Slashdot Mirror
Software Freedom Conservancy Wins GPL Case Against Westinghouse
fishthegeek writes "The Software Freedom Conservancy has received a judgement against Westinghouse Digital Electronics for $90,000 in damages, $50,000 in costs plus a donation of all of the offending HDTV's that were using BusyBox in violation of the GPL. Given that WDE is nearly bankrupt it's likely that most if not all of the cash will disappear in a legal 'poof,' but it is a victory regardless."
It helps explain all those crappy 37" Westinghouse TVs that were being blown out by retailers on the cheap last year.
Isn't this the first proper test of GPL in a court of law?
As has been discussed in the million other websites that jumped on this news earlier in the week:
It wasn't so much a win as a "no contest":
- The company that's gone bankrupt, went bankrupt (in a real, non-SCO fashion) and couldn't have afforded to fight the case.
- The people handling the bankruptcy don't want the lawyers who were working the case representing them any more (presumably they stopped paying them).
- The lawyers handling the case stopped defending it because they were asked not to provide any further representation.
In many senses it was a "win by default" - it was unchallenged, they couldn't afford to challenge it, and they were bankrupt anyway. In terms of legal precedent, this is like saying "I *do* own an acre of the moon because I presented it in a case against NASA and NASA went bankrupt before they could file any defence whatsoever" and then using this as a legal precedent that everyone with the same paper as you owns an acre of the moon. It's not a "win", it's not even a "loss", it's just a "nothing" in legal terms.
Well I guess pride is coming up so they'll need the money.
Makes sense about the Olevia TVs too a few years back.
Stupidity only gets you so far, then you've gotta try
..but what matters is that a judge has issued a ruling on the matters before the court.
Its a common practise to start with little guys to get precedents and then work your way up to the bigger fish; the bad guys (eg, patent trolls) have been using this technique for ages, so its no biggie if the Good Guys learn from them,
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Sure. Just like last time was also the first time, and the time before that...
I had to RTFA to find out that WDE is Westinghouse Digital Electronics.
Westinghouse is currently in General Assignment, an alternative to bankruptcy under California state law
I don't get this at all. The US Constitution says bankruptcies are in Federal court and not a state matter. Is there a better FA somewhere?
Free Martian Whores!
Something is wrong with the title, look carefully and you will see it.
plus a donation of all of the offending HDTV's that were using BusyBox
Huh, WDE has to give away their HDTVs? Where do I sign up?
To clear things up a little, from TFA:
SFC has also secured the right to compel Westinghouse to hand over all unsold products loaded with BusyBox for donation to charity.
That sounds cool, but the cynic in me believes that won't happen for a variety of reasons ("we don't have any unsold products! The last ones went on eBay for 1$ each!")
Misleading titles? Inflammatory blurbs? Keep in mind that Slashdot is a tabloid.
Not the EFF - the Software Freedom Conservancy.
I have always wondered how these GPL folks determine that a product contains GPLed code. How do they do it?
Having been around computers and electronic equipment for a while, I know that we users only receive a working piece of equipment and a manual probably. Now how one delves into getting to establish that GPLed code [or firmware] is contained withing the equipment troubles my mind.
How do they do it?
The GPL vs BSD license argument never gets old for some folk does it?
Some say BSD-like licenses are bad because they permit people to use the code in a closed, non-free way.
Some say GPL-like licenses are bad because they forbid the same behaviour.
Each to their own, but the GPL allows people who contribute to the public good to make sure that their work is not abused (as they see it), by taking their effort, profiting from it and not sharing back. If that's not the way you roll, so be it, but it gives freedom to users that the BSD license does not.
I know! Distinguishing between different situations is so hard! It strains my brain cell.
The enemies of Democracy are
> EFF Wins GPL Case Against Westinghouse
Give proper attiribution, please!
Neither SFLC http://www.softwarefreedom.org/
nor SFC http://conservancy.softwarefreedom.org/
are EFF, and as far as I can see, they have no relation to EFF.
So why is EFF in the title?
I cannot figure out why the headline says that the EFF won this case. This case was brought by the Software Freedom Conservancy, with the Software Freedom Law Center acting as the Conservancy's legal counsel. The EFF was not, nor has ever been to my knowledge, involved in anything to do with the GPL.
Also, winning the whole case is probably inaccurate. What's been achieved here is a permanent injunction and judgment against one of the violators. Thus, the case against Westinghouse has been won, but there are other defendants in the case as well.
— bkuhn, President, Software Freedom Conservancy
You're talking about the freedom of different people. The GPL maximizes the freedom of the recipient of derived code. The BSD license maximizes the freedom of the distributor of derived code. In many cases the original programmer is also the recipient of code which was derived from his own work, so he maximizes his own freedom by using the GPL. He can after all dual-license his own work at any time. People who argue against the GPL usually do so because they want to use other people's work without reciprocating and therefore recommend the BSD license to other people. People who choose to use the BSD license for their own works have different motives, but they're rarely involved in these discussions.
Slashdot readers might be interested to read the actual judgment as issued by the Court, which is available Conservancy's announcement of the decision. I also wrote a blog post about the decision that may be of interest.
— bkuhn, President, Software Freedom Conservancy
Simple public domain will do...
