Slashdot Mirror
SFC Expands GPL Compliance Efforts To Samba, Linux, and Other Projects
An anonymous reader tipped us to news that the Software Freedom Conservancy is expanding its GPL compliance efforts. Quoting Bradley Kuhn: "This new program is an outgrowth of the debate that happened over the last few months regarding Conservancy's GPL compliance efforts. Specifically, I noticed that, buried in the FUD over the last four months regarding GPL compliance, there was one key criticism that was valid and couldn't be ignored: Linux copyright holders should be involved in compliance actions on embedded systems. Linux is a central component of such work, and the BusyBox developers agreed wholeheartedly that having some Linux developers involved with compliance would be very helpful. Conservancy has addressed this issue by building a broad coalition of copyright holders in many different projects who seek to work on compliance with Conservancy, including not just Linux and BusyBox, but other projects as well."
The anonymous reader adds: "This news was also discussed in the latest episode of the Free as in Freedom Oggcast." Update: 05/30 14:20 GMT by U L: It may not be entirely clear, but several Linux developers have assigned copyright so that the Conservancy can pursue violations for them.
I believe they MUST be involved. As a 3rd party SFLC really has no say ( IIRC the legal term is "standing".). IANAL but If someone strips the GPL from some code and puts that code in their product, the copyright holders are the only one who can legitimately make a complaint. The users may notice, but their rights to source code are defined in the GPL - which is absent in such a case.
... not expecting GPL3 compliance from software that's only GPL2?
Oggcast is a damn stupid word. Please kill it with fire.
Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
And the trouble is that there is soo much FUD, that it is causing the same effect as if the FUD were true - a self fulfilling prophecy - thereby making the FUD in fact true.
Yes, it's a situation of recursive FUD about GNU licenses; which is ironic considering that 'GNU' is recursive.
The question is whether most Linux developers really care that much. Linux is big and strong enough, that a modified version in a specific product is unlikely to have anything important Linux really needs. Most likely it will be modifications to work with some highly specific hardware.
The purchasers of the hardware might be interested in the source code if they want to hack it, but aside from that, it probably doesn't make a lot of difference to developers, who just want to hack code.
There is no freedom in class society, under capitalism for example. Only when we have COMMUNISM will we be truly free. If the FSF does not declare itself for the DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT then they are hypocrites like Ralph or Jenny.
Unless you're THE GUY (like Castro) or part of THE GUY's power elite, you're fucked under communism. There has never been a successful Communist government EVER; well we'll see about China. But rest assured, if or when China's economy hiccups, we'll be seeing some turmoil over there.
Secondly, Communism is a political system. Capitalism is an economic system.
Comparing the two is idiotic but that's the PROPAGANDA we American's have heard for decades, so I really can't blame you.
IMO this is a good thing, especially if it means greater pressure on the likes of HTC and other Android vendors to be more proactive and release the kernel source for their devices when the devices and binaries are released instead of taking months and repeated prodding by the copyright holder to get code out there.
More FUD! I really do not see what Linus's problem is with the GPL3. What it does is add formal protection for 2 sneaky ways to violate the spirit of the GPL that GPL2 lacks. It is also *more* permissive, allowing more ways to comply with the requirements.
The first is "Tivoization". Vendors should not hardwire checks to prevent "unapproved" software from being run. Makes no difference whether these checks are done in the software or hardware. Such a check really is software no matter that it's been hardwired in. With a scheme like that in place, you can't fix so much as a typo let alone a simple bug. Linus is apparently okay with Tivoization.
More serious is the other problem, patents. Microsoft and Novell came up with a way to restrict access to software via patent law rather than copyright law. They'd add some code to free software, then once it had gained some adoption, they'd bring to the surface submarine patents they have on that software, for rent seeking and anti-competitive purposes. GPL3 prevents that by forbidding anyone who contributes code from seeking patent royalties for their contributions. Lest you think that's not a problem, consider SCO.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
IANAL but there is a flaw in your premise when you say:
"Which is better, buy a licence for non-free software (fixed, one off cost) or use free software and pay for lawyers to be sure you are in compliance?"
Nobody is getting sued for "using" GPLed software. Rather, some vendors think that they have the right to distribute code written by someone else in their product without complying with the terms of the programmer who actually wrote the code. Specifically the requirement that source be made available.
Often, violators are contacted and immediately comply. Sometimes they fight the compliance requirement. Either way, nobody is forcing any entity to use GPLed software in their product. Apple managed to avoid it when they built OsX on top of Unix, and when they built Safari on top of Konqueror.
Programmers don't have to use the GPL either. There are many other licenses to choose from - including the "Chicken Dance License". Programmers, like me, who use the GPL have made a choice to ensure that the source code is available for all to see and modify, and will not become "obsolete".
Whatever the license, don't just click through the terms, actually read them. If you don't agree with a license, don't use the product. That is why I haven't used Microsoft products in years.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/15/online-shoppers-unknowingly-sold-souls/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/no_microsoft_class_actions/
http://slashdot.org/story/01/09/20/1443226/microsoft-frontpage-license-prohibits-anti-microsoft-speech
If it's a good idea, write one up and start using it. As an author you have authority (note how similar those two words are) to state the acceptable terms of use of your craft. If people like your model, it may be adopted by a group with the funds hire professional jerks to sue people into poverty on your behalf.
