuff by default or on purpose now? I don't think my last install has anything GPLv3. Although it is about 6-8 months old. Even the Samba is an older GPLv2 version.

Re:promotional "studies"

[A beautiful mind]

Yeah, right. I bow down before your sophisticated reasoning equating completely different kinds of things with each other. Clearly Richard Stallman, a known capitalist enterprenour made rich from GPLv2 royalties, tries to bolster GPLv3 adoption by commissioning groundless studies to deceive people.

(This post contains absolutely no sarcasm at all. Not even a very small amount. Nada. Zero. Look! Shiny!)

Anyone see much of a difference?

[Kjella]

There's two big news - the anti-tivoization and anti-patent clause. The rest are niceties like better internationalization, compatibility with other licenses etc.

Now, the anti-tivoization clause is rather weak as long as the kernel doesn't go GPLv3. It protects your work from being used in a tivo, but not creating a tivo. If the kernel went GPLv3 on the other hand, you'd have a big problem making any kind of tivo as any code running on top could be modified using a modified kernel. The scares of the "appliance PC-lookalike" seem quite overrated at this point, there's a few special appliance boxes but no big whoop. The anti-patent clause... well, I'm still waiting for anyone with serious patent claims to actually claim them. Didn't Microsoft have 200 or so? Or was that just a bunch of hot air. As long as it's nothing but hot air and FUD, it doesn't seem to change much at all.

Maybe RMS still is a visionary but I think in this case he's seen further ahead in the crystal ball than where we are. I still haven't seen any compelling cases where the GPLv3 is needed.

Re:Anyone see much of a difference?

[Timothy Brownawell]

It protects your work from being used in a tivo, but not creating a tivo. If the kernel went GPLv3 on the other hand, you'd have a big problem making any kind of tivo as

...the tivo makers would switch to using BSD, or something else with a license that doesn't infringe freedom 2 (freedom to redistribute).

Re:Anyone see much of a difference?

[Just Some Guy]

I see one big difference: the GPL is a distribution license, but the AGPL is a EULA. The best I can say for it is that it may not be enforceable.

Re:Anyone see much of a difference?

[McDutchie]

Maybe RMS still is a visionary but I think in this case he's seen further ahead in the crystal ball than where we are.

Uh, yeah. He always does. That's why he's a visionary.

Re:Anyone see much of a difference?

[gomiam]

And, of course, the non-lawyer has been lucky enough to catch that possible meaning which, by the way, seems to be much like the terms on the GPL: making the source code available through the network or on a physical medium.

Re:Anyone see much of a difference?

[Darkness404]

But EULAs usually aren't enforceable to restrict the user meaning, if the EULA says I can make no backup copies but say copyright law allowed me 2 backup copies, the company couldn't use the EULA to sue me. Now, if the EULA said you got say 120 minutes of tech support each month for this company, that is a right, not a restriction, so the company couldn't back down from that as it was a contract. So something using the AGPL has to provide source or else it is considered fraud/lying/whatever the legal term is.

Re:Anyone see much of a difference?

[Just Some Guy]

Hey, someone had to be the first.

Re:Anyone see much of a difference?

[Timothy Brownawell]

I see one big difference: the GPL is a distribution license, but the AGPL is a EULA.

No, AGPL is still purely a grant of rights that are normally reserved to the copyright holder.

The best I can say for it is that it may not be enforceable.

Very funny. Even if you somehow could get a judge to agree with that, you still haven't managed to keep your modifications to yourself.

If you really wanted to keep the source away from the users, I'd think you'd want to look into mechanisms that don't rely on making changes to the software. Something like putting it behind an apache instance with mod_rewrite to redirect the download URL to an error page, or an intelligent firewall that drops the connection when it sees the "fetch source" command, or something similar so that all of your copyright-license-required modifications very clearly follow the license.

Re:Anyone see much of a difference?

[mrchaotica]

I see one big difference: the GPL is a distribution license, but the AGPL is a EULA.

Tell that to the OpenOffice.org people -- they seem to think the GPL is an EULA too (because they include it in the installer where an EULA usually goes and force you to click "I Agree" to install).

Re:Anyone see much of a difference?

[torstenvl]

the AGPL is a EULA

[citation needed]

[EULAs] may not be enforceable

[citation needed]

Re:Anyone see much of a difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

I highly doubt that the FSF was naive enough to believe that TiVo would be forced to allow modified code on their machines by adding this clause. Even if the Linux kernel does switch to GPLv3, nothing stops TiVo from sidestepping the requirement by forking the last GPLv2 kernel and maintaining it themselves. Rather, the anti-tivoization clause is to prevent such abuses from happening in the future.

Re:Anyone see much of a difference?

[Just Some Guy]

No, AGPL is still purely a grant of rights that are normally reserved to the copyright holder.

No. The GPL is a grant of copying rights. The AGPL is a EULA in that it compels its users to behave a certain way; specifically that they have to share so-licensed code with anyone permitted to use the application. This is entirely different from the GPL.

If you have a shell server hosting a forked copy of GCC, you may keep those changes private (so long as you don't distribute the copy itself). An AGPL'ed GCC would require you to give a copy of your changes to anyone you allowed to use it. This is a new right never before enforced by the GPL family of licenses, as none have ever placed requirements on end users. The thinking is that somehow web services are magically different from every other software publishing method ever employed, and I strongly disagree.

Re:Anyone see much of a difference?

[Timothy Brownawell]

No, AGPL is still purely a grant of rights that are normally reserved to the copyright holder.

No. The GPL is a grant of copying rights. The AGPL is a EULA in that it compels its users to behave a certain way; specifically that they have to share so-licensed code with anyone permitted to use the application. This is entirely different from the GPL.

No, it says that the program must offer to let users receive the source, not that you have to offer it or assist the program in making good on its offer.

If you have a shell server hosting a forked copy of GCC, you may keep those changes private (so long as you don't distribute the copy itself). An AGPL'ed GCC would require you to give a copy of your changes to anyone you allowed to use it.

No, it would require you to not remove or break the --download-source-to=somefile.tgz option when making your changes. You don't have to do anything, the program does it on its own.

Re:Anyone see much of a difference?

[Just Some Guy]

No, it would require you to not remove or break the --download-source-to=somefile.tgz option when making your changes. You don't have to do anything, the program does it on its own.

In other words, you are required to act in a certain way even without distributing the software. That's a EULA, and sucks whether it's MS or the FSF. I love the FSF and have been a proud supporter, but they're wrong on this one.

Re:Anyone see much of a difference?

[BrentH]

If I remember correctly EULA's in commercial software that appear upon installation have been rendered illegal by some court here in the Netherland or maybe a European court. They should present the terms upon sale, not upon installation. How this compares to an EULA for a product that may not be sold, I do not know.

Re:Anyone see much of a difference?

[Kjella]

I see one big difference: the GPL is a distribution license, but the AGPL is a EULA.

No, AGPL is still purely a grant of rights that are normally reserved to the copyright holder.

It puts requirements on people that do not try to use any of the copyright holder's exclusive rights. That does make it an EULA, that the requirement is to use one of the copyright holder's exclusive rights is beside the point.

Copyright law by default:
Use: Any way you want
Copyright holder's exclusive rights: None (except fair use)

BSD/LGPL/GPL:
Use: Any way you want
Copyright holder's exclusive rights: Can distribute under some conditions

AGPL:
Use: Must in some cases provide source
Copyright holder's exclusive rights: Can/must distribute under some conditions

If you don't see the restriction compared to pure copyright law, you're trying very hard not to look.

Re:Anyone see much of a difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

wrong

Palamida has nothing to do with the FSF/GPL.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

And they feel they have to do these "studies" for marketing reasons.

Palamida is a security company. They're not the FSF, who, unlike MS do not have reams of cash to promote the GPL.

GPLv3 = IPv6 = Vista = "wfc";

Uh-huh. Uptake of the GPLv3 (as a percentage of GPLv2 instances) is far higher than Vista (compared to Windows installs) or IPV6 vs IPV4

Iditot.

Re:Palamida has nothing to do with the FSF/GPL.

[afabbro]

Iditot.

Well, you sure showed him.

Re:Palamida has nothing to do with the FSF/GPL.

[S.O.B.]

Iditot.

Well, you sure showed him.

Maybe he's calling him a baby idiot.

Re:Palamida has nothing to do with the FSF/GPL.

[Anonymous Coward]

...or IPV6 vs IPV4...

Keep in mind that MS Windows (all versions) is the main barrier holding back IPv6. Other systems support IPv6 just fine.

Re:Palamida has nothing to do with the FSF/GPL.

[speilberg0]

damn replying to remove overrated instead of funny

Re:Palamida has nothing to do with the FSF/GPL.

[Macthorpe]

From the article you linked to, the reason that IPv6 had problems on Vista is because of issues with tunnelling over IPv4 and a lack of diagnostic tools and responses - if the entire world switched to IPv6 tomorrow, Vista would be fine.

That's not to mention that the article you cite is nearly a year old - and in my office and here at home we have Vista machines running IPv4 and IPv6 with no problems at all, which would suggest that it's no longer an issue.

Re:Palamida has nothing to do with the FSF/GPL.

[Macthorpe]

They're not the FSF

Clearly. FTFA:

Ernest Park: [...] Do you have any comments on the GPLv3 site and the progress that we've been maintaining?

Richard Stallman: In general, I'm rather unhappy with Palamida, both for terminology (it generally uses the term "open source", which stands for values I disagree with), and for substance (it promotes some non-free software).

Burn.

Re:Palamida has nothing to do with the FSF/GPL.

[XenoPhage]

I respectfully disagree. There are several barriers to adopting IPv6 and MS Windows is probably one of the least important ones. More important are issues such as other consumer goods not supporting IPv6 at all, lack of general education on IPv6, and complete disinterest from major ISPs to convert their networks, at their own cost, over to IPv6.

Unfortunately, the prevalence of NAT has somewhat stemmed the immediate need to move to IPv6. Granted, NAT is somewhat cludgy, but it has proven useful. And while I would love to see a clean transition to IPv6, I doubt we'll see it happen in the next 5 years, at least in the US.

I've seen an effect

[larry bagina]

the GPL 3 convinced me to use a BSD-style license for my projects. I want to share the code, not enforce political views I disagree with.

Re:I've seen an effect

[Darkness404]

I want to share the code, not enforce political views I disagree with.

No matter how good you think the intentions you have are. If *insert corporation here* wants your code they can take it and use it to create restrictions for the user. The GPLv3 allows the user to take away those and use it on the product. Hardly enforcing political views. Basically, the GPL is to allow the most freedom for end users and make sure that the end users can trust you. If say Linus was hired by MS and decided to close down all of Linux sites, you could still get the kernel. If MS wanted to make a backdoor in the kernel code and sell it as Windows 7, you had the right to take that out despite how much MS wants your computer to be zombified into submission to the *AA.

Re:I've seen an effect

[maxume]

Please explain how preferring user freedom to ease of code (re)use is not a political view.

Perhaps the OP is more interested in seeing his code used widely than he is concerned with what exactly the end uses are.

Re:I've seen an effect

[Anonymous Coward]

The first line of the GPLv3 throws me off: the bullsh1t word "copyleft" has no place in a copyright licence. Is there a licence equivalent to the GPLv3 that excludes the political rhetoric? Other than parts of the preamble and section 3, it seems like a good licence to me. If such a licence exists, then I might use it for my own stuff. Otherwise, no.

Unfortunately, the FSF denies people the right to distribute modified copies of their licence. How consistent of them.

Re:I've seen an effect

[junglee_iitk]

Good for you. I personally have written a lot of little utilities (web-applications and other bullshit) which I released in public domain.

I never understood the whole point of BSD, ever. If you want to share the code, so much so that whether I am not using it at all or using it to earn millions is something you don't care, then why are you licensing it?

Not trolling... seriously I am asking.

Re:I've seen an effect

[Darkness404]

Please explain how preferring user freedom to ease of code (re)use is not a political view.

Tell me how preferring proprietary software is a political view. Wanting user freedom is as much of a political view as preferring proprietary software over free software. Within the user freedom comes freedom to have a more unified fork. For example, if Apple wanted to fork GPL'd software that is fine, all of Apple's patches have to be open source too, so you can add them back to the codebase.

Re:I've seen an effect

[howlingmadhowie]

if you want to share your code, you can use a bsd-style license. if you however want your code to be shared, you should use a copyleft license like the GPL.

Re:I've seen an effect

[aurasdoom]

Maybe because
no license = no right to use the code ?

Re:I've seen an effect

[AnyoneEB]

Copyleft is a technical term in the field of copyright licenses. The GPLv3 (like the GPLv2) is a copyleft license. It seems proper for them to use the term.

Re:I've seen an effect

[larry bagina]

1) The BSD license has a disclaimer of warranty, whereas public domain doesn't.

2) The intentions are clear and well recognized. With some code, it's not quite clear what license (if any) it's under, restrictions, where it's from, etc.

Re:I've seen an effect

[Chemisor]

> If you want to share the code, then why are you licensing it?

Because of the liability disclaimer. Public domain does not provide you with any liability protection in the US, and while I have not heard of anyone being sued for his public domain programs, it could happen, and I certainly don't want to be the first.

Re:I've seen an effect

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds good (like some clever little saying), but it's a false statement. With BSD, your code is shared by definition and that's the end of it... anyone can take it and do with it what they will. GPL forces everyone who modifies your code to share theirs as well. It's all about the downstream use, not the use of the actual code you produce. Theoretically, if some device uses some other distribution intact (no modifications required) they shouldn't have to distribute jack. Also, if someone makes a device even with modifications, if they give out the source but have no way to hack the system (all the code is in ROM), it doesn't do much good, either.

Re:I've seen an effect

[Chemisor]

> No matter how good you think the intentions you have are. If *insert corporation
> here* wants your code they can take it and use it to create restrictions for the user.

Well, duh! The point is that I don't care. If they take my code and put restrictions on it, I still don't care: no matter what happens, I still have my code. Anyone who wants to get my code can still get my code. What they can't get is the *insert corporation here*'s code that they added to my code, and the one very important point the GPL camp misses is that only a communist would lay claim to that code. The corporation wrote it, it's theirs. They can keep it, or sell it, or give it away. But it is immoral for me to force them to give it away. I can do what I want with my free software; I have no right to dictate others what to do with the code they write, even if it is using my code that they legally obtained from me. When I release free software, it's free software. Period. No friggin' GPL strings attached.

Re:I've seen an effect

[Timothy Brownawell]

I'd guess that the primary effect is notification of whose code it is, since the copyright notice has to be included in the code or documentation. It probably also provides better protection against someone else claiming copyright on it, since in the public domain case there is no real copyright holder to sue them and make them stop.

Re:I've seen an effect

[Your.Master]

If they prefer proprietary software *in principle* to free software, then it's equivalent (and very political). This is rare; people are more likely to prefer instances of proprietary software but be indifferent to principles, except that when they sell software they tend to prefer one or the other.

Politics politics /pltks/ Pronunciation Key - [pol-i-tiks]-- use of intrigue or strategy in obtaining any position of power or control, as in business, university, etc.

We're talking about obtaining user freedom (user power & control), vs. the freedom (power & control) to re-use code in proprietary software.

Re:I've seen an effect

[maxume]

I don't follow what you are saying. Using BSD is being agnostic to end uses, not preferring proprietary software, so I don't see how that is related.

I'm not arguing that user freedom is bad, or worse, just that it is a preference that has political overtones.