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
We may want to hold off on using words like "major" in response to this victory. I'm not sure how major it was and I'm not feelin' like I should ranting and raving about victory. Is it really a "major victory" to beat-up on something that is already dead?
Winning a case against Samsung would be a major victory.
http://www.allometry.com
Is that copyfree.org website yours? If it is, I would like to politely point out an error.
The website claims this: "In essence, where document foo is covered by a copyleft license and document bar is covered by some other license, combining the two documents in a single work must, by law, result in a work available under the terms of the copyleft license."
That is not correct. By law, where document foo is covered by a copyleft license and document bar is covered by some other license, combining the two documents in a single work creates a derived work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derived_work
Ownership of the derived work is split in proportion to relative contributions of the original works foo and bar. The authors of foo and bar must come to some mutual agreement before the derived work (call it foo+bar) can be legally distributed.
Often it is the case that foo might be dual-licensed. In this case, the author of bar might buy a commercial license for foo, and hence release foo+bar as a commercial proprietary product, even though foo itself is also available under a copyleft license.
And the 47" units that were discontinued within a year of them being sold, including no service/warranty parts being available.
I purchased a 47" 1080p Westy 3 years ago or so and was pretty happy with it, until it died 30 days before warranty expiration. (I also had a BB service plan due to making the calculation that this model with a so-so reliability rep plus the cost of the service plan was less than the cost of a model that had a good long-term reliability reputation.) It took almost a month for BB's service contractor to determine that it was not possible to obtain ANY service parts for this unit. End result is BB gave me a free upgrade to a brand new Sharp Aquos (Smaller screen but better contrast and MUCH better reputation, and at that point a lower MSRP than what I paid for the Westy.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
The GPL has, and never will, have any stipulations about profiting from GPL'd code.
Each to their own, but the GPL allows people who contribute to the public good to make sure that their work is not abused (as they see it), by taking their effort, profiting from it and not sharing back.
Key words emphasized there. As I see it, if I am truly contributing to the public good, then that should allow anyone (the "public") to do what they want with that contribution (the "good"). Even if that means using it in a closed way. It does not detract from the original contribution which is still there for anyone else to use.
I personally don't believe that it is in good form to expect something back from a voluntary contribution. I do it because I want to do it, not because I want something out of it.
If that's not the way you roll, so be it, but it gives freedom to users that the BSD license does not.
Just as the BSD licence gives freedom to users that the GPL licence does not. They are different types of freedom but, objectively, one is not "more free" than the other.
Public domain is anything but simple. Take for example this public domain license which was taken from a NASA website:
COPYRIGHT NOTICE:
This software is in the Public Domain. It may be freely copied and used in non-commercial products, assuming proper credit to the author is given. IT MAY NOT BE RESOLD. If you want to use the software for commercial products, contact the author. No copyright is claimed in the United States under Title 17, U. S. Code. This software is provided "as is" without any warranty of any kind
tldr: public domain can still be restricted to academic use only (or any other restriction you want to add)
Or, you could say, it TAKES freedom from users (ie: developers using a library) that the BSD license does not.
Not saying BSD is better, just saying GPL doesn't give "more freedoms" on a whole, it just assigns them to different people.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
Please tell us how one would magically put their code into the public domain without first dying and then waiting a few decades. I think you can just release it with a statement that says something along the lines of "This software is public domain. I, the author, hereby forego any copyright on it." Or you could write it as part of your job while an employee of the United States government. There is a fair amount of numerical software that is public domain for that reason.
Do we get the source code? This isn't a win unless the source code is released, as required by the GPL. If this is just a precedent against a bankrupt entity then it may not be possible to enforce any contractual obligation.
I had to RTFA to find out that WDE is Westinghouse Digital Electronics.
From TFS:
"The Software Freedom Conservancy has received a judgement against Westinghouse Digital Electronics for $90,000 in damages, $50,000 in costs plus a donation of all of the offending HDTV's that were using BusyBox in violation of the GPL. Given that WDE is nearly bankrupt it's likely that most if not all of the cash will disappear in a legal 'poof', but it is a victory regardless."
Did the summary get edited to include that, or what?
...profiting from GPL'd code.
The parent included an additional qualifier that you seem to have missed:
profiting from it and not sharing back
"Lame" - Galaxar
Never in serious question but that doesn't stop people going "it's never been tested in court" what about in Germany? "it's never been tested in US court" what about here? "it's never been tested in court and found legitimate by the judge rather than settled before then".
Well, now we've got an answer to the NOT SERIOUS question "it's never been tested in court without being settled out of court before the judge gets to it".
Though I guess that there'll now be the question "It's never had to pass being contested in front of a Judge in a US court".
Just because the GPL has never been seriously contested as a legitimate copyright license doesn't stop people questioning the GPL as a valid license.
What extra freedoms are granted users by bsd style licences?
I know developers and distributers have more rights, but I can't think of any extra ones for users. Only the loss of right to request code.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Have a beer. That should take care of that final, pesky cell.
They've been Westinghoused !
It takes the freedom to take away freedom.
I will never, ever, feel any sympathy for anyone who thinks they are actually less free as a consequence.