The only advantage of using an existing copy control license is the promise that some organization exists that shall throw lawyers at anyone who might be violating the terms.
I think that you need to define your terms much more carefully.
What happens if some non-proprietary project includes your code, and then that code is used in some proprietary software? Are you not forcing special conditions on the first project in that they must forbid the proprietary software from using the part of "their" code which you wrote?
Also, if your code can't be used in proprietary software, but can be used in software which doesn't release its source, what difference are you perceiving there? I'll hazard a guess (I may be wrong) that by "proprietary" you mean "for financial gain" perhaps?
Does anyone know if there's a licence out there which forbids using any part of the code in proprietary software, but which does not force derivative code to release its source?
The question doesn't make sense. Proprietary software is the opposite of Free Software (or Open Source, depending on your leanings). It is software where the person who receives the binary also receives the code, along with modification and redistribution rights. You can not require derived works not to be proprietary without also requiring their code to be released - it's like requiring them to include air, but not requiring them to include oxygen.
The GPL doesn't require you to release the code to anyone that you don't give binaries to, so it doesn't require public release. More importantly, it doesn't require giving back, only giving forward, which is why the 'I use the GPL so that companies that use my code have to give me their improvements' argument irritates me so much: 90% of all software is developed for in-hosue use and never distributed, so anyone using and improving the code for in-hosue use has no legal obligation to share it under the GPL.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I don't know about Linus, but my problems include (but are not limited to) the fact that it restricts available software functionality and imposes restrictions on the use (without distribution) of software, contrary to the whole point of free software, and that it creates difference classes of users, with different rules that apply when targetting them.
I disagree, and so (in a different way) does the FSF, apparently. I disagree in that I think this rule is entirely unnecessary, the FSF appears to think that vendors of business hardware should may legitimately need to do this, but vendors of consumer hardware should not. Personally, I think that software freedom is enough, and hardware restrictions of the type imposed by the GPLv3 anti-tivoization provisions on "consumer" devices are not only unnecessary, but actually antithetical to software freedom. This is particularly the case because a mechanism for addressing the same concerns that is consistent with software freedom is suggested by the text of the GPL -- just require that hardware with which GPL software is distributed have specifications that are available under a particular set of license terms, and which is available on the terms as the software source.
So? Since when does software freedom involve limiting the available functionality of software?
Sure you can. You may not be able to deploy it on the original hardware, but that's a different issue.
So is the FSF, so long as the user who wants the freedom to select a device with that feature is part of the privileged class of "business" users. Consumers who might prefer tamper-proof devices, and the manufacturers who want to sell to them, are locked out by the GPLv2.
I've never read about the FSF making any distinctions b/w business and consumer users. All they care about is the liberation of software. Do you have any links on either fsf.org or gnu.org where such a distinction is spelt out?
Well yes there are licenses like that, they are called non commercial licenses. For example: http://pigale.sourceforge.net/license_Qt.html
I think by proprietary he meant commercial. I suggested http://pigale.sourceforge.net/license_Qt.html
Inconsistent is the developer who first licenses his software under a copyleft license and then does not demand compliance to the terms involved.
Too many people think copyleft is public domain. Or at least pretend to do so. Human greed knows no boundaries...
A license that does not allow commercial use would not meet the definition of free or open source software (Freedom 0: the freedom to use the software for any purpose), so his restriction would effectively make it impossible for anyone to incorporate his code into a larger project, open or proprietary.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
You don't want a license which forces special conditions but not one that forces special conditions? You need to ponder this a bit more, particularly since even the BSD won't cut it, it forces special conditions like requiring code added to files to be under the same license when the source is distributed and attribution.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
That's not true.
1) A person could distribute a GPLed application themselves, redistribution would then be questionable but not neccesarily illegal. (This was precisely the situation with KDE when QT was under that license)
2) A person could distribute a BSD/MIT licensed code which depended on that library. They would just want to make sure the recipient understood that he's getting a conjoined work under 2 different licenses.
3) A person could distribute a closed source application using the QT style license as long as they didn't sell it.
See the GPLv3, Sec. 6. Note, there, that the "anti-tivoization" provisions only apply to what the GPLv3 calls "User Products", which are, essentially, what would in normal parlance be consumer products as opposed to business products.
That's what the advertisements say, but that's not what the license says. Which is the problem with the license.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You are confused about copyleft, the whole point there is to foster code sharing (turning the normal use of copyright in proprietary software on its head). What you want (as far as I can figure) is a license that only lets freeware use your code, the only one that comes close I'm aware of would be a CC-BY-NC. If that doesn't work you'd likely have to write your own as most people don't consider it a useful tool. You will not manage to avoid both public domain and copyright restricted, it's either free of restrictions (whether legally in the public domain or effectively through lack of enforcement) or it's copyright protected in some form.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Tell me what you think the word "proprietary" means. I don't think you are using the word correctly which is why you are having trouble.