Re:I've seen an effect

[tlhIngan]

the GPL 3 convinced me to use a BSD-style license for my projects. I want to share the code, not enforce political views I disagree with.

Does the GPLv3 prevent any new projects from adopting the GPLv2 license? (With or without the "or any later version" statement).

Just like the old (GPL incompatible) BSD license was changed to the new compatible one (removing the "advertising clause"), but projects have gone ahead and used the old BSD license anyways (because they want the advertising clause, for example).

Re:I've seen an effect

[Ed Avis]

You might want to look at what happened to the Java Model Railroad Interface project. They used a permissive licence, only to find that someone else got a patent (of dubious validity, but nonetheless good enough to shake people down for money) which is claimed to cover their code, and then sued the original developers to stop distribution of the free version, while taking the code (as permitted by the licence) to sell a proprietary version themselves. You might want to choose a licence which gives you some defence against patent aggression, and GPLv3 is the latest and greatest in this respect.

But from other people's point of view, BSD licence (without the obnoxious advertising clause) is fine. They can still incorporate the code into GPLed programs if they wish, so there is no real licence fragmentation. Much better than one of the Yet Another Licences which end up fragmenting code into immiscible globs.

Re:I've seen an effect

[Jherek Carnelian]

and the one very important point the GPL camp misses is that only a communist would lay claim to that code.

That is an odd claim to make when you consider that all of the commercially successful open-source software products are GNU licensed.

Re:I've seen an effect

[setagllib]

The minimal 2-clause BSDL only staples your copyright and disclaimer to the source. That's "enough" for many developers. Some people don't even care about that, and go public. Some people want more, and go GPL or EPL or whatever.

Functionally, 2-clause BSDL is identical to MIT. The slightly more common 3-cause BSDL includes a clause which basically says "don't use the developer's name for endorsement of derivative works".

Re:I've seen an effect

[Kjella]

while I have not heard of anyone being sued for his public domain programs, it could happen, and I certainly don't want to be the first.

Which pretty much sums up all that's wrong with the crippling legal system in the US. It's the kind of "I'd walk down the sidewalk but I'm afraid a car driver might be distracted and sue me for it. I've never heard of it happen, but it could happen, and I certainly don't want to be the first." I guess it's a natural response to the environment, but looking from some distance away it seems completely crazy.

Re:I've seen an effect

[FilterMapReduce]

The previous replies to the parent post are correct, and in addition, it is doubtful whether it is legally possible to write "public domain code" at all. You automatically hold an exclusive copyright to anything you write (assuming it isn't a work for hire); in order to allow others to freely reuse your code without worrying about getting sued, you need to surrender those rights somehow. A BSD-style license is the simplest way to do that. You could accomplish the same thing by stating that you are placing it in the public domain, but that creates gray areas; the law supports licensing much more unambiguously than self-divesting of copyright. (And the license has the disclaimer of warranty and so forth.)

Re:I've seen an effect

[fsmunoz]

I understand what you're saying, but there are some points that I would like o comment; all these points are just a curiosity and they don't affect the one very important point you made: it's *your* code and *you do what you want with it*, including choosing the licence that you think better fits you. If it's a free software licence, all the better.

To the points:

-Corporation-friendly BSD vs. Communistic GPL: as someone else already said all the successful free software commercial products I remember are GPL. Asid from this you are not considering one important point: corporations vastly prefer the GPL when it's their turn to *release* the code, since they won't give a competitive advantage to their rivals by virtue of the need of sharing the changes. They *do* prefer BSD code when it's code made by others, of course.

-It's their code: people - and corporations - are free *not* tu use GPL code,or BSD code, or whatever. Just because the licence allows for vastly greater uses then proprietary software doesn't mean that the wishes of the people who chose a specific language should suddenly stop counting because the code "was just there and we needed it". Anyone who doesn't want to feel limited by the terms of the GPL is free to use something else, just like someone who doesn't want to feel limited by the BSD licence terms shouldn't use it. I mention this because I remember that recently many in the BSD community were suddenly quite vocal about the usage of their code in GPL'ed projects, and I witnessed many right in on /. drooling in ecstasy by the prospect of BSD code not being usable in GPL'ed projects.

- My software is free software: as I said, even the ISC licence has restrictions. As such, anyone who wants the supposedly better "real freedom" should just put the code in the Public Domain. Since I know no OS that promotes such a usage I guess that some liberties are better than others.

- GPLv3 criticism is generally done by those who also disliked the GPLv2: this is not directly related to your comment but it's something that crops in this kind of discussions; suddenly the GPLv3 is attacked because of stuff that was already part of the GPLv2. This reinforces the idea that *in general* the GPLv3 closes the holes that some had found in the GPLv2. I said in general because others simply dislike the new terms of the GPLv3 while agreeing with the ones in the GPLv2.

Re:I've seen an effect

[FilterMapReduce]

Functionally, 2-clause BSDL is identical to MIT. The slightly more common 3-cause BSDL includes a clause which basically says "don't use the developer's name for endorsement of derivative works".

IANAL, but I think BSD and MIT are functionally equivalent whether or not you use the third clause of BSD ("Neither the name of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission"). Using someone's name or likeness for an endorsement without their permission is prohibited anyway; the clause to that effect is the BSD license is (I've read) just an avoidance-of-doubt thing. Of course, it could conceivably help you out in a court case some day—not to mention educate people on your personality rights—so maybe it's a good idea anyway.

Re:I've seen an effect

[Anonymous Coward]

The article you linked states that "Copyleft is a play on the word copyright". When the word "copyleft" acquires an internationally-recognized legal meaning, then it will be appropriate to use in a copyright licence. As it stands, the discussion of "copyleft" in the GPLv3 is meaningless political rhetoric. Which, IMHO, has no place in a legal document.

Re:I've seen an effect

[mrchaotica]

Wow, two misconceptions packed into one sentence! Impressive!

• If (and only if) it's Public Domain then you don't need a license. That's what Public Domain means!
• In all cases, even including proprietary stuff, you already have the right to use it. It is only distributing copies of it (modified or unmodified) that you do not have the right to do. Without making a copy, copyright law never kicks in.

Re:I've seen an effect

[bug1]

"But it is immoral for me to force them to give it away."

You are putting the interests of individuals before the interests of society at large, the GPL tries to maximise freedom for all users, not specific individual users.

You may well consider it immoral to force people to give away their code, i consider it unethical to authorize other people to use your code to be used to exploit society.

Comparing copyleft and non-copyleft licences is like comparing Apples and Oranges.

Re:I've seen an effect

[samkass]

That is an odd claim to make when you consider that all of the commercially successful open-source software products are GNU licensed.

That is an odd claim to make because it's utterly untrue. The flaw in your logic stems from your assumption that, like GNU requires, all open-sourcing be an all-or-nothing deal. There is a LOT of BSD-style licensed code and libraries used within successful commercial code. My guess is far more than is GNU licensed, but there's no way of knowing since BSD doesn't shove its license down the end-user's throats.

Re:I've seen an effect

[FishWithAHammer]

They can still incorporate the code into GPLed programs if they wish

And not give it back to the BSD devs. Woo!

While they're under no obligation to do so, you'd think that the GPL-using devs who feel so strongly about giving back their code would give back to the people they built their code upon.

Re:I've seen an effect

[Timothy Brownawell]

I've heard that the BSD networking stack was very successful in commercial products. How are you defining "commercially successful", GPL/proprietary dual license like QT?

Re:I've seen an effect

[synthespian]

Corporation-friendly BSD vs. Communistic GPL: as someone else already said all the successful free software commercial products I remember are GPL.

You just forgot to mention that they either have licenses (per-seat, for example), are hardware manufacturers (ergo, the software is just a commodity), or dual-license (and therefore, are fucking hypocrites/wiseguys).

Let's keep it honest, shall we?

Re:I've seen an effect

[synthespian]

BTW, is it my impression or the number of project that have business-friendly licenses (i.e., can be incorporated in commercial products) has increased?

For instance, Google, etc.

ANyways, who the fuck wants to contribute to a project where the main developer can take your code, say "thanks very much, a-hole" and dual-license the thing while you make no money?

That's the real GPL loophole - it allows someone to get rich while you get none. It's a 0/+ interaction. The BSD license is a +/+ interaction (same rules apply to everyone, and everyone benefits).

Re:I've seen an effect

[arose]

In all cases, even including proprietary stuff, you already have the right to use it.

Unfortunately not true in all jursdictions. :-(

Re:I've seen an effect

[Anonymous Coward]

Riiight. I would be very surprised if a single lawyer outside of the FSF etc ever used the term "copyleft". The term has no technical meaning, it is basically a joke.

Re:I've seen an effect

[mrchaotica]

In what dumb-ass, backward jurisdictions do you not have the right to use stuff that you've legally obtained?

Re:I've seen an effect

[arose]

Last time I looked Latvia requires you to have written permission by the copyright holder. Basically someone bought a way to legale EULAs.

Re:I've seen an effect

[setagllib]

That's why it's often considered a legacy thing these days. But keeping in mind that licenses can be enforced in many more courts than just the USA, having more explicit protection is good even if it happens to be redundant in the USA, or even some specific states.

GPLv3 goes to the extreme of explicit protections, and I'm attracted to that concept, but it's easy to see how an excessively draconian license can be thrown out of court as unenforceable.

The fact is that GPLv2 cases have been won and the GPLv2 is being validated in court already. What remains to be seen is whether the GPLv3 will deliver on its intentions. So far it has Microsoft soiling itself, as the Novell deal is severely limited in its longevity because of the GPLv3's patent protection. With things as fundamental as GCC 4.3 being GPLv3, it's obvious it's taking a foothold.

Re:I've seen an effect

[rohan972]

There is a LOT of BSD-style licensed code and libraries used within successful commercial code.

Binary only releases by companies do not qualify as open source. BSD releases by non-commercial organisations do not qualify as commercial. The fact that some closed commercial software has code that originated in a non-commercial open source release is not relevant to the GP's point. It is not commercial open source.

Re:I've seen an effect

[msimm]

Haven't we grown tired of this kind of trolling? BSD = good. GPL = good. There are lots of licenses so that *you* can enjoy the greatest freedom of them all: you choose the license with works best for you. So get the fuck over yourself.

Re:I've seen an effect

[rohan972]

You just forgot to mention that they either have licenses (per-seat, for example), are hardware manufacturers (ergo, the software is just a commodity)

So they use a different business model than proprietary software vendors. That would seem fairly obvious by now, hardly something that needs to be brought up in every post on the subject in order to "keep it honest"

or dual-license (and therefore, are fucking hypocrites/wiseguys).

MS prefers that if you use software for free (argh! software for all, me hearties!) that you use theirs rather than their competitions so you will be accustomed to it and buy from them when you want to purchase software. People who dual license with open source make this legal for their customers instead of holding a threat against them. Oh the hypocracy! What sleazy wiseguys, providing software in a way that people want!

Re:I've seen an effect

[moro_666]

i think you missed his point.

he doesn't care about companies like *insert corporation here*

he wrote the code, he thinks it's good, he shares it. period. finito.

i do the same thing, i don't give a lama's ass about it if m$ft or any other guy comes along and "borrows" it. i don't care.

1 up for the bsd/mit license guys, i'm with you all the way.

Re:I've seen an effect

[Anonymous Coward]

So what's stopping you from licensing your work GPLv2-only? Or do you prefer the BSD license overall? Then it has nothing to do with the v3 the rest of us here are discussing...

Re:I've seen an effect

[Anonymous Coward]

First, public domain does not exist in every country.

Second, why do you have the right to use it? Because you downloaded it from the internet?

Re:I've seen an effect

[delt0r]

You are putting the interests of individuals before the interests of society at large.

I was under the impression that copyrights expires and places works in the public domain to benefit society at large. When something is in the public domain, the GPL *restrictions* don't apply.

Also anyone else is free to also "exploit" public domain works, and undercut the competition. Isn't that the point of the free market. Its still a level playing field.

If you consider it unethical to let others "exploit" your hard work then the fact that copyright expires eventually must be a serious issue. Perhaps you want to get copyright extended again?

Re:I've seen an effect

[Spit]

It's a free world brother, don't take it for granted.

Re:I've seen an effect

[Anonymous Coward]

This issue has come up a few times (most notably Linux' Atheros wifi driver), and I really don't understand why BSD fans would get so indignant about it. It's a bit hypocritical I think, to use a license that does not reflect your attitude about "code stealing".

Besides, in the case above (and I'd guess other cases as well), patches are sent upstream with a dual license.

Re:I've seen an effect

[raynet]

If you contribute to a project and don't transfer the copyrights to the main developer, she cannot dual-license the code, thus problem solved.

Re:I've seen an effect

[TheRaven64]

Really? So I imagined the people using and contributing back to Apache and other ASF projects? I imagined people like Yahoo! contributing (full time developers, no less) to FreeBSD? I imagined all of the people using and contributing to OpenSSH? I imagined the LLVM compiler infrastructure and its massive backing from the likes of Apple, Adobe, HP, and so on? I imagined Mozilla and FireFox (okay, these are tripple-licensed MPL/GPL/LGPL, so the GPL is in there somewhere)? I imagined Bind and all of the other key pieces of Internet infrastructure from the ISC?

Re:I've seen an effect

[junglee_iitk]

Hmm... you are probably right.

As I said, I write little utilities and release them in Public Domain. Thoughts about disclaimers and "liabilities" never came into my mind.

Well... will have to look into it more thoroughly.

Re:I've seen an effect

[ultranova]

If they take my code and put restrictions on it, I still don't care: no matter what happens, I still have my code. Anyone who wants to get my code can still get my code. What they can't get is the *insert corporation here*'s code that they added to my code, and the one very important point the GPL camp misses is that only a communist would lay claim to that code. The corporation wrote it, it's theirs. They can keep it, or sell it, or give it away. But it is immoral for me to force them to give it away.

GPL cannot force anyone to give anything away. How could it ? The recipient hasn't signed anything.

What GPL does is give additional rights to the recipient on certain conditions. Again, the recipient isn't forced to obey; he most certainly isn't forced to give his code away. However, if he doesn't satisfy the conditions of GPL, GPL is no longer in effect, and default copyright law takes force; and that stops you from distributing derived works.

In other words: no one is forcing you to give away your code, but the second you want to give away my code, as-is or combined with your code, I can either refuse outright or give a conditional agreement. GPL is such conditional agreement. It is no more forcing anyone to give away their code than your local food store is robbing you by refusing to give you food without payment.

Re:I've seen an effect

[TheRaven64]

I release my code under a mixture of BSD, ISC and MIT licenses. This has three advantage to me over the public domain:

• I am protected from liability, since my code comes with a disclaimer. Not very important, since big public domain projects like SQLite have never been sued.
• Putting things in the public domain is hard. Some countries have no notion of public domain and so your code can not be used there. The BSDL is valid everywhere.
• People can't (legally) remove my authorship information from BSDL code. They can do whatever they want with the code, but if they do something cool then I can point potential employers at it and say (with evidence) 'that contains some of my code,' which gives me a material benefit without costing anything to the people using my code.

Re:I've seen an effect

[TheRaven64]

It's not hypocritical. BSD folks don't expect code back from anyone except the people who go around telling everyone how important it is to make the code available.