The enemies of Democracy are
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I have no problems with reciprocating when I am so inclined. To be forced to do so is ridiculous.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
The website is not mine but I will pass on the information.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
GPL copyright good
RIAA copyright bad
MPAA copyright bad
Disney copyright bad
Pixar copyright bad
Apple copyright bad, good? bad.
Of course, no one is forced to use GPLed code, so the point is non-existant.
Or, you could say, it TAKES freedom from users (ie: developers using a library) that the BSD license does not.
Wrong. It takes freedom from those developers only while they are wearing their distributor hats. They can use GPLed libraries as much as they like. They are just limited from distributing in a way that takes freedom away from users. Their freedom as _users_ is not harmed.
Not saying BSD is better, just saying GPL doesn't give "more freedoms" on a whole, it just assigns them to different people.
You are right here. It takes freedom away from distributors, and gives it _all_ to users. Just they are not necessarily different people, just different roles.
I think it's more of a theoretical vs practical kind of thing: copyleft gives users more theoretical rights (that they mostly can't use anyway, not being programmers...) should anyone actually write software, while BSD makes it easier to actually write that software in the first place.
Have a beer. That should take care of that final, pesky cell.
Believe me, there have been many such attempts on its life, and it has survived them all and come out stronger and more resilient. Following the Cliff Clavin Theory of Drinking, this is the most lean, efficient, and bad-ass brain cell in history. It is equal to a hundred normal brain cells. If my brain was a computer simulation, it would be The One.
It's still just one lonely brain cell though. Back to trying to kill it with beer!
The enemies of Democracy are
The GPL does not force you to reciprocate. You're just not given the right to distribute derived code if you don't reciprocate. The GPL gives rights, it doesn't take them away.
How does the license style make it "easier to actually write that software in the first place."? I understand you may have more people interested in writing the code if it's able to be closed source, but that doesn't make it easier to code.
letting an idiot know they are an idiot is not a game... it's a responsibility. - by Kristopeit, M. D. (1892582)
Until some corporation comes along and "convinces" a few congresscritters to give it to them instead.
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
developers users
Just have a look at the number of users of, say, Windows compared to the number of Windows developers.
YOU want the freedom to take the freedoms away from the users. Increased freedom for you: 1 unit. Decreased freedom for 10,000 users: 1 unit each.
Net loss: 9,999 units.
The only other alternative is that you think that what code you develop will have NO MORE than one person looking to learn from the code, expand it or just read it for giggles. And even in the case where ONLY ONE person you're marketing to has interest in the code they bought, there is no difference in the freedom between the case of the BSD license and the GPL. Just who gets the shaft.
And, since the person who PAID you for that code gets the shaft in the BSD case, I think we should give them the tiebreaker.
So, is the code you create so worthless that NOT ONE person cares about the code you sold?
No.
Copyright good.
Current copyright terms bad.
That's hard to understand?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
I thought BB was to give an equivalent or better unit? So shouldnt you have gotten a 47" or bigger screen? MSRP shouldn't matter, thats BB problem, right? At least that is always how they tried to sell it to me that I would get the same or better regardless of price changes.
You issue, hope your happy and all, but I don't trust BB and won't shop there since they push the extended plans so hard. Last time I was in I was getting a hard sell at the register for esp for a digital camera and told what if it dies, etc.. after saying NO 3x and clerk not listening and a manager being brought over to explain to my thick skull why I needed the esp, So I said, "oh, this must be a POS? thanks for the warnings." and I walked out leaving the camera at the register, sale lost. I drove over to WM and bought SAME camera for a little less and that guy asked once for esp and moved on with a simple, "No, thanks..." Hey, it may not be everyone's favorite store, but it was a happy experience vs. BB. BTW, I haven't had any issues with my camera other than Camera-Envy and its been 7 years since that horrid high preasure sale. Not missing BB at all.
I think it's more of a theoretical vs practical kind of thing: copyleft gives users more theoretical rights (that they mostly can't use anyway, not being programmers...) should anyone actually write software, while BSD makes it easier to actually write that software in the first place.
If you want to make changes to your software and you are not a programmer, then GPL ensures that you can hire somebody who is. BSD allows developers to distribute their software without having to give their users that assurance.
Each license has different goals. Since it applies few restrictions on how the code can be used, the BSD license is sorta like putting the code into the public domain without giving up ownership of it. The GPL, on the other hand, seeks to keep the original code and any improvements made to it as open source. It also seeks to insure that anybody that gets a product containing the original or modified code can get the source to it without having to go on a wild goose chase. If you use the BSD license you are keeping your original work open source, but not any fork of it and only in your original distribution of it. If you use the GPL you preserve the open source nature of your code everywhere it gets used, not just in the original distribution that you make.
The real problem with the GPL is determining what constitutes a modification and what is an unrelated new application not part of the original, but making use of the original, that's why the LGPL exists. I personally disagree with static linked GPL libraries with user code as involking the GPL provisions of requiring the user code to be released under the GPL as well. Using a dynamic linked library solves the issue, but in the end there is no difference between the linking being done in memory by the kernel at load time, or on disk by the GCC link phase. Certainly the GPL'ed libraries need to be identified and their sources provided with the distribution of the user application. However the user application did not require any of the library source code to compile (only the prototypes in a header at the most), so use of the library is on the same level as running under the Linux kernel (which you can do with closed source applications under the GPL). The LGPL for libraries removes this issue, but I think it shouldn't be necessary.
