Slashdot Mirror
Bruce Perens Warns Grsecurity Breaches the Linux Kernel's GPL License (perens.com)
Bruce Perens co-founded the Open Source Initiative with Eric Raymond. Now he's sharing a "strong opinion" that companies should avoid the Grsecurity security patch for the Linux kernel "because it presents a contributory infringement and breach of contract risk." Slashdot reader NewGnu shared Bruce's comments:
[I]t would fail a fair-use test... Because of its strongly derivative nature of the kernel, it must be under the GPL version 2 license, or a license compatible with the GPL and with terms no more restrictive than the GPL. Earlier versions were distributed under GPL version 2... My understanding from several reliable sources is that customers are verbally or otherwise warned that if they redistribute the Grsecurity patch, as would be their right under the GPL, that they will be assessed a penalty: they will no longer be allowed to be customers, and will not be granted access to any further versions of Grsecurity. GPL version 2 section 6 explicitly prohibits the addition of terms such as this redistribution prohibition...
This is tantamount to the addition of a term to the GPL prohibiting distribution or creating a penalty for distribution. GPL section 6 specifically prohibits any addition of terms. Thus, the GPL license, which allows Grsecurity to create its derivative work of the Linux kernel, terminates, and the copyright of the Linux Kernel is infringed. The contract from the Linux kernel developers to both Grsecurity and the customer which is inherent in the GPL is breached.
Perens advises companies to discuss his position with their attorneys, adding "In the public interest, I am willing to discuss this issue with companies and their legal counsel, under NDA, without charge."
This is tantamount to the addition of a term to the GPL prohibiting distribution or creating a penalty for distribution. GPL section 6 specifically prohibits any addition of terms. Thus, the GPL license, which allows Grsecurity to create its derivative work of the Linux kernel, terminates, and the copyright of the Linux Kernel is infringed. The contract from the Linux kernel developers to both Grsecurity and the customer which is inherent in the GPL is breached.
Perens advises companies to discuss his position with their attorneys, adding "In the public interest, I am willing to discuss this issue with companies and their legal counsel, under NDA, without charge."
Grsecurity is snakeoil dogshit.
I for one support the BSD license, and the BSD kernel.
"His name was James Damore."
Don't bother with grsecurity.
Their approach has always been "we don't care if we break anything, we'll just claim it's because we're extra secure".
The thing is a joke, and they are clowns. When they started talking about people taking advantage of them, I stopped trying to be polite about their bullshit.
Their patches are pure garbage.
Linus
"Linux is worse than cancer"
-- Steve Ballmer
What does Bruce Brackets have to say about all this? ;)
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
It's one thing to require that modifications to source code remain open source. I think it's onerous, but at least it's not infecting anything it links to. However, the GPL require that any derivative works that make use of any GPL code be released under the GPL if they're distributed at all. This means that merely linking your own original code with GPL code (that remains open source) and distributing it requires that you also release your own original code under the GPL. This is an asinine restriction on freedom, and precisely why the GPL is evil. If you actually care about freedom, require that the original code and direct modifications to it remain open source, but let linked code be released under any license. That's a completely reasonable compromise, but the asinine GPL doesn't allow for it.
Indeed, only real freedom gives me the right to take away somebody else's rights.
My favorite Bruce Perens software is Electric Fence. He wrote that in the early days of Linux, originally writing it for SunOS and then porting it to Linux back at the beginning. Bruce knows his shit since way before Linux was even a gleam in Torvalds's eye. Thanks Bruce!
Yup, Microsoft gets bashed for their EULAs while the open source EULA, the GPL, is even more onerous and restrictive. I hope the viral provision is tested in court and ruled to be illegal. It's freedom as in you're free to do exactly what we tell you to do but nothing else. Freedom my ass.
"Lick my rectum"
-- Richard Simmons
Unless of course the goal is to keep the software open/modifiable by all while disallowing poaching by closed source developers. This frees the project from parasitic closed developers. They'll have to write their own code if they want to keep it closed.
The original Linux kernel was released over 25 years ago. If copyrights had their original terms, as many here would want, parts of the Linux kernel would no longer be copyrighted, but actually in the public domain. That means the GPL could not apply, due to the lack of copyright protection. The open source community should stop being hypocrites and release GPL code into the public domain after 20 years, as many of their users call for authors of other works to do. Add a clause to the GPL indicating that anything licensed under the GPL will enter the public domain after 20 years, and perhaps I won't complain about the GPL being ridiculous onerous and asinine.
i usually fall into the "GPL is less free than BSD" camp, but in this case I agree fully with Perens. the Linux kernel is GPL, everyone who works on it agrees accepts that. if you don't like the GPL or the conditions it places on you, or how you (and others) can distribute your code - then go the fuck somewhere else.