Re:I've seen an effect

[endeavour31]

The Liability disclaimer has been gone over in detail so that has been answered. BSD licensing is the least restrictive or most "Free" license there is since you can do anything you want with the code including improving it and making it proprietary. BSD was developed mainly in academia and thus the freedom to experiment and change for any purpose was the goal. The goal was not to protect the developer's original interest in the code. If your focus is to keep any subsequent code changes open then use the GPL. If offering code for others to do nearly anything they want with it then the BSD license works fine. It really comes down to preference. Although I do not agree with RMS' view that proprietary code is evil, has no place in society and all code should be free as a human right I can understand where the GPL is necessary and desirable. An above poster stated that GPL code is the purest form of capitalism - this is nonsense. Pure capitalism holds that the businesses with the best code and the ability to protect that code from copying will be in the best position. The GPL levels the playing field for everyone since nothing is proprietary. Remember that Intellectual Property law, although outdated and surely broken, is meant to protect the competitive advantage of company innovation from copycats. Isn't everyone for having more choices rather than less? I see a healthy amount of choice for both single developer and business in the licensing field as well.

Re:I've seen an effect

[karmatic]

the GPL 3 convinced me to use a BSD-style license for my projects. I want to share the code, not enforce political views I disagree with.

I'm kind of partial to a modified MIT/BSD style license, with a clause stating that you can't use my name to endorse the product. I don't like the so-called "advertising" clause.

My goal for the open-source software I create (outside my company) is to maximize utility - freedom is a nice side effect.

Sure, someone can take my code, and make a commercial closed-source product out of it, and you would have a hard time modifying it. However, you have the freedom to get the source from me and do the exact same thing, something the GPL seems to forget.

As a guy who makes a living selling software, it seems kind of hypocritical to complain that "oh no! someone's making money with free software!"

Re:I've seen an effect

[karmatic]

If you are running around using the software I release, good for you. The license I use is a partially modified BSD license (no advertising clause).

In short, I ask that if you use my code:
- You recognize that I provide no warranties to the maximum permitted by law (some US states have different regulations regarding implied warranties, such as the implied warranties of merchantibility and fitness for a particular purpose).

- You leave the copyright notice intact. While I don't care if _you_ close-source your derivative work, I would at least like a chance for others to know where it came from - this way, they also have the freedom to obtain the source you started with, from me.

- Don't use my name to endorse your product. If you want to take my product, and make something new - great! I just don't want you running around claiming that I support, or endorse, your product.

Re:I've seen an effect

[Aphoxema]

"But it is immoral for me to force them to give it away."

Maybe you're looking at the GPL from the wrong end of the tree. Businesses aren't forced to use your code, they can write their own, as you already seem to agree.

That is exactly why it is perfectly moral to put a restriction of redistribution. Since they aren't forced to use your code, they can write their own or use someone else's. If your code is the best and they don't agree with your terms, then they can't have the best code unless they write it themselves.

The GPL isn't for your benefit, the GPL isn't for the corporate benefit. The GPL was written with the purpose for the benefit of everyone. Even if you don't care about what you get out of someone using your software, maybe you should take a moment to think about what someone else does.

Re:I've seen an effect

[stinerman]

I will jump in and preempt any discussion about copies made in memory during the course of ordinary use of the program. This has already been addressed in US copyright law.

Copies made in the course of ordinary use of the program is not infringing.

Re:I've seen an effect

[stinerman]

Well, if I buy a book, I have the right to use it in any way I see fit because it's my property, my copy of the book.

If I buy (or otherwise legally obtain) computer software, I have the right to use it because it's my property, my copy of the software.

Re:I've seen an effect

[sumdumass]

I don't remember the op stating that he preferred proprietary software. Just that he didn't mind it or more precisely "I want to share the code". Tell me how not caring about something is a political view? I mean once you got it, he has shared it.

Re:I've seen an effect

[mrchaotica]

Really? Neat! Could you cite your source for that for me?

Re:I've seen an effect

[stinerman]

17 USC 117a, to wit:

Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner

I'd say that copying a program into memory, cache, registers, etc. is an essential step in the utilization of the program.

Re:I've seen an effect

[Jherek Carnelian]

What part of "commercially successful" do you fail to understand?

The guy's point was that GPL proponents are communists.
I claimed that the only seriously money-making projects are GPL licensed.
You responded with a list of projects that receive code -- not money -- in return. That's not being commercially successful, if anything that's communism.

As for the other people claiming parts of BSD are used in routers and what-not - those are closed source projects it is the sale of routers and support for them making the money, not the sale of the source code and support contracts for it. FreeBSD and its ilk are barely hanging on, often begging for donations, unlike RedHat.

Re:I've seen an effect

[bug1]

By the time any copyright expires on any software it is highly unlikely that any hardware will exist that will run it.

Life of the author + 70 years, im a C fanboi, its been around for 30 years (one of the oldest languages currently used), but even i would be pessimistic of it lasting another 100 or so.

Re:I've seen an effect

[delt0r]

I didn't think of that. I was also thinking that even if Copyrights had more reasonable time limits, GPL and kin code would still get protected, because the latest addition was last week.....

Re:I've seen an effect

[FishWithAHammer]

Besides, in the case above (and I'd guess other cases as well), patches are sent upstream with a dual license.

Patches weren't sent upstream until someone pitched a fit about it because the guy who hacked on it under the GPL was a twat and said no. The hypocrisy remains.

I believe you mean freedom # -1

[FreeUser]

...the tivo makers would switch to using BSD, or something else with a license that doesn't infringe freedom 2 (freedom to redistribute).

The GPL doesn't inhibit freedom 2 at all, unless you wish to use it to remove freedoms 0-n from everyone else.

What you're thinking about is freedom -1: The freedom to take someone else's work for free, modify it, and put onerous restrictions on everyone further along the distribution change. Or more succinctly put: the freedom to fuck your neighbour. Which yes, the GPL v2 tries to prevent, and the GPL v3 prevents more successfully.

Re:I believe you mean freedom # -1

[Timothy Brownawell]

What you're thinking about is freedom -1: The freedom to take someone else's work for free, modify it, and put onerous restrictions on everyone further along the distribution change.

But see, that not what that section does. It restricts what hardware you may distribute the software on. The particular (mis)features of the hardware do not put "onerous restrictions" on the people buying it, they just make it somewhat less useful than it could be (but clearly still more useful than not having it at all, since people are willing to actually buy it).

Re:I believe you mean freedom # -1

[Anonymous Coward]

But doesn't freedom -1 run afoul of commandment 6?

Re:I believe you mean freedom # -1

[Egdiroh]

No Freedom -1, is the freedom to be a douche, declare that you are rebranding another's project because your parallel project effectively failed and then refuse to talk to anyone that doesn't adhere to your rebranding. And RMS executes it everyday. For some people Free software is about the software. They don't care what TiVo does with it as long as everyone get's the improvements they get to the code, or in other words they get to use the best of breed code. For others it's about using software as a trojan horse to open hardware. They intend to write such good code so that people who would normally release closed hardware will use release open hardware instead to take advantage of the good code. And of course for some it's about both and for some it's about neither. Both opinions are fine to have. But the FSF is mostly about the hardware and RMS will get up in the face of any one who just cares about the software. When really what needs to happen is the FSF needs to change their name to the FHF, openly state their mission of opening hardware, and stop creating division and confusion amoungst two groups of people that should be able to mostly get long.

Re:I believe you mean freedom # -1

[aj50]

It restricts what hardware you may distribute the software on

No it doesn't, it prevents you from creating hardware which will only run approved binaries and distributing approved free software binaries for it.

Being able to improve the software doesn't mean shit if you can't run your improved version in a useful way.

Re:I believe you mean freedom # -1

[Timothy Brownawell]

It restricts what hardware you may distribute the software on

No it doesn't, it prevents you from creating hardware which will only run approved binaries and distributing approved free software binaries for it.

"If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred..."

No, that's perfectly OK as long as the software is sold (or provided for free download) separately.

Being able to improve the software doesn't mean shit if you can't run your improved version in a useful way.

What, you expect them to have rewritten it in a device-specific assembly language or something so it can't be made to run on other hardware?

Re:I believe you mean freedom # -1

[mrchaotica]

It restricts what hardware you may distribute the software on.

This is a lie.

The truth is that you can distribute GPL 3 code on any hardware you want, even hardware that refuses to run unsigned binaries, and including the fucking TiVo! All you have to do is give the user the key so that he can sign modified binaries himself and run them.

Re:I believe you mean freedom # -1

[mrchaotica]

...it prevents you from creating hardware which will only run approved binaries and distributing approved free software binaries for it.

Not quite. You can even do that, if you also give the user the ability to "approve" binaries himself.

Re:I believe you mean freedom # -1

[Timothy Brownawell]

Putting it in bold doesn't make it so.

There is no practical difference between "you may not distribute this on hardware with misfeature X" and "you may only distribute this on hardware with misfeature X if you make make misfeature X completely ineffective".

Re:I believe you mean freedom # -1

[mrchaotica]

There is no practical difference...

But there is a technical one. And your post was, indeed, technically untrue.

Re:I believe you mean freedom # -1

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The particular (mis)features of the hardware do not put "onerous restrictions" on the people buying it,

Putting it in italics doesn't make it so.

There is no practical difference between "you may not use this software on hardware with misfeature X" and "you may only use this software on hardware without misfeature X."

It is, in fact, the very definition of onerous, even though that term itself never even appears in the GPL.

Re:I believe you mean freedom # -1

[Ant P.]

So you're implying that BSD doesn't have that freedom? That it's less free than GPL? Or are you making the statement that BSD fanboys are douchebags?

Re:I believe you mean freedom # -1

[Timothy Brownawell]

Classical mechanics is also technically untrue, but I wouldn't call it a "lie". I suppose the more precise statement would be "it restricts the effective properties that hardware it is distributed on may have".

Re:I believe you mean freedom # -1

[synthespian]

The truth is that you can distribute GPL 3 code on any hardware you want, even hardware that refuses to run unsigned binaries, and including the fucking TiVo!

What kind of argument is that? Of course "you can do what you want".
You're missing a whole lot of context here. Hello.

Re:I believe you mean freedom # -1

[WarJolt]

What you're thinking about is freedom -1: The freedom to take someone else's work for free, modify it, and put onerous restrictions on everyone further along the distribution change.

They have not put any restrictions on the code or the software. Tivo puts a restriction on the hardware. The hardware is beyond the scope of a software license agreement. You can download the code off their website.

Re:I believe you mean freedom # -1

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that you can always burn the GPL software into ROM (where the vendor cannot modify it too), your statement is a lie.

Re:I believe you mean freedom # -1

[Timothy Brownawell]

That would be a change of hardware, yes? Immutable ROM instead of flash or hard disk?

Re:I believe you mean freedom # -1

[mrchaotica]

Hello to you too!

You're missing a whole lot of context here.

Specifically, what context am I missing?

Re:I believe you mean freedom # -1

[bytesex]

Exactly. There is no need for the hardware to still work after you've compiled a change onto it. As there is no need for the software to do anything practical when you run it on a PC. 'A working Tivo' isn't your benchmark; faultless compilation and performing efficiently on certain pieces of hardware _is_. A world where all hardware refuses to run unsigned binaries would be a world without the FSF anyway.

Re:I believe you mean freedom # -1

[larry bagina]

I like the freedom to fuck my neighbor, I just wish the girl next door believed in FREE (as in no strings attached) sex.

Re:I believe you mean freedom # -1

[Quikah]

That giving the key to signing binaries defeats the entire point of requiring signed binaries.

Re:I believe you mean freedom # -1

[mrchaotica]

No, I understood that. In fact, I think that was part of my point.

The other part of my point, however, is that that is a restriction on something other than the hardware.

Re:I believe you mean freedom # -1

[Quikah]

In what world is TiVo able to distribute GPL 3 software? TiVo sells a box that requires signed binaries to run on it, GPL 3 doesn't let you do that without giving the ability to sign your own binaries. TiVo cannot do that because of DRM and various agreements with content producers. Hence TiVo cannot distribute GPL 3 software. Wether it is a restriction on the software or hardware side really doesn't matter. A TiVo box is software and hardware combined.

Re:I believe you mean freedom # -1

[mrchaotica]

TiVo cannot do that because of DRM and various agreements with content producers.

Right, so then I've successfully made my point that it is the insistence on DRM and various agreements that are the problem, not the hardware.

Wether[sic] it is a restriction on the software or hardware side really doesn't matter.

Anti-GPLv3 FUDsters, such as that "Timothy Brownawell" fellow I originally replied to, seem to think it does matter, which is why I felt the need to refute his argument.

Re:I believe you mean freedom # -1

[Quikah]

You really don't get it. Without the DRM and content agreements there is no TiVo as a business. So no, even fucking TiVo cannot ship GPL 3 software with their product.

Re:I believe you mean freedom # -1

[mrchaotica]

Without the DRM and content agreements there is no TiVo as a business.

Why not? VCR makers didn't need any DRM or content agreements; I don't see how TiVo is any different!

Re:I believe you mean freedom # -1

[Knuckles]

giving the key to signing binaries defeats the entire point of requiring signed binaries

Only for pathologically narrow definitions of "entire point": if you think the only purpose of signing binaries is to lock out the owner of the machine. In fact, however, there are other purposes too. You can sign binaries for security reasons, and then it's entirely logical that the machine owner should have the key.

Re:I believe you mean freedom # -1

[Quikah]

Because a TiVo is not a VCR.

Re:I believe you mean freedom # -1

[WarJolt]

There will always be hardware that will allow you to run unsigned binaries as there will always be hardware that will try to restrict access.

I just don't think the FHF will take off quite to same way as the FSF since hardware will always require money to manufacturer and software can be distributed for almost no cost.

Not again !

[Anonymous Coward]

On no, its bedtime in jolly old England again and I just can't nod off. I'm wearing my nightgown and cap, I've drunk my cocoa, I've tried counting sheep but nothing works. Hold on a minute, what's this

provide accurate counts and clear validation. For each of the more than 15,000 projects collected for this project from more than 500,000 reviewed, the sources were reviewed, proper license references (sound of loud snoring......) and attributions verified, and the license text, unchanged, was identified. While we used some level of automation, we felt that there were problems that required lots of hands and eyes on the problem. Among these were missing license text, no license information in source headers

Re:Not again !

[pavon]

Wow, you managed to finish typing the post and submit it while sleeping? You sir, are a truly dedicated slashotter. I salute you.

Palamida's numbers are meaningless

[ArcRiley]

It appears that their tracking of adoption rates are based solely on projects hosted on Sourceforge.

Most GNU projects are hosted on Savannah, many are hosted on GNA!, and many are self-hosted. It would be more accurate to use a service such as Ohloh to track license adoption.

I believe you'd find, when these other data sources are included, the numbers are very different.

Re:Palamida's numbers are meaningless

[Telvin_3d]

Always depends on what you are measuring. Just sticking with Sourceforge you would get reasonable numbers for tracking the shift of old projects between GPL2 and GPL3, as well as the percentage of new projects using each. If you are trying to track all OSS licences you would need a bigger sample size.

GPL sharing vs. BSD sharing

[Anonymous Coward]

I want to share the code, not enforce political views I disagree with.

OK, I can understand wanting to share code but with a BSD style license the people you're sharing your code with are under no obligation to keep sharing it. Some people think that code that is shared should stay shared otherwise the point of sharing is largely defeated. If you feel that way then a GPL license is what you need. It's not about politics - it's just about choosing a license that fits your view of what 'shared code' should mean.

Re:GPL sharing vs. BSD sharing

[Darinbob]

OK, I can understand wanting to share code but with a BSD style license the people you're sharing your code with are under no obligation to keep sharing it.