It's good when it keeps my shit mine.
It's bad when it keeps your shit yours.
Kahpeesh?
They're different situations dealing with the same thing--copyright law. The point is that Slashdot is constantly anti-copyright except in a GPL article, where it suddenly becomes pro-copyright. After all, the GPL is a copyright license, and without copyright law, it has no legal power. Pro-piracy/anti-copyright advocates around here often forget that.
This court victory exists thanks to copyright law.
It makes it commercially easier - that is, it makes it easier to get paid to do it. In the real world, coding takes time, and time is money.
Some things get done because people want to do them of their own accord - GPL land.
Some thing get done because people want to sell stuff - BSD land.
Neither is right or wrong: they serve different needs.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
No, but you do see an awful lot of comments on here decrying copyright (and patents, and any concept of IP) full stop.
Yes I know, no single hive-mind exists to hold a coherent opinion.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
GPL: You are free to copy this as long as you don't stop others. Good. Sharing is good.
RIAA: You are a priate!!!! You must pay us even if you aren't! Bad. Greed is bad. Unearned wealth is the root of all evil
MPAA: See above (RIAA)
Disney: Give me all your copyrighted works! You can't have MINE!!! (see Kimba the albino lion). Bad. Stealing and making money off that theft is bad.
Pixar: Disney again. Why double up TWICE?
Apple: You don't own the software, you only license it, we control it. Bad. Selling something and keeping ownership is fraud and that's bad.
Slashdot is anti-abuse-of-copyright-law or anti-excessive-draconian-copyright-law.
But thanks for demonstrating that good ol' inability to distinguish in black and white.
The enemies of Democracy are
And yet reciprocation forms the basis of all civilization. If we want to form a stable software society, it must be based on reciprocation; otherwise, we will maintain this current state of disjointed, warring software fiefdoms led by dictators indefinitely.
[...] BSD makes it easier to actually write that software in the first place.
Could you please elaborate on this? The use of third-party code aside, the choice of a license does not influence the creation of a software in any way that I can see. Licenses only come into play after the software is written, when it is distributed to someone other than the creator.
Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
"Some folk" presumably includes yourself :)
ObSideshowBob:
And yes, I am aware of the irony of decrying the GPL vs BSD debate by entering the debate.
If time is money, then why steal it? If you're saving money by not taking time to write the software, then you don't need to be paid for your software either (you've just saved the license cost).
And THIS:
Some thing get done because people want to sell stuff - BSD land.
Is complete bollocks.
Tell me how someone giving their own code the BSD license makes them money that doing under the GPL doesn't?
People who want to take someone else's work and get monopoly rent on it use BSD.
Your pithy content should instead be:
Some things get done because people want to do them of their own accord - BSD land.
Some thing get done because people want to sell stuff - GPL land.
Because you can always license your code under any license you wish. If someone wants a different license, you can sell it to them.
Try that if you've BSD'd your code.
They changed their name from Westinghouse Digital Electronics WDE to just westinghouse digital and that technichally makes them a different company so they won't have to pay anything.
Your post and all of its replies make an assumption that is not true most of the time: They assume that when a developer uses a library/program to create a product and then discovers that it is GPL'd, that this develop goes along and GPL's his product as well. This is not how it works.
In reality, developers that are worth their money check the license beforehand, and when there's the GPL involved for a product that's not planned to be GPL'd, either the library/program is not used, or the whole project is scrapped. So everybody loses: The developer, because either the product can't be made, so there's no income, or a lot of functionality has to be implemented, raising the development costs and time, and the user, because there's either one less solution to choose from (which might mean that there are zero now), or the product is released later, buggier and perhaps more expensive (due to the increased development time).
Nice - GPL translated in RBAC.
Exacly. With no license, it's copyrighted not PD. So you have to explicitly say it's PD. Except you can't disavow liability without a license and PD is a lack of license, so you're in the sights of a class action lawsuit if your code is used and has problems and is under the PD.
Find me ONE poster who has done this. If you don't, then you admit that you're lying.
All copyrights good. Taking public domain material, slightly modifying them, and then suing anybody who tries to use the material (which is what Disney does, and sort of what Microsoft does) bad. RIAA do have a right to enforce their copyrights, preferable through take down notices. What we hate about the RIAA is their sleazy methods, e.g. suing children and old ladies that have never used a computer. Apple intellectual property protection good when it covers their actual innovations, bad when it covers stuff they stole from other people (anybody remember Xerox PARC?) See, it's not really as hypocritical as you make it out to be.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
And yet freedom forms the basis of all civilization. If we want to form a stable software society, it must be based on freedom; otherwise, we will maintain this current state of disjointed, warring software fiefdoms led by dictators indefinitely.
FTFY
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
Most of the code I've released as open source as been BSD, because I want every programmer to be able to reasonably use it. BSD accomplishes that. Even GPL projects can use my code if they wish. If I had released under GPL, then pretty much only GPL projects could use it. Even projects using licenses that the FSF says are copyleft free software licenses but that aren't GPL (such as MS-PL) would not be able to use it.
This is why I consider the BSD to be a more free license.