And what exactly is wrong with that? Some people want to share software with everyone, even if they are douchebags. So some company doesn't share it, but the original code is still out there. If people prefer the rebranded version and the original dies a slow death, then so what? It's not like people are writing open source for their own ego are they?

Re:GPL sharing vs. BSD sharing

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, I can understand wanting to share code but with a BSD style license the people you're sharing your code with are under no obligation to keep sharing it.

And what exactly is wrong with that?

If you had kept reading you'd have found the answer to your question in the parent post a couple lines down:

it's just about choosing a license that fits your view of what 'shared code' should mean.

Your view of what 'shared code' means isn't necessarily the same as everyone else's. That's why there are different open source licenses for people to pick from - so people can choose to make sure that the code they've shared stays shared in the way they want it to. That's OK with you, isn't it? You're not advocating that everyone use a BSD style license merely for your own ego, are you?

Re:GPL sharing vs. BSD sharing

[HyperQuantum]

It's not like people are writing open source for their own ego are they?

[citation needed]

:)

Re:GPL sharing vs. BSD sharing

[Jedi Alec]

And what exactly is wrong with that?

Absolutely nothing? That's why we have different licenses, right?

Fw: A Year of GPLv3

[meuhlavache]

AGPLv3 has captured a great interest lately

Did I read the number of projects is not as good as we hope?

Political Views

[ClientNine]

I agree. I think the outrage over Tivo is missing the point-- TIVO ISN'T HURTING ANYONE. The availability of the software has enabled the creation of an interesting consumer product, giving all of us the free choice to buy one or not.

If the GPLv3 prevents products like Tivo from appearing, then it's a Bad Thing.

People really need to realize that someone else making money doesn't harm them. This "I want everyone else to suffer" pseudo-socialism is NOT making the world a better place, just a slightly more egalitarian one.

Re:Political Views

[compro01]

If the company is sensible, it doesn't do anything of the sort. It merely states that they need to make the source available in some manner to the person who buy's the product. It in no way prohibits them from making money.

Re:Political Views

[Znork]

giving all of us the free choice to buy one or not.

And when I donate source code I donate it with the intention that any end user be allowed to modify and run it, wherever or on whatever they recieved that code from. If Tivo wants to prevent the end user from doing that they have the free choice to not use my code.

If the GPLv3 prevents products like Tivo from appearing, then it's a Bad Thing.

If Tivo's abuse of the intent of GPL prevents products _better_ than Tivo from appearing, I'd say that's a Bad Thing. And finding examples where customers would have a better product if they could load modified software on their Tivo ain't exactly hard.

People really need to realize that someone else making money doesn't harm them.

Most Free software proponents have no problem with someone else making money. They do, however, have a problem with someone else harming others.

pseudo-socialism is NOT making the world a better place, just a slightly more egalitarian one

Free software is the epitome of free market economics; it's the enforcement of absolute competition.

Considering that proprietary software builds upon state protected monopoly rights and, as is becoming quite obvious, has more in common with former soviet style state factories (you _will_ use Vista and you _will_ like it; no alternate providers here), I'd say comments about socialism are weak.

Re:Political Views

[setagllib]

The GPLv3 doesn't prevent products like Tivo from appearing, it limits the limitations they can place on users. The products will be made anyway, because the market is there for them, and as long as using GPL code is still a net win for the company, it will have to tolerate restrictions placed on itself as well. It's just economics for them - the GPL may give them some new costs but the code involved saves them a lot of costs.

Re:Political Views

[Snocone]

Free software is the epitome of free market economics; it's the enforcement of absolute competition ... proprietary software builds upon state protected monopoly rights and, as is becoming quite obvious, has more in common with former soviet style state factories (you _will_ use Vista and you _will_ like it; no alternate providers here), I'd say comments about socialism are weak.

Er, no. The GPL builds upon state protected monopoly rights as well. Otherwise, how could it be enforced?

If your license is anything other than "public domain" then you are, indeed, forcing your wishes upon others backed by the power of the State.

Source is not truly "free" unless everyone is FREE to disregard your wishes completely. Setting rules they must abide by, which the GPL does, makes it NOT free.

An accurate name for source licensed under GPL and similar licenses would be "Communal" -- or "Community" -- or perhaps "Cooperative" if you want to avoid the philosophically accurate association with "Communism". "Free", however, is not. Only public domain source does not rely on the coercive power of the State, and therefore only public domain source can be claimed with intellectual honesty to truly be "free".

Re:Political Views

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Er, no. The GPL builds upon state protected monopoly rights as well. Otherwise, how could it be enforced?

By market forces. The goal is that the market moves to the point where it will not accept a closed-source product, just as today the automobile market will not accept cars with their hoods welded shut. At that point there is no need for the GPL.

An accurate name for source licensed under GPL and similar licenses would be "Communal" -- or "Community" -- or perhaps "Cooperative" if you want to avoid the philosophically accurate association with "Communism". "Free", however, is not.

It all depends on your definition of "Free." RMS's "Free" applies to the liberty of the source code, not the liberty of the developer. RMS's "Free" means that the source can never be locked up in a proprietary prison. Your version of free seems to allow that. You are free today, GNU is free forever.

Re:Political Views

[mr_matticus]

And when I donate source code I donate it with the intention that any end user be allowed to modify and run it, wherever or on whatever they recieved that code from. If Tivo wants to prevent the end user from doing that they have the free choice to not use my code.

Your code isn't "donated"--you're still profiting from it, you're just not charging for it. End users would be able to use your code wherever and whenever they wanted. What you're really saying is that you want access to Tivo's code in exchange for giving them yours for free.

That's not intellectual freedom. That's cross-licensing. There's nothing wrong with that, but don't hide behind a bullshit philosophy and claims of "freedom". Tivo isn't preventing the end user from seeing, having, modifying, using, or pissing on your code, and your argument is just a pile of steaming dung.

If Tivo's abuse of the intent of GPL prevents products _better_ than Tivo from appearing, I'd say that's a Bad Thing.

Tivo hasn't abused anything. No one is "prevented" from doing something better than Tivo. They have access to the same starting point that Tivo had. If they really had the skill to outperform them, they wouldn't need the handicap. They'd write better code, and people would buy their product and not Tivo's.

They do, however, have a problem with someone else harming others.

Then why do they do it? GPL zealots are rabid, angry, superior assholes who give the open source movement as a whole a bad name. They're hell-bent on pushing their own greedy restrictions down the throats of everyone, while mocking other approaches, all in the name of "freedom" (where freedom is selectively defined).

Free software is the epitome of free market economics; it's the enforcement of absolute competition.

no strings attached. The GPL patently falls outside this category. They are tying the hands of would-be competitors by limiting their options. You'd have to be deluded to believe otherwise. The GPL builds on the same state-protected monopoly rights and would be utterly unenforceable without them.

Absolute competition means accepting the possibility that someone will abuse your hospitality and generosity. That is why a truly free market does not work, unless you ignore the environment, human health, and business survival.

Re:Political Views

[10101001 10101001]

Er, no. The GPL builds upon state protected monopoly rights as well. Otherwise, how could it be enforced?

You're right, but that's a narrow interpretation of intent. As much as the GPL builds upon state protect monopoly rights, it does so as a means to void* said state protected monopoly rights indefinitely for all such licensed code. Things like the public domain and various BSD-like licenses only attempt to void** state protection as far as their own distribution goes. The real end goal by some, but not all, supports of the GPL is to end state protected monopoly rights fully, thereby voiding the concept of enforcement or the need to fight towards the legal use of code from whatever code made available. Considering that such is unlikely to happen any time soon (ie, within the lifetime of most people today), the GPL is the best license so far readily avaiable to avail themselves towards that end.

*This isn't entire true, obviously. The GPL doesn't merely grant reuse/redistribution rights. It comes with it the burden of releasing source code. Obviously, if copyright didn't exist, there are many people who would refuse to release the source code, which would require disassembling binaries to reconstitute source code***. This, btw, is obviously a huge pain in the ass and many who support the GPL are unwilling to allow copyright to disappear completely because the perceived trade-off of legal reuse/redistribution rights of all code versus the actual hurdles introduced from people legally close-sourcing any or all code is too great. Obviously, this is a selfish abuse of state monopoly rights.

**While the public domain does void use of all state monopoly rights, BSD-like licenses are different. Specifically, like the GPL, BSD-like licenses rely upon redistribution rights to obtain indemnity of various kinds. In theory, something released under the public domain that did harm would put the author in legal jeopardy under which they would not be if said code where BSD licensed. Truthfully, except in malicious cases, there is de facto indemnity over public domain code--and in malicious cases, no license or lack there of is likely to help. In short, those who use BSD-like licenses are selfishly covering their ass through abuse of state monopoly rights.

***One could make a derivative of the GPLv2 that removed the source code requirement and the legal liability indemnities. If anything, I believe that this license would actually be more free than a public domain license because it exerts the most effort to usurp the infringement of the inherent right to copy with the least inclusion of other, selfish wants. Now, obviously this license could be said to be selfish on its own too, but then the desire to use one's own inherent rights can obviously be said to be selfish, but justiifable. Certainly, so long as laws are created to infringe such rights, there is no perfect solution.

PS - Yea, I realize, I'm retreading a lot what you've said. I just wanted to, selfishly, spell out the issues more thoroughly.

Re:Political Views

[Anonymous Coward]

TIVO ISN'T HURTING ANYONE.

The measure isn't about "HURTING" it's about restricting uses, and TIVO restricts uses on hardware you've bought by requiring secrets (read: signed binaries) for the software to be usable. GPLv3 doesn't prevent TIVO... here's a blog post about that:

(slashdot sig)
<GPLv2> I know my rights; I want my phone call!
<DRM> What use is a phone call... if you are unable to speak?

Over the years I've explained Open Source to many people and my favourite analogy is around doctors. People wouldn't want someone operating on them that just came up with their ideas in isolation. They wouldn't want a new operation performed on them that hadn't been in a peer-reviewed journal. They would want someone who had been taught by a community of doctors throughout their career. For critical software, being Open Source allows analysis and feedback -- it's the scientific method applied to software. The fundamental (or bare minimum) meaning of Open Source is an openness and opportunity for review and feedback in order to foster improvement.

The spirit of the Open Source license was open, but unfortunately the wording of the license had some loopholes that could be used to keep software closed. One loophole allowed people to restrict it by using software patents. Another loophole allowed people to make hardware that prohibits changes to Open Source software. The TV recording device TiVo used hardware in this way and so this loophole was called TiVoisation. TiVo sell TV recording devices at below cost and they recover the losses by enforcing (through software) a $12.95 monthly subscription. At some later date they are able to recoup their costs and start making a profit. Removing TiVoisation would mean, to TiVo, that customers could change the software and avoid the monthly subscription cost. Openness of software was a threat to their business, so naturally they valued the loophole.

When some lawyers were helping draft a new version of the open source license they wanted to remove this loophole and one lawyer, Eben Moglen, received yet another phone call from TiVo pleading with him not to remove it. TiVo then tried to bargain with him. They offered to remove DRM from the recorded video if they could keep their TiVoisation. Strangely, Moglen responded by explaining their business model to them: he said that this was the real cause of their woes.

Moglen explained that by using Open Source they were benefiting from hundreds of thousands of developer-hours worth of work. It's free software but it's supposed to be open and that conflicts with their business model. Change the business model and solve the problem. TiVo could be up-front about it and get people to sign a 12-month contract, or they could charge what the hardware is worth.

Re:Political Views

[Snocone]

RMS's "Free" means that the source can never be locked up in a proprietary prison.

Which is nonsensical. Something placed in the public domain cannot be removed from it.

What you really mean to say is

"RMS's 'Free' means that people are forced under penalty of State-enforced law to give away source they write/modify themselves".

Hard to reconcile that with any definition of "free" that the world at large would recognize.

Re:Political Views

[Snocone]

Truthfully, except in malicious cases, there is de facto indemnity over public domain code--and in malicious cases, no license or lack there of is likely to help. In short, those who use BSD-like licenses are selfishly covering their ass through abuse of state monopoly rights.

Whilst your first paragraph attempting to contort the application of force into a defense of freedom is pure sophistry -- did you help out the Bush administration with justifications for invading Iraq, perchance? -- this deserves some further exposition.

Indeed, if you release source into the public domain you should be held accountable for its use and effects through tort law. An analogy would be that if you allow public access to your private property, you have a duty to ensure a basic standard of safety to those allowed to traverse it. And every so often, indeed, you do hear of some abuse of that, like a burglar who falls through a skylight and successfully sues. But generally, the law of torts functions properly, that if you provide a public service you accept liability for its consequences. Why, indeed, should source code I release be treated any differently than the path through my woods I allow hikers?

Re:Political Views

[Anonymous Coward]

Why so angry?

If you don't like GPL licensed code then don't use it.
Nobody writing GPL code is forcing anyone to use it.
If, however, you choose to cut corners and STILL use it, then you have to abide by the GPL it is as simple as that.
You can't take a Microsoft product and do what you want with it... With Microsoft you have to give money, with the GPL you give away code...

Why all the angry words about zealots, rabid, angry superior assholes?

Nobody is stopping you from writing your own version of X or Y...
It is not like GPL coders are claiming patent-like rights on similar functionality...

Write it yourself goddamnit...stop calling people names because you can't steal their code...

Re:Political Views

[Anonymous Coward]

Source is not truly "free" unless everyone is FREE to disregard your wishes completely

No. You are conflating the freedom of the software with that of the user.

To understand what the FSF means when they talk about software freedom, it helps to anthropomorphize the software. For example, am I less free if it is illegal for me to abduct and forcibly hold you, thus depriving you of your freedom? Arguably, yes. But it's probably for the best that I not have the freedom to abduct you.

The GPL tries to ensure the freedom of the software. The freedom of the code. Your freedom, while important, is secondary to that of the code. You will probably appreciate this if you live through the singularity. ;)

Re:Political Views

[gnupun]

Why so angry?
If you don't like GPL licensed code then don't use it. Nobody writing GPL code is forcing anyone to use it

He's simply expressing displeasure about GPL folks being supposed defenders of freedom while pushing their political agenda down everyone's throat.
GPL promotes free (as in $0) software, while condemning anyone that makes an income off software as greedy and immoral. The whole license seems to be designed to prevent making profit from software. Combine outsourcing + GPL, and in less than 10 years, software will cease to exist as a real profession, paying only slightly more than burger flippers' salary. The closed source model is perfectly fine -- they demand profit in return for product, unlike open source, which encourages product for slave wages.

Just the first sentence of GPL is arrogant and deceiving:

The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works.

Umm, what freedom? You didn't create the software so you don't own it and don't have the right or the freedom to change and share it. Just as I don't own a 5-star hotel, therefore I can't change the furniture or allow my friends to share it. This is similar to the stupid argument the communists used to take over russia.

Re:Political Views

[mr_matticus]

If you don't like GPL licensed code then don't use it.

I don't have a problem with the GPL, GPL licensed code, or using and contributing as required by the GPL. That isn't the issue, and you know it.

Nobody writing GPL code is forcing anyone to use it.

That's just plain wrong. GPL zealots are the loudest, most intolerant people in the software industry. They condemn proprietary licenses entirely, and they brow-beat all the other groups advancing contrary licenses (MIT, BSD, CC). A vocal minority has turned it into a holy war, and anyone who doesn't agree with them doesn't "get" it, because the GPL is the One True Way. Enough is enough--I'm done tolerating the intolerant, superior, false crap.

You can't take a Microsoft product and do what you want with it... With Microsoft you have to give money, with the GPL you give away code

Exactly! You're trading one set of restrictions for another. The GPL isn't "free", it's just different.

stop calling people names because you can't steal their code

Ah, and there we come to another pet peeve, because many of these same outspoken zealots are the ones that ignorantly spam Slashdot in copyright threads that copyright infringement isn't stealing (it is, and when it's pointed out to them, they build up their straw men about the property crime theft--despite frequent correction that stealing is not theft and stealing is merely the act of taking something to which you are not entitled, without any need for it to be finite, tangible, or valuable).

The developer releasing under the GPL would still have their code, and full control of it. What he wouldn't have is the third party's code, but you can't steal your own code.

Finally, if the code were truly given away and truly free, there would be nothing to steal.

Re:Political Views

[holloway]

GPL promotes free (as in $0) software, while condemning anyone that makes an income off software as greedy and immoral.

Eh? I make GPL software -- when people sell it (and they do) I don't care. I just hope that I'll get more users and I'll get more contributions (and typically I do).

Umm, what freedom? You didn't create the software so you don't own it and don't have the right or the freedom to change and share it.

Well I'm giving users that right, so they wouldn't have it otherwise, and I see it as giving them confidence to use it because I can't change the rules on them.

Re:Political Views

[10101001 10101001]

Whilst your first paragraph attempting to contort the application of force into a defense of freedom is pure sophistry -- did you help out the Bush administration with justifications for invading Iraq, perchance?

Non-sequitor. Countries don't have rights. People have rights. People exercising those rights may infringe the rights of others. There is no right to forbid the copying or redistribution of a work. Such is a state created and enforced privilege. Such is why in the US Constitution the basis for copyright is granted as a power to Congres, not listed as a right under the Bill of Rights. Further, the GPL uses the state granted privilege in an attempt to partially restore inherent rights. The courts could, assumedly, state that since the intent of the state is likely to inhibit such rights, one can't use one's privilege is such a way. But, the courts don't seem inclined to infringe upon the privileges of individuals simply because the courts are unhappy with the consequences of individuals exercises those privileges; at least, they're not inclined until the legislators spells out such intent to inhibit such rights.

this deserves some further exposition.

Indeed, if you release source into the public domain you should be held accountable for its use and effects through tort law. An analogy would be that if you allow public access to your private property, you have a duty to ensure a basic standard of safety to those allowed to traverse it. And every so often, indeed, you do hear of some abuse of that, like a burglar who falls through a skylight and successfully sues. But generally, the law of torts functions properly, that if you provide a public service you accept liability for its consequences. Why, indeed, should source code I release be treated any differently than the path through my woods I allow hikers?

Yes, but now you've stumbled across the peculiarity of software in general. How many people have sued *any* software maker for defective software? While there is legal basis under tort law to sue, the face is, it's neither a common practice to sue over software in general when it comes to harm nor apparently is there enough case law to easy allow a person to win if they were to bring suit. EULAs or redistribution licenses are unlikely to shield the author from a legal perspective because, as you note, there is an assumed level of liability for allowing access to an otherwise private thing. But, de facto, the suits just haven't been filed and the risk just isn't there; at least, it isn't there yet.

PS - And obviously, this is all based upon my limited understanding of things as a non-lawyer.

Re:Political Views

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just plain wrong. GPL zealots are the loudest, most intolerant people in the software industry. They condemn proprietary licenses entirely, and they brow-beat all the other groups advancing contrary licenses (MIT, BSD, CC). A vocal minority has turned it into a holy war, and anyone who doesn't agree with them doesn't "get" it, because the GPL is the One True Way. Enough is enough--I'm done tolerating the intolerant, superior, false crap.

How loud and intolerant of you.

Ah, and there we come to another pet peeve, because many of these same outspoken zealots are the ones that ignorantly spam Slashdot in copyright threads that copyright infringement isn't stealing (it is, and when it's pointed out to them, they build up their straw men about the property crime theft--despite frequent correction that stealing is not theft and stealing is merely the act of taking something to which you are not entitled, without any need for it to be finite, tangible, or valuable).

Setting aside 'valuable' as a subjective and irrelevant red herring, let's look at taking things which are not finite or tangible. Of course, that's redundant, as anything which is tangible is necessarily finite, due to the finite size of the universe, at least that seems to be the current postulate. So, 'taking things which aren't tangible'... I have no idea what that would mean, something to do with magic and fairy dust I think. To put it simply, you can't counter the argument "Copying isn't theft, because theft refers to physical objects of property", by framing the argument in terms of stealing, or taking things, because those also refer to physical objects of property. I'm somewhat at a loss for words, because they actually more clearly spell out that they refer to physical things, how you could have thought you were advancing your cause by doing so is quite intriguing.

Re:Political Views

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Which is nonsensical. Something placed in the public domain cannot be removed from it.

Lolz! Who said ANYTHING about the public domain? Do you see the word "Free" in "public domain?"

"RMS's 'Free' means that people are forced under penalty of State-enforced law to give away source they write/modify themselves".

Hard to reconcile that with any definition of "free" that the world at large would recognize.

Rrrrright. RMS is standing there with the US army forcing people to use GPL code to begin with.
I guess your version of freedom does not include the right to choose. Eh?

Re:Political Views

[Anonymous Coward]

Source is not truly "free" unless everyone is FREE to disregard your wishes completely.

No. This makes the people free, but not the source. There is a difference which is all too often swept under the rug.

Setting rules they must abide by, which the GPL does, makes it NOT free.

No. This makes the people not free, in order to ensure the source remains free. You're either deliberately misstating things, or you do not quite understand where RMS is coming from.

Regardless of what your opinions are of the GPL, misrepresenting its goals and effects does not make you sound more convincing to an informed audience. I too prefer v2 over v3 for low-level code, exactly because I think its restrictions for accompanying hardware are overly protective. But I understand where the license (and its tivo-restriction) is coming from, and I will never try to claim that the GPL restricts the code.

You are restricted by law not to kill your neighbours. Does that make you a prisoner, or does that grant freedom (security) to your neighbours?

Re:Political Views

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is nonsensical. Something placed in the public domain cannot be removed from it.

Yes it can. It's called a "derived work", and it encapsulates both the original item and any modifications applied to it.

"RMS's 'Free' means that people are forced [...] to give away source they write/modify themselves".

Yeah right. Exactly who forces you to give away the source that you write yourself? And in the case that you modify a third-party source: you are bound by the license restrictions of the original author.

If you think it is expressly OK to take code with complete disregard for the wishes of the person who wrote it, then by all means, stick with public domain. But at the very least, acknowledge the fact that other people might have other motives or goals in mind for the things they create, and respect their wishes.

Whining that other people don't understand your world will get you nowhere.

Hard to reconcile that with any definition of "free" that the world at large would recognize.

How come? Every human being is free. Yet, you are not free to take such a human being, make him mow your lawn and trim your hedges, and then discard him after use. How is that definition of "free" any different than what is applied to source code (or its authors)?

Re:Political Views

[mr_matticus]

How loud and intolerant of you.

Precisely the point.

Of course, that's redundant, as anything which is tangible is necessarily finite

A square is a rectangle...

That which is finite is not necessarily tangible. Glad to see you really thought that one through, though.

you can't counter the argument "Copying isn't theft, because theft refers to physical objects of property", by framing the argument in terms of stealing, or taking things, because those also refer to physical objects of property

To steal is to take without authorization. You can steal an idea, a copyright, a book, a lover, a look at confidential files, or any other number of things.

Stealing is not theft, but theft is one form of stealing. Theft is a legal term of art and no more applicable than 'easement'. To rely on that argument is to fail utterly.

Copyright infringement absolutely is stealing, just as distributing GPL code without disclosing modifications is stealing. Neither is theft.

Oh, and for the sake of everyone trying to parse that mess of words: next time you try to sound like an adult, at least try to compose coherent, English sentences.

Re:Political Views

[Snocone]

If you think it is expressly OK to take code with complete disregard for the wishes of the person who wrote it, then by all means, stick with public domain.

I'm not making a moral judgment. I'm saying that ability to take with "complete disregard" is the only yardstick by which actual freedom can be judged.

But at the very least, acknowledge the fact that other people might have other motives or goals in mind for the things they create, and respect their wishes.

Ah, but the point here is that I am not "respecting" their wishes. I am forced by the power of the State to do as they say. Whether the end of that usage of force is to make me give up money in advance for the privilege, or give away my own work in turn for the privilege, or lack that privilege completely, there is no difference philosophically; in all of these cases, my conduct is determined by the power of the State. If I ignore it, they will eventually come to apply force to compel it; if I resist, they will shoot me dead, same as any other power of the State I choose to resist.

If your behaviour is compelled by law, and refusal to abide by that law and to resist the judicial consequences of ignoring it will eventually lead to you being shot dead ... then there is no freedom.

Re:Political Views

[Snocone]

But, de facto, the suits just haven't been filed and the risk just isn't there; at least, it isn't there yet.

Oh, I'd say that the important word there is indeed "yet". The ambulance-chasing crowd will clue in sooner or later, count on it.

Re:Political Views

[kz45]

"And when I donate source code I donate it with the intention that any end user be allowed to modify and run it, wherever or on whatever they recieved that code from."

The source code, including your changes, can still be downloaded for free from you or anywhere else. No rights are lost. You just don't get tivo's changes.

"Free software is the epitome of free market economics; it's the enforcement of absolute competition."

No, it's not. Free software makes it so there is no incentive for competition. Why would you bother trying to innovate if you lose all leverage once it's released?

As more and more stores start appearing in the news about "gpl violations", more companies are going to realize that it's dangerous to use any form of GPLd code. As a business owner, why would I want to even take the risk that the FSF could walk in one day and tell me I have to give away all of my work for free? I even heard that one of the requirements in a GPL lawsuit was a GNU compliance officer.

"Considering that proprietary software builds upon state protected monopoly rights and, as is becoming quite obvious, has more in common with former soviet style state factories (you _will_ use Vista and you _will_ like it; no alternate providers here), I'd say comments about socialism are weak."

This is hardly the case. If you don't like vista, don't use it. There are countless other alternatives (macOSX, hundreds of linux distributions). You can't say Microsoft is a monopoly anymore with so many other operating system choices.

Even if there were no copyright laws, you still won't have the source..and couldn't build on it.

and it's more like communism than socialism. Enforced by the FSF lawyers and US law.

Re:Political Views

[Tim C]

You are free today, GNU is free forever.

Actually, his BSD-licensed (or public domain or similar) code is free forever too. What is not guaranteed to be free is any modification that someone else makes to it, but that in no way restricts the OP's freedom to use the code he himself wrote.

Whether you consider that to be sufficiently free for your purposes is a matter for your own personal judgement of course.

Re:Political Views

[mdragan]

Freedom does not mean the absence of rules. It has different meanings, depending on the school of thought that you come from, but it doesn't mean "absence of rules" or "absence of obligations", not even to the anarchists.
More than that, there are many kinds of freedom, and freedom of software is just one of them. It is also linked to the freedom of information. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_(philosophy)
In some schools of thought freedom means: not going against the "nature" of things. Like when you refer to freedom of information. The nature of information is such that you can not contain it or block it's spreading (if you agree with Thomas Jefferson).

Re:Political Views

[Anonymous Coward]

How loud and intolerant of you.

Precisely the point.

If you go through the comments to this article, you'll find about 10 that are filled with insulting language. All 10 of these are about those who favor the GPL, claiming that they are insulting and intolerant. This irony is the actual point of this exchange, you just don't realize it.

Of course, that's redundant, as anything which is tangible is necessarily finite

A square is a rectangle...

That which is finite is not necessarily tangible. Glad to see you really thought that one through, though.

Yes, and if you proved a theorem about rectangles, and then sat down to see if that theorem were true for squares, you would be doing something... redundant. I was aware that the inclusion relation between tangible and finite objects only went one way...that's why I only proved it for that one way. I'm glad that you're glad I thought it through, though.

To steal is to take without authorization. You can steal an idea, a copyright, a book, a lover, a look at confidential files, or any other number of things.

Stealing is not theft, but theft is one form of stealing. Theft is a legal term of art and no more applicable than 'easement'. To rely on that argument is to fail utterly.

Copyright infringement absolutely is stealing, just as distributing GPL code without disclosing modifications is stealing. Neither is theft.

Oh, and for the sake of everyone trying to parse that mess of words: next time you try to sound like an adult, at least try to compose coherent, English sentences.

You've said nothing new above, which makes it, again, redundant. Your only response to people who say 'copying =/= stealing' is the laughably flawed and childishly simple rephrasement, "copying = taking = stealing' This isn't true, because copying =/= taking, but you gloss over that and spend your entire post braying over and over that taking = stealing. No shit, dude.

Re:Political Views

[Anonymous Coward]

there is to be no state in "communism".

and you seem to be using the looseness of the word "Free" to make his argument seem flawed (which you actually have yet to do). Freedom to something, and Freedom from something can be taken in many different ways. Many of which wont even seem remotely like freedom to some. I don't see any strong points in your argument. To some it up, the "FREE" you speak of doesn't exist.

Re:Political Views

[mr_matticus]

All 10 of these are about those who favor the GPL, claiming that they are insulting and intolerant.

First, that's not true, as there are posts in this very thread about how the GPL is the "free" way to do things. Second, none of the ten are about "those who favor" the GPL as a whole. Third, the braying superiority comes out in articles not about the GPL, with the clear intent of harping on others.

This irony is the actual point of this exchange, you just don't realize it.

There is no irony. My intolerance is intentional. You don't seem to be getting that.

Yes, and if you proved a theorem about rectangles, and then sat down to see if that theorem were true for squares, you would be doing something... redundant.

Finite and tangible are separate properties, and need not, for the sake of ontological models, be redundant. With regard to distinctions of interaction, the fact that all members of a class overlap with the members of a different class creates no redundancy. As to rectangles and squares, that is a consequence of geometry.

If you were to take a more obscure version of the metaphor, a biological analysis of the eggplant might not apply to a potato, though they are both members of the solanum genus.

the laughably flawed and childishly simple rephrasement, "copying = taking = stealing'

That's an odd characterization, which forces the inappropriate and legally invalid reduction of a term and the insertion of an irrelevant one. Copyright infringement == stealing. Copyright infringement != copying.

This isn't true, because copying =/= taking

I suggest you check a dictionary. Taking includes such actions as acquiring, actively coming into possession of, and assuming control of.

What's truly beautiful here is that you're defeating your own damn argument. If copying != taking, then your statement about "stealing code" is facially invalid. Of course, you're a trolling jackass, so you're probably okay with that.

Re:Political Views

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Actually, his BSD-licensed (or public domain or similar) code is free forever too. What is not guaranteed to be free is any modification that someone else makes to it, but that in no way restricts the OP's freedom to use the code he himself wrote.

You are missing the point. If his BSD code is compiled and delivered to someone else in binary form, it is locked up. The recipient has no guarantee of access to that source. The GPL is not about freedom of the developer to access his own code, its about freedom of the end-user to access the source of any compiled version which he receives.

Re:Political Views

[Snocone]

But, de facto, the suits just haven't been filed and the risk just isn't there; at least, it isn't there yet.

As a further note to this, I happen to be at the moment appropriating some Apple source code for my own project. It strikes me that if their lawyers did not agree with me that pure public domain provision would not indeed involve the same legal risks as public provision of other property does, there would be no need for these provisions.