There are some things that I'm trying to get my employer to release as open source. It's interesting that if we do so, there is a decent change we'll pick GPL, specifically because we do not want to give our competitors as much freedom to use our stuff an ways that would compete with us as they would get under BSD.
And yet, once you do, you've been infected. Anything that interfaces with it must be GPL'd according to the folks over at WordPress. Now I'm not so free anymore, am I.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
Really? So if I make additions to the program I'm using, but DON'T GPL my additions, and still want to distribute them, how does that work.
According to you I can't distribute my additions.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
I don't see why this point has to keep coming up, because it's quite simple.
BSD maximizes the individual freedom of each immediate recipient of source code under that license. GPL maximizes the minimum net freedom enjoyed by the community of binary recipients as a whole.
Another way of thinking about it is that BSD provides a broader range of possible total freedom among ALL binary recipients than GPL does. They may have more freedom (including making proprietary works) or less freedom (because most recipients may not have source code and the developer through which they receive the software isn't obligated to help them). It all depends on the actions of people in between the originator of the software and the user.
GPL on the other than provides a completely predictable level of freedom once chosen, but that freedom is slightly less than the maximum possible net freedom under BSD because it does not include the freedom to reduce the rights downstream recipients get.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I've released most of my open source under BSD, because I want it to be usable by as many programers as possible. BSD accomplishes this. Even GPL projects can use my code. If I had released under GPL, my code would be limited pretty much to use in other GPL projects. Even projects using non-GPL licenses that are free and copyleft according to the FSF, such as MS-PL, would not be able to use my code.
That is why I consider BSD to be more free than GPL.
I'm trying to convince my employer to release some of our software under an open source license. For that, we might pick GPL instead of BSD, because GPL is more restrictive, making it harder for our competitors to use our stuff against us.
It isn't quite right to say that the GPL takes freedom away from anyone, since there is no obligation to use GPL-licensed code.
Well, duh. There's no obligation to use any code; that doesn't mean we can't talk about the (di)similarities of each license in terms of freedoms given or taken away (held back). I'm all for the proper use of language in otherwise ambiguous situations, but let's not cloud the issue with pointless discussions about semantics when the meaning is perfectly clear.
This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
Sure, but having to figure out your business plan up front brings licensing considerations back around to before you start.
What "freedom" does a user have if the software he wants never exists in the first place, because the GPLed code prevents a company from investing time and money into the product that the user wants?
Most users don't give a fuck about having access to the source code. Whether the source is open or closed has approximately zero value to them. They want a product. They want to buy it from a company who spent time and money ensuring that it will work, won't lose data, won't catch on fire, etc. A company that provides a warranty and support. They want to pay for something that works; note the success of Apple's various idiot-friendly interfaces.
:(){
Depending on the exact letter of the law, it is not always possible to fully forego your copyright and/or authorship. Have a look at the Creative Commons CC0 license. That is the closest you can get to putting it in the public domain outright. After all in most jurisdictions (and certainly under the Berne Convention) copyright is automatic. You create it, you own the copyright. Getting rid of that copyright may actually be a problem.
NOTE: slashdot comment system is borked. Comments are being swallowed. Trying again anonymously to see if that helps. If my original shows up later, sorry for the duplicate.
I've released most of my open source under BSD, because I want it to be usable by as many programers as possible. BSD accomplishes this. Even GPL projects can use my code. If I had released under GPL, my code would be limited pretty much to use in other GPL projects. Even projects using non-GPL licenses that are free and copyleft according to the FSF, such as MS-PL, would not be able to use my code.
That is why I consider BSD to be more free than GPL.
I'm trying to convince my employer to release some of our software under an open source license. For that, we might pick GPL instead of BSD, because GPL is more restrictive, making it harder for our competitors to use our stuff against us.
taking their effort, profiting from it and not sharing back
When a construction company uses a hammer, does the manufacturer bitch and whine about how that company is profiting from their hammer without sharing back?
I always get the impression that GPL proponents set up a straw man; that somehow letting your code be used in a commercial product is going to "steal" it from you so that no one else can use it.
With BSD, the code is still out there. Anyone is still free to use it. If a commercial developer puts it into their product, the original code is not suddenly off-limits.
GPL vs BSD boils down to control over the derivative works. GPL demands control over all derivative works, like a possessive husband who won't let his wife talk to other men. BSD does not.
:(){
The main difference is that the BSD gives developers the freedom to deprive users and other developers of the fruits of somebody else's labor. Whereas the GPL forces all developers to make sure everybody has the same freedom they had, or else.
The importance of this distinction depends on a developer's priorities. Would you rather play nice with the rest of the developer community and share alike, or would you rather take what you can get without giving back (or encourage others to do this)?
Have you driven a fnord... lately?
You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later.
I had a really bad experience with a return at BB, and I won't ever go there again either. I don't know why anyone shops there; their prices are nothing special, and the service is ridiculously bad.
If you don't agree to use the GPL for your additions, you don't get any of its benefits. The GPL obviously can't give you distribution rights if you reject it. Copyright law forbids the distribution of derived code without a license. You know that, don't you?
No, it explicitly does not. Freedom is, if anything, the antithesis of civilization.
Who is truly free? The loner who lives out in the wilderness by himself, or the cosmopolitan city dweller?
The loner, of course - he is free to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, restricted only by the requirement that he provide for his own needs. He is unbound by social restrictions, by financial needs, by the necessities of cooperation. Indeed, depending on how he supports himself, he probably even "works" far fewer hours than the city dwellers - I believe nomads need to spend something like three or four hours per day hunting and gathering to provide enough food for themselves, depending on the environment.
The city dweller, on the other hand, is far less free. In order to provide for his own needs, he must spend far more time working; in order to maintain his social status, he must perform social activities. He is restricted in innumerable ways - wearing the wrong clothes might reduce his status, being a jerk will make his job harder and in fact risk losing it, killing and skinning a squirrel in public will almost certainly get him arrested - but as a tradeoff, he can call upon the powers of his civilization.
The loner doesn't have electricity; the city dweller does. The loner doesn't have access to reliable medicine; the city dweller does. The loner doesn't have access to other people, but the city dweller does. The city dweller has men with guns who enforce his property rights; the loner must do that himself. The city dweller has access to goods from all over the world; the loner only has that which he makes himself.
And why does the city dweller gain these extra privileges? Because he sacrifices of himself to further his civilization. Judging from your signature, you're something of a Christian; surely you understand that sort of self-sacrifice for the good of all people, even if it is only on the scale of eight hours per day? After all, the city dweller might work in a shipping concern that brings foreign goods to other people, the city dweller might work at a power plant that provides power to his neighbors; he gives up some of his freedoms and some of his time and ability in order to provide something for other people, and in return they give far more back to him.
When we become civilized, we give up a great many of our freedoms - but in return, we gain the ability to call upon and rely upon the abilities of our civilization. That is why reciprocation is the fundamental unit of civilization; I give part of my time and energy and freedom to my people, and they give back to me; the benefit we get in return is far greater than the initial sacrifice, but we still must give up that initial investment. For some reason, people seem to forget that - they forget that you can't just take back those freedoms you gave up initially, and expect civilization to still work. It's like saying "well the table is in place, so I'm going to take the table legs back and use them for myself".
Keep in mind that I'm not saying we give up all our freedoms, or even that it's necessary to subsume yourself in the civilization like some mindless drone - however, the freedoms we give up (like the freedom to be a douchebag and not cooperate, or the freedom to keep all of everything you make, or the freedom skin squirrels in public) are freedoms we can't just take back and assume civilization will remain standing.
Which is exactly the aim of the GPL license. Don't want to play? Then you aren't part of the community and you can do it yourself.
Your example, by the way, is disingenuous. Counterexample - The developer finds something he wants to use and it's BSD licensed. His company take it, modify it and put it into the firmware of the router they're selling. There's no obligation to open anything so the WAG54G community never happens. Net loss for progress.
What "freedom" does a user have if the software he wants never exists in the first place, because the GPLed code prevents a company from investing time and money into the product that the user wants?
The user has the same freedoms he always has. They have the freedom to write their own software. Or pay to have it done. Or buy it from a closed source software house. Or stand on their heads and yodel, for all I or the GPL care.
GPL doesn't prevent companies from developing code. It prevents them from using other peoples' code if they are not willing to abide by certain conditions. Every piece of software these days, unless in the public domain, comes with some sort of restrictions attached. Don't like it? Fine! Use something else. The world is full of software code and tools that developers can use on their projects, whether subject to GPL restrictions or some other form.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
I have to wonder if they did something completely insane like link their TV application software straight into the busybox executable because I can't think of any other reason to withold it upon request. If they did straight link then more fool them.
Using a dynamic link does not "solve" the issue.
If you are a commercial entity dynamic linking against a GPL library I would advise you to get legal counsel quick-sharp. Legal counsel that has had experience in this area, because you are entering a huge and potentially dangerous grey area.
Not only that but you are expressly contravening the wishes of the person or people that wrote the library and put it under GPL. I would be VERY careful with that approach, and personally would never take it as I consider it immoral to use someone's work against their wishes when it is given as a gift to the OSS community.
"However the user application did not require any of the library source code to compile (only the prototypes in a header at the most), so use of the library is on the same level as running under the Linux kernel (which you can do with closed source applications under the GPL)."
Also not true.
You'll notice that the C and posix libraries are what your program is linked to, and those are licensed differently.
"The LGPL for libraries removes this issue, but I think it shouldn't be necessary."
That's because you want to make use of people's work without their permission, working around a community spirited license.
And you might also want to check out the Linux kernel license file which has the following exception -
"NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work"."
Which rather blows your equivalence of library and kernel use out of the water.
The Chuck Norris of brain cells, as it were. I am in awe.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
"When a construction company uses a hammer, does the manufacturer bitch and whine about how that company is profiting from their hammer without sharing back?"
When a construction company uses a hammer, modifies it slightly and sells it on for a lot of money, still with the patented and trademarked aspects of the original hammer in place.... sure as hell the original manufacturer whines and then sues. What's your point?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What "freedom" does a user have if the software he wants never exists in the first place, because the GPLed code prevents a company from investing time and money into the product that the user wants?
You couldn't be more wrong.
The GPLed code can't prevent companies from investing time and money.
The only way someone could prevent other companies from building stuff would be using patents, and the GPL doesn't involve filing patents.