IN NO EVENT SHALL APPLE BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE
GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION)
ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE, REPRODUCTION, MODIFICATION AND/OR
DISTRIBUTION OF THE APPLE SOFTWARE, HOWEVER CAUSED AND WHETHER UNDER THEORY OF
CONTRACT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), STRICT LIABILITY OR OTHERWISE, EVEN IF
APPLE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

So, de facto there may at this exact moment be no risk, but it surely seems that Apple lawyers recognize an extant de jure risk, yes?

Re:Political Views

[shentino]

You seem to be forgetting that the GPL is being used as a DEFENSIVE weapon here, not an OFFENSIVE weapon.

Using a sword to block a blow is defensive, and doesn't hurt anyone. Using a sword to attack is offensive, and DOES hurt.

The GPL is inclusive, and forbids exclusion. Note also, that you are not required to obey the GPL if you simply wish to use the software, or if you wish to change it for your own purposes. Unlike an EULA, you already have full rights to USE the software as you please (modulo other laws, of course).

Re:Political Views

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no irony. My intolerance is intentional. You don't seem to be getting that.

It's quite clear that it's intentional, but that doesn't mean there's no irony here.

Finite and tangible are separate properties, and need not, for the sake of ontological models, be redundant. With regard to distinctions of interaction, the fact that all members of a class overlap with the members of a different class creates no redundancy. As to rectangles and squares, that is a consequence of geometry.

If you were to take a more obscure version of the metaphor, a biological analysis of the eggplant might not apply to a potato, though they are both members of the solanum genus.

"need not, For the sake of ontological models be redundant"? Well whatever ontological models demand, they get, apparently.

Seriously though, none of your fancy language above is relevant to your original sentence, in which finite and tangible were used redundantly. sorry about that.

I'll make it more simple for you: "With regard to distinctions of interaction, the fact that all members of a class overlap with the members of a different class creates no redundancy."

No one is claiming that such a fact creates redundancy, are they, which leaves you arguing against a straw man? Here's an exercise for you, purely in terms of distinctions of interaction, define redundancy in logical argument in terms of class membership. Good luck.

That's an odd characterization, which forces the inappropriate and legally invalid reduction of a term and the insertion of an irrelevant one. Copyright infringement == stealing. Copyright infringement != copying.

Sweet, avoiding the issue by intentionally misinterpreting your opponent's abbreviations, I was waiting for you to pull that one out of the hat.

I suggest you check a dictionary. Taking includes such actions as acquiring, actively coming into possession of, and assuming control of.

What's truly beautiful here is that you're defeating your own damn argument. If copying != taking, then your statement about "stealing code" is facially invalid. Of course, you're a trolling jackass, so you're probably okay with that.

I suggest you check a dictionary for the term equivocation, before you go on about how words in the dictionary have multiple convenient definitions to use. Glad you think I'm a trolling jackass, since you are admittedly being intentionally intolerant, being thought of badly by you works out to be a compliment.

Re:Political Views

[mr_matticus]

Seriously though, none of your fancy language above is relevant to your original sentence, in which finite and tangible were used redundantly. sorry about that.

They're not redundant. Finite and tangible are separate properties. Some people make the argument that finite numbers are required--intangible entities can be finite or infinite. Others say that it requires tangibility, which is a totally different line of reasoning and completely indefensible, as stealing has long been idiomatically associated with things that are intangible. Covering the bases requires mentioning both, as the active elements of each and the flaws in the reasoning are different.

No one is claiming that such a fact creates redundancy, are they, which leaves you arguing against a straw man?

To answer your question, no.

Here's an exercise for you, purely in terms of distinctions of interaction, define redundancy in logical argument in terms of class membership. Good luck.

Redundancy requires that there be no difference in properties or their associative qualities. If one property contains a different set of members than another, it is not redundant. It may be inclusive, but if any given logical statement can be true for one class and simultaneously false for the other class, it cannot be redundant.

Sweet, avoiding the issue by intentionally misinterpreting your opponent's abbreviations, I was waiting for you to pull that one out of the hat.

Well, it's a mystery why you waited since your own statement broke that barrier. Your characterization of the process was and is flawed, and there's nothing wrong with my interpretation. There's something wrong with your construction, namely the idiotic attempt to define 'copying' as the active act, and the even more idiotic attempt to assert that copying is fundamentally different from taking. It's clear you don't understand the process at work. Coming into possession of something to which you are not authorized to have by your actions is stealing.

before you go on about how words in the dictionary have multiple convenient definitions to use.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't have any bearing on your own ridiculous self-contradiction. Your willful ignorance of the most basic definitions, or the existence of multiple definitions, does not matter. You said "steal code" and you've been arguing, quite poorly, that such a construction is impossible.

You used it! So you can accept it to maintain consistency or you can deny it and show your underlying, fundamental agreement with the statement, which makes you a hack. You're either very stupid, or trolling in yet another exercise in GPL faux superiority.

Re:Political Views

[10101001 10101001]

... Apple lawyers recognize an extant de jure risk, yes?

Again, yes. And again, that's why BSD-like licenses are selfish, for they attempt to shield the author from all possible damages, even those that arrise from the obvious fallings on the author's part (this goes back to your example of a burglar falling through a skylight). And just like the burglar example, it's probable that common law (if not actual statute) prevents such disclaimers as are found in BSD-like or Apple licenses from applying in actual cases where a person being harmed ever has a reasonable chance of winning; but, that just goes back to there being little to no tort suits over software. Of course, lawyers will write in the legalize just in case it does happen to shield them from liability.

Re:Political Views

[Anonymous Coward]

They're not redundant. Finite and tangible are separate properties. Some people make the argument that finite numbers are required--intangible entities can be finite or infinite. Others say that it requires tangibility, which is a totally different line of reasoning and completely indefensible, as stealing has long been idiomatically associated with things that are intangible. Covering the bases requires mentioning both, as the active elements of each and the flaws in the reasoning are different.

So, you are being redundant, because you are anticipating and answering redundant criticisms before they are made. That is at least sensible, although on an entirely different level, redundant.

"Others say that it requires tangibility, which is a totally different line of reasoning and completely indefensible, as stealing has long been idiomatically associated with things that are intangible."

This is circular logic. The idiomatic association of stealing with intangible concepts is exactly what is being argued against, on the grounds that it is a misleading and deceptively bad analogy, created and used with the intent of facilitating equivocation and framing the issue in emotional terms. To use the mere existence of this association as the proof that it should exist is circular, given the terms of the debate.

Here's an exercise for you, purely in terms of distinctions of interaction, define redundancy in logical argument in terms of class membership. Good luck.

Redundancy requires that there be no difference in properties or their associative qualities. If one property contains a different set of members than another, it is not redundant. It may be inclusive, but if any given logical statement can be true for one class and simultaneously false for the other class, it cannot be redundant.

Under this definition, if we go back to the rectangles and squares example, the statement "all parellelogram rhombuses with at least 2 right angles are squares, and they are also rectangles" is not redundant. But, clearly, this statement is redundant, in the same way that your statement was. I don't really have any interest in this particular facet of our exchange, you've given the reason that you were redundant, which made some sense, and it is boring.

Well, it's a mystery why you waited since your own statement broke that barrier. Your characterization of the process was and is flawed, and there's nothing wrong with my interpretation. There's something wrong with your construction, namely the idiotic attempt to define 'copying' as the active act, and the even more idiotic attempt to assert that copying is fundamentally different from taking. It's clear you don't understand the process at work. Coming into possession of something to which you are not authorized to have by your actions is stealing.

Here's the thing. If you want to call that stealing, that's fine. All that is required for clear logical debate of the subject is that the same word not be used for unauthorized copying, and unauthorized physical dispossession of property. If you agree to stop calling the latter stealing, than you can have the word stealing for the former. The problem with such agreements is that we would then be using english incomprehensible to those not familiar with our redefinitions. That is why it's just easier for us to agree to call physical theft stealing, and unauthorized copying, unauthorized copying. If you really want to express the relationship between unauthorized copying and unauthorized physical taking by grouping them under a common definition, I believe it to be incumbent upon you to come up with a new word, to use a word like "stealing" which for hundreds of years had only the latter definition is a low rhetorical device reeking with intellectual dishonesty.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't have any bearing on your own ridiculous self-contradiction. Your will

Re:Political Views

[mr_matticus]

All that is required for clear logical debate of the subject is that the same word not be used for unauthorized copying, and unauthorized physical dispossession of property. If you agree to stop calling the latter stealing, than you can have the word stealing for the former.

It is not a matter of agreement. Stealing is a simple and broad concept, and has been for centuries. It is legally and factually distinct from theft, infringement, fraud, misappropriation and a number of other mechanisms.

The same word can easily be used. Under no possible functioning model of the English language can 'stealing' be deemed an inappropriate term, except to advance a political agenda. In order for 'stealing' to be inapplicable, there would have to be no possible definition it fits. This is demonstrably false.

That is why it's just easier for us to agree to call physical theft stealing, and unauthorized copying, unauthorized copying.

No, it's easiest to call theft theft and stealing stealing. They are not the same and are not interchangeable in all circumstances, and this is a critical point and the nature of the argument.

Saying that copyright infringement isn't stealing is both false and a strawman. It is stealing. It is not theft.

I believe it to be incumbent upon you to come up with a new word, to use a word like "stealing" which for hundreds of years had only the latter definition is a low rhetorical device reeking with intellectual dishonesty.

I'd agree, if that were the case. The verb 'to steal' has for centuries referred to far more than physical dispossession. It is only in the past decade that the movement against it has started, with the ignorant and misguided notion that they're combating its association with 'theft'. This is particularly evident in discussion on Slashdot, which attempt (rather poorly) to use legal interpretation without realizing their step one error: stealing is not theft at law.

The law has already addressed the discrepancy in terms of art as to the physical vs. intellectual dispossession. At no point does this have any bearing on the word 'stealing', which is a lay term referring to the unauthorized acquisition of something to which one is not entitled, be it information, a kiss, a document, or a stack of lumber.

To claim that because I paraphrased one of your statements in order to show that is was an equivocation, means that I have to accept it as true or be inconsistent, is ridiculous

You are as confused as your prose. You paraphrased, poorly and inaccurately, a reduction to "copying = taking = stealing". This is entirely inaccurate, because it attempts to insert a precursor step of no relevance. This has already been debunked.

The part about accepting the definition to be true comes from your use of the following: "stop calling people names because you can't steal their code".

If your "logical clarity" actually meant anything, you'd see that you've just spent several days arguing against your own construction.

You see, developers ignoring GPL requirements are stealing code, just as downloaders who pirate media are stealing. You need to turn your quest for clarity on yourself. There's no inconsistency on my side.

Re:Political Views

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not a matter of agreement. Stealing is a simple and broad concept, and has been for centuries. It is legally and factually distinct from theft, infringement, fraud, misappropriation and a number of other mechanisms.

The same word can easily be used. Under no possible functioning model of the English language can 'stealing' be deemed an inappropriate term, except to advance a political agenda. In order for 'stealing' to be inapplicable, there would have to be no possible definition it fits. This is demonstrably false.

"In order for 'stealing' to be inapplicable, there would have to be no possible definition it fits."

Why? In response to my clearly stated arguments putting forth how operator overloading by allowing multiple definitions leads to conscious and unconscious equivocation, you have responded by simply advocating the opposite, without supporting your argument whatsoever, except through reiterating your tired and inaccurate summation of historical word usage. Even though I'm not all that impressed by historical word usage analyses, when digitization clearly demands a new language capable of dealing with its differences, I'm willing to put that aside and actually look at copyright versus theft 200 years ago. I submit that 200 years ago, copying someone else's words or music would be most accurately described as plagariasm or copyright violation. You have claimed that "Under no possible functioning model of the English language can 'stealing' be deemed an inappropriate term, except to advance a political agenda." How is my model, which argues that copyright violation and plagiarism are/were more appropriate terms, nonfunctioning? Are you some kind of expert on copyright law of 200 years ago, or are you just speaking out of your ass?

No, it's easiest to call theft theft and stealing stealing. They are not the same and are not interchangeable in all circumstances, and this is a critical point and the nature of the argument.

Saying that copyright infringement isn't stealing is both false and a strawman. It is stealing. It is not theft.

Argument by assertion?

...The law has already addressed the discrepancy in terms of art as to the physical vs. intellectual dispossession. At no point does this have any bearing on the word 'stealing', which is a lay term referring to the unauthorized acquisition of something to which one is not entitled, be it information, a kiss, a document, or a stack of lumber.

If you want to reserve "stealing" as a lay term with multiple meanings, therefore loading it with emotional overtones and rendering it unsuitable for strictly logical discussions, then that's fine with me. I'll then object to you using it here as intolerant emotionally-laden rhetoric, which you have stated is your goal, and this discussion will be over--right? I don't understand why you are so bent on extending this discussion unnecessarily by intentionally misunderstanding my points, it's pretty simple.

You are as confused as your prose. You paraphrased, poorly and inaccurately, a reduction to "copying = taking = stealing". This is entirely inaccurate, because it attempts to insert a precursor step of no relevance.

I already stated that this was grossly abbreviated, you are quite bent on wasting time here.

The part about accepting the definition to be true comes from your use of the following: "stop calling people names because you can't steal their code".

If your "logical clarity" actually meant anything, you'd see that you've just spent several days arguing against your own construction.

You see, developers ignoring GPL requirements are stealing code, just as downloaders who pirate media are stealing. You need to turn your quest for clarity on yourself. There's no inconsistency on my side.

aha, I see the source of the confusion-- there'

Re:Political Views

[mr_matticus]

I submit that 200 years ago, copying someone else's words or music would be most accurately described as plagariasm or copyright violation.

I suggest you consult an unabridged OED, then. "Copyright infringement" in the modern sense is a term approximately one century old. The act of stealing by the false assumption of a right to print has been referred to as "stealing" for at least four centuries. 200 years ago, "copying" was not a concern--misappropriation of ideas, instead, was--something very much known as stealing.

How is my model, which argues that copyright violation and plagiarism are/were more appropriate terms, nonfunctioning?

Because it conflates the means with the ends. They are more specific terms, not more appropriate. Your statement contains the implicit assumption that "stealing" is a specific term of art, and it is not.

Are you some kind of expert on copyright law of 200 years ago, or are you just speaking out of your ass?

As a matter of fact, I am. What would you like to know? Would it interest you to know that another word that ruffles the feathers of some Slashdotters--piracy--has been used to describe intellectual property infringement for 150 years?

If you want to reserve "stealing" as a lay term with multiple meanings, therefore loading it with emotional overtones and rendering it unsuitable for strictly logical discussions, then that's fine with me.

Your prose makes no sense. Stealing is a lay term.

p.s. theft is a lay term as well as a term of art, and though I know litle about the law,

No, it's not, and yes, your knowledge of the law is poor. To wit, if I asked you to define 'term of art', I don't believe you could do so. As a matter of fact, the very quote you selected demonstrates this: "the courts interpreting those words have declared that they do not have a necessary common law meaning coterminous with larceny and exclusive of other theft crimes." In other words, 'stealing' is not larceny or even theft, but a broader concept.

I don't understand why you are so bent on extending this discussion unnecessarily by intentionally misunderstanding my points, it's pretty simple.

It is simple. Stealing is a lay term, covering any form or iteration of unauthorized acquisition. It has never been associated strictly with the dispossession of physical items, either at law or idiomatically. No one is intentionally misunderstanding your points--you're just making bad ones.