The GPL enables us to form a walled community inside which we get to share our stuff, and not get ripped off. Companies are free to join our community, or not do it. They can stay outside and build their own stuff, or come inside and share with us the respect for users freedom.
Most users don't give a fuck about having access to the source code. Whether the source is open or closed has approximately zero value to them. They want a product. They want to buy it from a company who spent time and money ensuring that it will work, won't lose data, won't catch on fire, etc. A company that provides a warranty and support. They want to pay for something that works; note the success of Apple's various idiot-friendly interfaces.
Those users can still buy from Apple, and they do as a matter of fact. The GPL doesn't prevent people from buying from Apple.
You are defending the GPL reciprocity clause by pointing to the patent system? What if you think both are wrong?
Furthermore, and while I do not support it -- some here do -- patents protect the initial investment put into a product, which cannot be regained unless reproduction rights are limited only to the owner/investor. If you modify and distribute GPL code, the owner has lost nothing -- not capital, or ownership. So there isn't much of a legitimate comparison between the GPL and the patent system.
If you do, then surely you must have made an educated, conscious decision and made yourself aware of all the consequences? It's not like the GPLed code is not labeled as such - more often than not it's almost over-labeled, with a full notice in every file. What's the problem, again? Don't like it - don't use it. How could it be any simpler?
This is Slashdot. Common sense is futile. You will be modded down.
To not use it would mean a return to closed-source software (which I dislike even more, no chance for anyone with the skills to fix it up and make it better) or use no software at all. How is either choice palatable to anyone?
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
The GPL vs BSD license argument never gets old for some folk does it?
I agree.
Each to their own, but the GPL allows people who contribute to the public good to make sure that their work is not [etc.]
Yeah, thanks a bunch.
You (rightly) bemoan the tired, repetitive nature of GPL vs. BSD discussions. The ones that regurgitate the exact same argumentative points every time without shedding any new light on them, that let people feel good by justifying the same entrenched positions.
Then you self-indulgently kickstart exactly that type of thread-hijacking discussion because you can't resist sticking your oar in anyway. Despite the fact that what you say is the exact same explanation of the GPL that appears about a dozen times in every GPL vs. BSD thread ever. You know the arguments, the BSD-philes know the arguments and they've been repeated ad nauseum.
You know this, and you criticise it... then you do it anyway.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
As I said, when I contribute to the public, I don't care what anyone wants to use it for. At that point, it is beyond the scope of the spirit in which I shared it. If someone wants to take it and close off their own version, that is perfectly fine. The original is still out there for anyone else to take and nobody has been deprived of a thing. This is a concept that you seem not to grasp.
I would rather do my own thing and let others do theirs. A BSD style licence permits this. I am not in the business of trying to control other people.
Not to mention the question of whether we will actually see the source code due to the General Assignment.
Your argument is flawed because it reduces the entire world to just one situation. Closing the source forces everybody else to reinvent the wheel. Think for a while about this: In the GPL world, everything needs to be invented and implemented exactly once and anybody can improve what was implemented before. In the closed source world, everybody has to start from scratch and works on his own hook. Even if the total amount of resources in the closed source world is more than thousand times bigger than in the GPL world, the GPL world can still have the edge. The total amount of resources in the closed source world is meaningless because most of those resources are used to do the same thing over and over again. You have to compare individual players from the closed source world with the entire GPL world to get accurate picture about who's on the edge.
You're forgetting another key function of the patent system. When the patent expires, there's a good-enough technical description of the invention free for others to copy and develop. Patents not only protect the initial investment, they also ensure that everybody can get access to the invention a little bit later. GPL does the same thing without any delays.
So let me get this straight, you hate closed source even more than GPL for the obvious reasons but you also hate GPL because it forbids closing the source and thus protects you from being stuck in a closed source world? O_o
I realize Best Buy fixed the problem for you, but the "no service/warranty parts being available" part is illegal, at least in some states. (I believe it is a state law and not a federal law.) There is a certain time period for which companies have to be able to provide parts or repairs. (I would guess that refunding your money would be sufficient too.)
I knew I shouldn't have responded to an AC. I should've followed my first instinct to mod you down instead of participating.
"Lame" - Galaxar
I go there so I can mock the Geek Squad about how very little they truly know.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Sort of, but not quite. Patents expire and the information is disseminated to the public domain. There is no such reciprocation requirement as per the GPL. Thus, if anything, patents are more easily comparable to the BSD license... even though such a comparison reaches the absolute heights of absurdity.
But as with the patent system, my personal objections to the GPL are grounded solidly on the copyright system upon which it is based. Reciprocation is a noble goal, I think, and one that should be encouraged and culturally founded on -- but the idea of the law being able to enforce such an agreement turns my stomach. Licensing under non-contributory terms means I will lose out from a code perspective, but such is the price for taking a principled stand.
No, I hate the GPL because it removes the freedom for me to use GPL software in closed-source software or in any way in which I choose, whether or not I reciprocate.
Once I download the software (whether it was distributed freely by the author or I paid for it) I should be able to modify it, license my modifications as I wish, and decide whether or not I want to redistribute the original with my modifications. Yeah, if I sell the original program with my modifications and call it all my own, than that's definitely not good and shouldn't be allowed, but if I sell the original (my copy of the original) as modified by me, and explain that I'm only claiming the modifications as my own, then why should I be forced to contribute back those modifications to the source project? In essence I've forked the project yet the GPL says my modifications need to be GPL'd. I say tough luck, I'm licensing my modifications as I see fit.
I don't see what the issue is as long as the original author is credited appropriately, really.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
You're right, but then tell it by its real name: It's not about choice or freedom, it's about building community. Using the GPL means sacrificing the developer's freedom to build a community around a software product.
This is important, since it also gives you a hint about what's needed for building a working GPL product.
For example, take Google Wave: Google threw it out there, published the server source (maybe as GPL, I don't know), documented the protocol, and then did nothing more. Did a community build around it? Nope. That's because important non-software parts were missing.
You want others to give you the right to use their work and at the same time you do not give others the right to use your work (where "use" implies distribution). That's called hypocrisy. If you really didn't see what the issue was as long as the original author is credited appropriately, then you would not have a problem with licensing your additions likewise. You are exactly the kind of person which makes the GPL a necessity. People like you want to take Open Source and turn it into proprietary products (except when you feel generous, yeah right). The GPL defends others against your hypocrisy.
"This software is public domain. I, the author, hereby forego any copyright on it."
Hah, sucker! Thanks for the software!
Did I ever say that? Nope.
I said I want the choice on whether or not I want to reciprocate. Maybe that's the same to you as saying "I don't want to reciprocate, ever." It's not to me. In one instance I'm saying I just want an option, in the other instance you are saying I shouldn't have that option.
Also, if I didn't want people to use my stuff, why would I bother advocating CopyFree policies?
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
1) What's the motivation to take someone else's work and not contribute back 2) ??? 3) Profit!
You advocate CopyFree because you want to build on other people's work. You want "choice" because you don't want to reciprocate, at least sometimes (yeah right). Also, you want to keep this going because you're a troll.
The GPL vs BSD license argument never gets old for some folk does it?
YES!!!
We have this stupid argument every *single* time anything involving the GPL happens. Will everyone please drop the sticks and back slowly away from the horse carcass? Nobody cares which license *you* use for *your* project; it's almost as dumb as text-editor wars.
$ make available
Look at the big picture. You take open source code, make some changes and release it as closed source. Congratulations, you've just made a fork which will sooner or later become a stub. The resources you put into it are wasted because they didn't help move the open codebase forward. It will move forward nevertheless but at the cost of additional resources to reimplement your changes. Now imagine that there are thousands of people who do this every day to the same project. Can you see those millions of stub branches faning out from the open trunk? Do you realize the amount of wasted effort that went into those stubs? And can you imagine what would happen if all that effort was put into the open trunk instead?
GPL makes sure there's as little wasted effort as possible. BSD code may very well have a lot more developers than GPL code. But a lot of those developers hack their own closed source forks and waste time reinventing the wheel. GPL code can manage with much less resources and achieve much, much more. If you don't like that, you're always free to go back to the closed source world because without GPL, there would be nothing open worth using.
Really? Tell that to the BSDs (though they do use a lot of GPL software, they are all slowly removing GPL code from their distributions).
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
Sure, the original code is not closed. But the new code, derived from the FOSS contributors code, can be closed. Furthermore people who receive the new binaries don't get the source or the ability to redistribute. Major loss of rights to them.
GPL ensures that everyone in the chain gets the source if they want it. That's the whole damn point.
Might explain why Panasonic is replacing Linux with FreeBSD in their VIERA TVs (see license agreement at http://panasonic.jp/support/global/cs/tv/download/2010/down_navt.html).
Right, the BSDs. You mean those guys who managed to lose 20 years of head start over Linux in just 5 years and who also get the majority of userspace contributions from Linux distro developers? At least they can pat themselves on the back for helping Apple make a whole lot of money. Too bad they won't get anything back.
You missed the point that he criticised such discussions then kickstarted one such thread hijack anyway.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
As young married couples, our Westinghouse appliances didn't always last as long as they should. We used to say We Sting youse.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
See subject above. STFU you trolling shithead silanea. It's obvious you're a software thief just by your line of questioning here.
If your business plan involves taking something someone else wrote and released for everyone and hiding away your modifications to it to prevent "competition", you're an asshole.
BSDL means being able to be an asshole to users because someone was nice to you. Wow, what an important "freedom".
What "freedom" does a user have if the software he wants never exists in the first place, because the GPLed code prevents a company from investing time and money into the product that the user wants?
If the GPL prevented you from "investing time and money" into a product you were either 1) unable to close the GPLed code for "your" product, or 2) had an idea for a niche already filled by a free alternative and weren't needed. Neither hurts the user.
Most users don't give a fuck about having access to the source code. Whether the source is open or closed has approximately zero value to them.
Bullshit. Most users don't know if their software is open source, but it has tremendous value to them if it is. That's the guarantee you won't lose your data when your key suddenly stops working.
They want to buy it from a company who spent time and money ensuring that it will work, won't lose data, won't catch on fire, etc. A company that provides a warranty and support.
Yeah, right. Which software company provides a warranty? Microsoft? Apple? EA? Hardly. Read your EULA, or your corporate licensing agreement. You have no warranty. That's classic MS FUD - warning that you don't get a warranty with free software, all the while hoping you don't notice they don't even promise their software works at all.