I would prefer merely to ask you a hypothetical question: if it were clear to you that from a practical standpoint, copyright law were to inevitably be doomed to be either revoked or massively weakened in the near future, would you then feel it more accurate to stop using the term stealing to refer to copyright infringement?

No. Taking something without permission, regardless of the means, is stealing.

Or would you persist in using such black and white, loaded terminology to describe a situation that had become quite gray,until the laws had actually been revoked?

It is you who persists in claiming the term is loaded. It is not, nor is it grey. If it is not yours to have, and you take it, you've stolen it, even if you've committed no crime in the process.

The imputation of legal or moral blame is of no concern to me. The rationalization and equivocation that people here undertake to bend out of that reality is the truly amazing part. Weak attempts to dispossess emotion from mere words belies a conscious effort to avoid that association. It is a simple inquiry: do you have permission to have it? If not, did you move from a state of not having it to a state of having it? If so, you've stolen it. Whether or not you believe it was wrong to steal is not the issue.

How does a derivative work hurt me?

[ClientNine]

...freedom -1: The freedom to take someone else's work for free, modify it, and put onerous restrictions on everyone further along the distribution change. Or more succinctly put: the freedom to fuck your neighbour. Which yes, the GPL v2 tries to prevent, and the GPL v3 prevents more successfully.

How is this "fucking your neighbor"? So we write some code, and now a cool new consumer product appears somewhere that I can buy (or not) if I want. I have one more option in my life, which means I am slightly better off than I was before and it COST ME NOTHING.

This is what free software is all about. It's not about trying to stop people from making money, it's about making cool stuff available so that people can have better lives.

Re:How does a derivative work hurt me?

[novakyu]

This is what free software is all about. It's not about trying to stop people from making money, it's about making cool stuff available so that people can have better lives.

Er, you couldn't be more wrong. FREE software is about FREEDOM. Having the "cool stuff" may be a frequent by-product of free software, but that is definitely not a main goal---on the other hand, if you are talking "open source", yes, they try to emphasize that aspect of free software so that the businesses will be more receptive of free software, but free software proper is all about freedom.

And whether to stop tivoization or not really comes down to: Should you have the freedom to restrict other people's freedom?

If your answer is "yes" to that, I hope you don't reproduce.

P.S. And, of course, free software does respect people's right to pursue happiness and makes no exclusion of commercialization of free software---as long as it does not infringe on others' freedom.

Re:How does a derivative work hurt me?

[skulgnome]

Just go read the GPL FAQ, you double nigger.

Re:How does a derivative work hurt me?

[Repossessed]

Because by locking down the device, Tivo/Motorola/Nokia/whoever, keeps me from having a *better* device that I, or more likely, someone else, creates based on the Tivo starting point. It should also be kep in mind that the GPL was never, in its creators' minds, about sharing code, or giving things away, it was about making sure that everybody can do as the please* with the software, the rest of this, is just incidental.

*Pre counter rebuttal, locking down software so that it is unmodifiable and then giving it to someone else, is not doing as you please with your software, its doing as you please with the end users software, if Tivo wants locked down systems in house, good for them, but the moment they sell a box, it isn't theirs anymore.

Re:How does a derivative work hurt me?

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't. So you don't use the GPL.

But for those who used the GPL, they DO feel lessened if someone makes a derived work.

Feel free to use BSD. don't tell other people how to release their code.

Re:How does a derivative work hurt me?

[TheoMurpse]

Should you have the freedom to restrict other people's freedom?

If your answer is "yes" to that, I hope you don't reproduce.

You mean how the GPL upholds the programmer's freedom to restrict a licensee's freedom to relicense the code? /devilsadvocate

Re:How does a derivative work hurt me?

[TheoMurpse]

Technically, I should have said "licensee's freedom to sublicense, but on Slashdot clarity is not that important, no? ;)

Re:How does a derivative work hurt me?

[TheRaven64]

I don't really understand this reasoning. If Tivo locking down their device makes it less good than something similar but not locked down, then this makes it less valuable. If it is less valuable, then it can not be sold for as much money, and so Tivo would make less money. Tivo exists, but so do things like MythTV. You, as a consumer, have a choice to either buying a Tivo, building a MythTV box, or buying a MythTV box prebuilt from one of the people who make them.

If you really consider the lack of lock in to be valuable, why would you buy a device that includes it? I release my code under a BSD-style license, and if people want to take it and build it into proprietary products then I have no problem with this. I almost certainly won't buy their products, because they are unlikely to offer any features sufficiently compelling to make up for the lost value from the lock in, but if other people consider the trade to be worthwhile then that's absolutely fine since it in no way impacts my freedoms.

The argument the FSF put forward for the GPL is that eventually the lure of better features will tempt people back to non-Free software. This may be true, but as long as people are making the choice to use non-Free software, not using it because they have no choice, then why does it matter?

Re:How does a derivative work hurt me?

[sumdumass]

I don't really understand this reasoning. If Tivo locking down their device makes it less good than something similar but not locked down, then this makes it less valuable. If it is less valuable, then it can not be sold for as much money, and so Tivo would make less money. Tivo exists, but so do things like MythTV. You, as a consumer, have a choice to either buying a Tivo, building a MythTV box, or buying a MythTV box prebuilt from one of the people who make them.

I don't care to comment on the rest of your post but you bring up an issue here that I don't think people actually realize. Tivo has to buy the content it provides. Unlike a mythTV or some other boxes, it has obligations with the copyright holders and content distributors involved with decoding a scrambled and protected digitl signal and so on. They put the locks on it because they are required to protect the signals otherwise a hack could possible enable access to the pay content free of charge. A MythTV setup as far as I know can't do this without a cable box or something external controlling access to the digital and protected channels. It really isn't fair to compare a Tivo to a MythTV setup on these grounds because while they are similar, they aren't really the same.

That being said, I suppose that Tivo could sell the Tuner modules separate from the software and recording modules and get around the restrictions in the GPLv3 by passing a networking command to control the channels and stream the video along the bus in much the same ways as it works now. They could simply lock the tuner unless a specific signature is present but allow access to the entire DVR portion. But the increased value despite the less value of being locked seems to be because of the increased functions of the tuner being able to access scrambled and digital or otherwise protected content streams.

Re:How does a derivative work hurt me?

[novakyu]

Well, if you agree that "freedom to restrict others' freedom" shouldn't be considered a freedom at all, then "freedom to restrict one from restricting others' freedom" IS a freedom, because what is being restricted in the latter case is not a freedom.

There is no contradiction here, just a very twisty logic.

P.S. And, no, rewording "restricting others' freedom" as "relicensing the code" doesn't change the effect of the action. GPL does have an unfortunate defect of easily becoming incompatible with other licenses (even with itself, v2 and v3), but really, if you have an idea for drafting an airtight copyleft license that would be easily compatible with other copyleft licenses, I'd like to hear about it.

Re:First

[CDMA_Demo]

General Trolling License?

A problem with the GPLv3

[Silverlancer]

If I'm wrong about this--please correct me; I'd love to know that the GPLv3 doesn't prevent us from doing this! Our company uses x264 in commercial products and abides by the GPL. One thing we are considering is creating an FPGA-based addon card using a low-cost FPGA to accelerate the motion search. The code for this FPGA would be released as GPL also. However, there is no open source driver to load code onto the card--in fact, one requires the developer kit in order to modify the code on the FPGA. We would be selling these boards individually, without the developer kit (an extra $1000 purchase or similar). Therefore, its a closed platform... but we can't do anything about it. GPLv3 would, in my understanding, prevent us from distributing such boards. So we're sticking to GPLv2.

Re:A problem with the GPLv3

[Timothy Brownawell]

If I'm wrong about this--please correct me; I'd love to know that the GPLv3 doesn't prevent us from doing this! Our company uses x264 in commercial products and abides by the GPL. One thing we are considering is creating an FPGA-based addon card using a low-cost FPGA to accelerate the motion search. The code for this FPGA would be released as GPL also. However, there is no open source driver to load code onto the card--in fact, one requires the developer kit in order to modify the code on the FPGA. We would be selling these boards individually, without the developer kit (an extra $1000 purchase or similar). Therefore, its a closed platform... but we can't do anything about it. GPLv3 would, in my understanding, prevent us from distributing such boards. So we're sticking to GPLv2.

"...this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code..."

Ask your legal department about whether that line might help, and also about whether "buy a dev kit" is valid as part of the installation information. And find out whether a dev kit is really required, or just a JTAG cable and appropriate compiler.

Re:A problem with the GPLv3

[mrchaotica]

Disclaimer: IANAL. Do not take this advice without consulting one and confirming that it is correct, especially since you're talking about a company's actions.

The GPLv3 does not require that you help the user modify the code on the device; it only requires that you don't hinder him. In fact, you could burn GPLv3 code into ROM (which would, of course, be entirely unmodifiable) and be okay. It is only when you artificially disallow modification that would otherwise be technically possible by using DRM that you violate the license.

Of course, I'm sure it would be appreciated if you picked a board capable of modifying the code on the FPGA if a suitable driver existed, and released the information necessary for the community to write one. I don't think too many people would complain about you not spending the effort to write a Free driver yourself in that case.

Re:A problem with the GPLv3

[Ant P.]

From what I understand of the GPL, as long as anyone else is able to hack the code by buying themselves a dev kit at fair price (the $1000) then it's OK. If you were actively preventing anyone else from getting access to the developer stuff (say by charging $15m for it) then that'd be not OK.

Re:A problem with the GPLv3

[WarJolt]

Lets say you make a product. It's typically covered under the DMCA. If you have GPLv3 code and someone breaks your encryption or whatever mechanism you have to prevent people from modifying your code then you can't sue.

Re:A problem with the GPLv3

[Todd Knarr]

I think the key question would be this: can you modify the code on the board without a dev kit? If you've got some way of getting your code onto the board without a dev kit, or by using some piece of hardware or software the user's prohibited from obtaining, then you may run afoul of the GPLv3's terms. But if all you need's a dev kit, both you and the user would need that dev kit to change the software and you aren't prohibiting the user from purchasing that dev kit, then you'll be OK. GPLv3 doesn't require that you let the user modify the code running on the device, just that you not block them from access while retaining that access yourself. As someone else noted, if you burned the code into ROM then the user can't modify it, but that's acceptable under the GPLv3 because you can't modify it either (short of burning a new ROM, going out and physically installing it, which the user could do too if they were so inclined and capable).

GPLv2 and GPLv3 have the same spirit

[DVega]

If you disagree with GPLv3, you also should disagree with GPLv2. The spirit is the same "dont let anyone take a free-software piece of code, modified it and ban you from modify his modification".

But GPLv2 had a bug. TIVO has found a way to do that. You can modify the code, but the hardware will reject your modification. Your right to "hack" with the source code has been abolished.

I dont see any reason why you should like GPLv2 and not GPLv3.

If you think there is nothing wrong with people taking your code and not letting you play with his code, you should have gone with a BSD-style license. Otherwise GPLv3 is an improvement of GPLv2.

I know that some people think that GPLv3 is bad (most notably Linux Torvalds) but after reading their objections I really dont understand their logic. It seems to me more of an ego fight against RMS than sensible disagreement.

Re:GPLv2 and GPLv3 have the same spirit

[vakuona]

That's what Stallman would have you believe. The dirty (not so) secret is that Stallman hates DRM, almost as much, if not more, than he hates proprietary software.

Tivo released all the improvements they made to the software they used. What they did was prevent users being able to modify software on the Tivo, and pass it off as a Tivo. GPLv3 tries to make it so that a user can modify a system, and be able to pass it off as the original. It makes DRM impossible. This is not something "unintended". I daresay, RMS designed the GPLv3 to do this. To make it impossible to use GPLv3 software in DRM applications.

Re:GPLv2 and GPLv3 have the same spirit

[FishWithAHammer]

Your right to "hack" with the source code has been abolished.

No it hasn't. You can do whatever you please with the source. Their hardware just has the right to not accept it. Surely you l33t GPL devs could go build an identical system that doesn't require verification, right?

Oh, wait. The FSF doesn't give a shit about free software. They just want to tell people what they can do with their hardware.

Re:GPLv2 and GPLv3 have the same spirit

[synthespian]

I'd *really* like to see all you GPL addicts try to run a small firm selling embedded software/instrumentation/whatever that's GPLed - and having to give all your code to the competition.

Oh, wait, you don't want yo do that. You only want the service model where you work for someone else. You dream of being the salary men (web devs notwithstanding - not all software is a web app).

The GPL model is utterly useless in areas where hardware and software go together.

You are clueless. You no think. Get off the intertubes.

Re:GPLv2 and GPLv3 have the same spirit

[Anonymous Coward]

Linus doesn't have too much choice anyway, since most of the kernel is GPL2 only, not GPL2+, and IIRC most developers retain their copyright, so that if he ever wanted to change the licence to GPL2+/3 then he would have to contact every person who submitted code and get their permission.

Re:GPLv2 and GPLv3 have the same spirit

[flux]

I don't think providing the source to the operating system of your media player (or similar) would make DRM impossible. All you need to do is to put the decryption, authentication and video decoding to its own piece of hardware; and I do believe such hardware is available for example for BluRay devices - if it isn't yet, it will be, to drive down the costs. The HDL source used to construct the chip could be fully proprietary.

This way you can still provide the source to the drivers (and the rest), while still keeping the DRM aspect intact. Of course, having such close access to the DRM chip may allow finding bugs in it, but in theory it should be workable..

I don't know if everyone (GPL-people) would be happy with this solution. Does GPL3 have clauses to stop this from happening? Would it just be enough it is possible to play non-DRM-encumbered media with the device? (Or if it doesn't yet, it'd be possible to modify it to do so.)

Re:GPLv2 and GPLv3 have the same spirit

[vakuona]

I was somehow modded down for my very factual post.

I don't think it is possible to do the sort of DRM that Bluray employs in hardware. it is done is software. it is designed to be updated, and new keys are supposed to be released to continue to play new media in case some keys get compromised. It is in software. And you cannot do it with GPLv3 and expect it to be secure. I am not making an argument for or against DRM. I happen to fall somewhere between the two extremes, and I think DRM is useful, but that it is very easy to make it too burdensome.

But this does not change the fact that Stallman does not want GPLv3 software to be used in DRM applications. He has worded the GPLv3 to make that impossible.

Re:GPLv2 and GPLv3 have the same spirit

[Todd Knarr]

If I wanted to keep my code private, then I wouldn't use GPL'd code as the basis for my firmware, simple as that. When I use someone else's code, I have to abide by their license terms. If I can't or won't do so, I don't use their code. Nothing specific to GPL'd software there, the same thing applies to commercial software. If I don't want to or can't pay the royalties MS requires for Windows CE, I don't use Windows CE in my devices.

If your only complain is "I can't use someone else's software without complying with their terms!", then I think you'll get precious little sympathy here.

Re:GPLv2 and GPLv3 have the same spirit

[shutdown -p now]

try to run a small firm selling embedded software/instrumentation/whatever that's GPLed - and having to give all your code to the competition.

Noone forces the small firm to sell embedded software which is GPLed, if they are so reluctant to share their code. You're always welcome to write your own OS and kernel from scratch, if you think that your ROI is better by doing so (and not having to share the code).

You want to use the freely available GPLed code - you play by the rules that come with it. Why is it so hard to understand?

And no, I'm not a GPL addict. I write closed-source proprietary packaged software in .NET for a living. Naturally, we don't use any GPL code for that. Fair's fair.

Affero GPL is nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

jPOS has recently changed its license from GPL to AGPL. jPOS is a basically a trasactional switch where POS devices send message to and then the switch relay it to the authorizer(a bank or another processor) at the end a response is send it back to the POS.

Affero requires that the complete source code be made available to any network user of the AGPLed work. How in the hell you could do that?.. I mean, in a network like this you have many POS conected to the switch.. the users of this devices are the merchants and the cardholders.. everytime you pass your card and enter your PIN in the POS you are using the app over the network... that means if you don't give the source code to all the people using the app you are infringing the license..

If you dont want jPOS with AGPL you need to buy a commercial license. So what's the point of AGPL.. it is not like a trial shareware app?.. if you need it in production your only choice is buy the commercial license, so whats the point .

Re:Affero GPL is nonsense

[bug1]

"that means if you don't give the source code to all the people using the app you are infringing the license"

WHAT !!!

The GPL requires me to do something in order to benefit from the software... teh fascists !

But seriously, i think you will find you only have to offer the source code to people using the app, you dont have to force it on them.

All you need to do is put a notice about how to obtain the source code on the internet amongst all the other legal fine print the user has to agree to when signing up.

Its not like your forced to build a USB slot into the ATM.

Re:Affero GPL is nonsense

[IntlHarvester]

The GPL requires me to do something in order to benefit from the software... teh fascists !

The AGPL is not the GPL. And this use requirement violates what used to be called "Freedom Zero" in the old GPL2 jargon.

Re:promotional "studies"

[Goaway]

And profit is the only reason for a person to try and bolster their image? Ideologists never do?

No, you're ok.

[DrYak]

GPLv3 would, in my understanding, prevent us from distributing such boards.

No, you're confusing stuff.
GPLv3 is about using DRM to reject modifications that would otherwise be possible.
- In your case, any potential developer could pay a developer kit and then, once that piece of hardware secured, run any modification he wants on any of your product - both his own or anyone else's. It is possible, although it costs some money, to modify the code and your company isn't actively trying to pull tricks to prevent modifications. It's just that the hardware requirement aren't cheap. But that has never stopped GPLed software : there *IS* GPLv3 software running exclusively on windows (even if windows isn't open at all and does cost money), and in a way, any free[dom] software requires the hacker to at least own a computer (which costs money. not as much as the dev kit, but does anyway).

- In the TiVo case, signing keys are required to pass the DRM, *BUT* users have *no* way to obtain keys to run modification on your own hardware or anyone else's - it's not a problem of price, it's a problem of complete lack of availability. DRM is used to lock the user out and the user can't do anything about it. Had TiVo provided each user with a key he can use to upload his very own modification inside the TiVo, the software would have been compatible with GPLv3.

What you *CAN'T* do is name that software "Gnu-{something}" for that requires the software to be built with freedom components all the way down. As an example the open source password management "Palm Gnu Keyring" has been renamed into "Palm Keyring" because it only runs on 1 single platform and that platform is proprietary.
(As opposed to the countless software like GIMP that have a Windows-port [proprietary] but also have a Linux-port thus enabling users to use them on system that are entirely free (as in freedom) )

Palamida

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting article summary, mentioning Palamida ahead of Black Duck. The mere fact that Palamida has gotten mention in this article summary is absurd.

Anyone worth their salt strongly sees Palamida as the joke of the small-yet-growing OSS-component license management industry.

Palamida has a very well-developed habit of scraping their GPLv3 metadata (Google searching for 'GPLv3' wouldn't surprise me in the least), and subsequently not bothering to verify most, if not all/any of it. A large amount of the time Palamida's GPLv3 data is grossly inaccurate in regards to both the specific license, as well as the whether or not a project has even yet been released.

They're wasting the time of their clients, and the money of their investors. Each move they make looks more and more like a desperate attempt to stay afloat in a sea of mercury.

When WILL they go away?

or later

[sentientbrendan]

The actual number of projects using GPLv3 seems quite small, about 3000, and of course the most important GPL project, the Linux kernel, will never change for both legal reasons (not all committers are available), and Linus' ideological reasons.

Is the GPLv3 even meaningful if the kernel does not change licenses? My understanding is that it was primarily designed to undermine Tivo and DRM, which cannot be done in a meaningful if the kernel isn't part of the deal.

The article tries to conflate licenses issued with the "or later" clause as GPLv3; however, I think they misunderstand the legal implications of that clause. It means that the *user* may follow the terms and conditions of later licenses; however, the user does not gain any further rights in GPLv3 as I understand it, the author merely loses rights (to use the resulting binaries under locked down hardware). Since the *author* can still use the code under the GPLv2 and so can tivo, there is effectively no change until the license itself is changed, so GPLv2 with "or later" clauses don't matter.

GPLv3 seems dead on arrival. A number of FSF projects will use it, but I don't know of any FSF projects where the anti tivoization stuff would even have any effect, unless I don't understand the new restrictions properly.

Re:or later

[drfireman]

Is the GPLv3 even meaningful if the kernel does not change licenses?

The incompatibility of GPLv2 and GPLv3 makes it a little viral. I have a fairly small open source project, but we depend on three libraries that have gone with GPL3. I didn't really want to switch, but if I want to use the latest versions of those libraries, I have no choice.

I suspect that the number of projects going with GPLv3 would be greater if people met their legal obligations.

dan

Re:or later

[arose]

GCC and even Samba is arguably more important then Linux, there are mature BSD kernels and that proprietary developers can fall back to if Linux goes GPL3.

Re:or later

[stinerman]

That's the cost of relying on someone else's code.

I'm not trying to be an ass. I'm just saying that if you're depending on code that you don't have control over, you've already anchored yourself to that code. And, of course, the alternative (rewriting the libraries yourself or paying someone to do it) is worse.

Re:or later

[drfireman]

There's no question that when you rely on someone else's code, whether it's free or commercial, you aren't guaranteed anything about future versions. They may be released under licenses you can't abide, they may not work the way you want them to, they may suddenly become unaffordable, they may stagnate and become obsolete. But as you say, writing everything from scratch is generally worse, so you take your chances.

But if the question is whether the GPLv3 is irrelevant because the kernel hasn't switched to it, the answer is clearly no. Many libraries have switched to GPLv3, and the easiest course for downstream projects will be to do the same, regardless of how they feel about the GPLv3.

Re:or later

[stinerman]

Right.

I think the v2 and v3 will both be used going forward.

If v3 is too restrictive for some people, they can always maintain v2 versions of the tools or switch to BSD/MIT-licensed variants.

Summary of Stallman Interview

[sentientbrendan]

Ernest Park: ... Do you have any comments on the GPLv3 site and the progress that we've been maintaining?

Richard Stallman: In general, I'm rather unhappy with Palamida, both for terminology (it generally uses the term "open source", which stands for values I disagree with) ...

(refuses to answer question)

Ernest Park: would you mind providing a comment less vague and subjective, focused more on the community acceptance and success of the GPLv3 family of licenses?

Richard Stallman: The free software movement is not merely personal. It is a political movement like the environmental movement, the civil rights movement, etc.

(in other words, no)

What an asshat! Not only does he refuse to respond to the interview, because the interviewer uses the term "open source" (the term used by the majority of people working on GPL and other similar licenses) he also manages to compare himself to Martin Luther King Jr.

It's interesting that he thinks he's leading a "political movement" that no one in the US congress has ever heard of, and that most people who have simply refer to as open source software, and doesn't see as a political movement at all, but a development methodology.

Re:Summary of Stallman Interview

[Cochonou]

Well, I found the interview quite funny:
inteviewer: Random question.
CDB; Your numbers suck, they are unsignificant.
inteviewer: Random question.
RMS: You understand nothing about free software.

What a nice day for him.

Re:Summary of Stallman Interview

[TheoMurpse]

a "political movement" that no one in the US congress has ever heard of

Well, considering that Larry Lessig (EFF/Creative Commons/Change Congress) and the FSF have been advising Sen. Obama, I'd be willing to put money on the proposition that he's at least heard of "free software."

Re:Summary of Stallman Interview

[sentientbrendan]

>Well, considering that Larry Lessig (EFF/Creative Commons/Change Congress) and the FSF have been advising Sen. Obama,

What do you mean by advising? Are you saying that Lessig is a paid part of his campaign team (I don't think so) or are you saying that he lobbied Obama, and so probably has had a conversation or two with him at some point (sounds much more likely)?

Futhermore, open source issues are only part of what the EFF deals with. Their RIAA court cases are actually much more high profile.

For most of society, software licensing issues are way below the radar. Most people have no idea what the difference between freeware, free software, and open source software is. It's all just software downloaded off the internet to them. There are only a million or so coders in the united states, and they are the only ones who really have any reason to care if the source is available.

Re:Summary of Stallman Interview

[TheoMurpse]

I'm saying that Lessig and Obama are friends who used to teach together at the University of Chicago law school. I'm saying that Obama called Lessig up when he was going to run for president in order to discuss his internet/technology policy. I don't have the source for this, but I'm not making it up--hopefully my credibility on Slashdot is sufficient.

There has even been speculation by people outside the tech industry that Lessig may be tapped for the Supreme Court in an Obama administration. I've even come across fervently anti-Obama blogs that discuss their fear that Obama will appoint "communist Lessig" to the Court--so it's not just Lessig lovers who are suggesting this appointment may happen.

I think maybe Lessig mentions as much in his 20-minute presentation here. I don't want to watch the 20 minutes on my slow-as-molasses computer right now, though.

Also, Obama has invited Lessig to speak with him. source

Re:Summary of Stallman Interview

[TheoMurpse]

Whoops, I forgot to mention this, too.

For most of society, software licensing issues are way below the radar.

That doesn't really change the fact that Obama has even extended the term "open source" to refer to a way he wants to implement democracy in the US. sources list, quick and dirty

This implies that he (or an advisor) at least knows what open source is enough to extend the term's meaning in an analogous way.

Maybe it's not a very good EULA

[pem]

The AGPL does appear to try to be a EULA.

The GPL keeps you from making copies. The AGPL additionally keeps you from doing certain things with your copy, unless you hand over the source to your modifications.

However, it may not do this in a very well thought-out manner. Thought experiment: Party A modifies a AGPL package and ONLY gives a copy to party B. Party A's obligation is done, since they gave B both binary and source. Now, party B puts up a website using the AGPLed package. The AGPL requires someone who modifies a package to provide source to that package, but this obligation may not be a burden for either party A or B -- A didn't use the software on a website, and B didn't make any modifications...

As far as EULAs not being enforceable, the jury (or supreme court) is still out on this. Different districts have approached the problems with different results. See, e.g. Wikipedia's software licensing page.

Stallman hasn't gone to hell yet?

[thrashee]

Does anyone really care about the GPL? Free as in beer, free as in money, free as in I don't give a flying turd. Free as in let's pretend like software is somehow a noble thing that is an inalienable right in the 21st century. Yawn. I've had to navigate my way around the GPL while coding custom software solutions. And truth be told, I'd rather just pay a licensing fee rather than jump through those hoops. How about, free as in this won't be an absolute pain in the ass to deal with?

Re:Stallman hasn't gone to hell yet?

[Per Wigren]

How about "free as in free to use something else that has another license, reimplement the functionality yourself or pay someone to reimplement it"? It's not like you are forced to use GPLed software. If you want to just benefit from free code without giving anything back to the community then you are a leech and get treated as such.

Re:Stallman hasn't gone to hell yet?

[thrashee]

Your statement is naive (but I like the pretentious insult tacked onto the end). I'm afraid you missed the point of my post entirely (but not surprisingly). My complaint stems from how ridiculously convoluted the terms of the GPL are written, not from the inherent value of the GPL itself. And sometimes you are forced to use GPLed software--that is, if you program beyond the hobbyist level and, like most professional programmers, are not the final call on third party solutions or architectures. Spare me the faux nobility of the GPL. I write software for a living--which means, for money. I don't have time to "give back to the community" because I had to use GPLed software. If you hype your code up to be so principally free, and then turn around and bash those who use it without giving anything back, you're just a hypocrite who would have more integrity simply charging for it.

Re:Stallman hasn't gone to hell yet?

[True Grit]

I don't have time to "give back to the community" because I had to use GPLed software

Care to tell us which GPL'ed software you incorporated into your proprietary product? I'm sure those authors would love to know you're violating their license.

No one is forced to use GPL'ed software... period... full stop.

The GP's post is not naive, like he said, you are a leech.

Re:Stallman hasn't gone to hell yet?

[thrashee]

It sounds like you don't understand the GPL yourself. Did I ever state that I violated the GPL by not including the source and a copy of the GPL with the product? No. So try again.

You're perfectly "free" to use GPL software as long as you do these things. The previous poster was calling me a leech because I did not "contribute" or "give anything back to the community". Sorry, that's not part of the GPL.

Again, if you want to call people leeches for using a license according to its own terms, then by all means do so, but don't act like you are upholding that same license.

Reason: Linus is a megalomaniac

[The_Abortionist]

There are no legal reasons. 6 months after sending notices Linux can be GPL3, no problem.

His ideological reasons are that he wants to see Linux running on everything possible, including network amd multimedia appliances. So long as the distribution is wide, he doesn't care about the "sharing" aspect of it. After all, the work is all done by suckers anyway.

Re:Reason: Linus is a megalomaniac

[gwniobombux]

There are no legal reasons. 6 months after sending notices Linux can be GPL3, no problem.

I would like to second the parent. Non-availability of copyright holders poses no problem to a license change. If on the other hand copyright holders would refuse to relicense their code, this code would have to be rewritten in case of the kernel moving to gpl v3.
This thread on lkml seems to be pertinent.

Re:Reason: Linus is a megalomaniac

[Anonymous Coward]

There are no legal reasons. 6 months after sending notices Linux can be GPL3, no problem.

His ideological reasons are that he wants to see Linux running on everything possible, including network amd multimedia appliances. So long as the distribution is wide, he doesn't care about the "sharing" aspect of it. After all, the work is all done by suckers anyway.

So are you going to take it as a personal task to rewrite all the code where the original author is either unwilling or unavailable to relicense under GPL-3; and be willing to commit to a specified date?

If you can't deliver on this; stop whining and STFU!

I thought BSDers didn't care who used their code

[Anonymous Coward]

So why do they care if someone else claims copyright on it? Why do they care that people know they wrote the code?

Why do they want to restrict what someone can do with their code like that?

ouch!

[Anonymous Coward]

FREE to disregard your wishes completely

I dunno, something about this makes my head hurt.

Biggest Failure EVAR

[Anonymous Coward]

GPLv3 is the biggest failure ever. It honestly makes me wonder why Lunix users (and Slashdot) even bother to talk about Vista, when they have this huge elephant in the room... to say nothing of it's plain old relevance to them personally.

But then again, the fact that the free OS has had over 15 years to "win" on the desktop and has never gained more than a 0.65% market share is pretty revealing about how much commitment FOSSies have to "stuff that matters".

Hey, maybe GPLv4 will do better, and 2009 will be the year of Teh Lunix on Teh Desktop.

Re:promotional "studies"

[xappax]

By your reasoning, nothing anyone says can ever be trusted for any reason, because everyone has some kind of reason (read: corrupt interest) for saying anything they say. Having motivation to say something does not always discredit the speaker.

Re:promotional "studies"

[Goaway]

"By my reasoning"? At least try to read and understand the context of a discussion before making nonsensical replies like that.