""In order to be free must must do exactly as say, only as I say, and nothing else."
-- L. Ron Hubbard
https://trac.ffmpeg.org/query?...
read about them.
Clippy says, "It appears you're starting yet another GPL vs. BSD holy war discussion. Would You Like Help?"
* Yes, please link to one of the approximately 17,000 near-identical discussions of this nature we've already had on Slashdot over the years.
* No, I'd rather pointlessly go through the exact same longwinded to-ing and fro-ing and restatements of the same old facts purely to indulge my personal need, despite the fact I know the chances of any new insight coming out of the billionth tedious discussion of this long-established subject is next to nothing, despite the fact that those on both sides feel the need to repeat the same entrenched positions- which mostly come down to personal philosophy and not an incomplete understanding of the issues (which everyone knows full well by now) and will therefore be unlikely to change in the face of the discussion (not that this was the point anyway).
(Joking aside, I'm pretty sure the OP knows all this and is intentionally trolling; I'm also pretty sure the replying AC above isn't, which IMHO makes it worse).
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
There are lots of situations where we violate the terms of GPL if we were to distribute the Linux kernel. The trick has always been to not distribute the kernel in that situation. For example, you don't find too many distros that ship with NVIDIA's proprietary drivers because there was always the question that it would be a GPL violation to do so (yes), but we still have the drivers and the end-user can install them herself if she chooses.
Look, I don't give a shit about violating copyright for the sake of violating copyright. The companies that are all-take-and-no-give, like cheap router manufacturers, that cause the community danger with their unpatched crap - the community tolerates the lawsuits against them.
But if Bruce or Eric decide to sue Debian or Canonical (or whomever) for shipping GRSecurity with the kernel, I'll watch while the community turns on them like a pack of fucking wolves and their reputation takes a perpetual hit.
It's bad enough people playing lawyer with the CDDL vs. GPL nonsense with ZFS - these licenses are intended to help the community, not harm it. People who get lost in the weeds of licenses instead of figuring out how to make the community better are our version of bureaucrats and frankly many of us don't have much use for them.
Any form of legal system that harms its society is immoral and ought to be, and will be, dismantled.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
You should read the entire statement, because there are things missing from the quote above that are important. The most important part is the legal theory:
Also, this is important to keep me in compliance with the law:
It's important to consider the goals of the GPL. You get great Free Software, but it's not a gift. It is sharing with rules that must be followed. You are required to keep it Free. And one of the implied purposes of the GPL is to cause more great Free Software to be made. This means that derivative works that are not shared really go against the purpose as well as the wording of the GPL.
Bruce Perens.
Good. Everyone who doesn't like Linux's license is perfectly free to support any of the BSDs.
Ezekiel 23:20
"Most quotes on the internet are made up."
- Albert Einstein
Circumcision is child abuse.
Dear AC,
If that's really their intent, they're confused. Or maybe you don't understand? The GPL doesn't have anything to do with trademarks. And Grsecurity did not bother to create a trademark for their product that was different from the versions with the old GPL-only terms, which are still in use. If trademark was the problem, they'd need to create a new one for their commercial product.
This, unfortunately, would not mitigate the GPL issue, which is copyright and contract related.
Bruce Perens.
How? You're completely forbidden to make derivative works of Microsoft Windows. You're also forbidden to distribute it in any way.
Indeed, as we know free is not gratis.
The GPL keeps the existing software and its derivatives free to use by and for all.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
The GPL is reasonable, You want to use someone elses code you should give back the improvements you make. I dont see anything wrong with that.
How is doing things secretly under NDA "in the public interest"?
Did you really ask this? Seriously. Did you?
Your opinion of GPL aside, are you remotely aware of law at all? Seriously. Are you?
If you're not willing to pay "the price" of the GPL stop whining and go use some other code base with terms you can accept. But if you won't comply with the GPL, nothing else gives you the right to redistribute GPL'd code or or derivative works of it.
"Most quotes on the internet are made up."
- Albert Einstein
Yeah, right there you've demonstrated the "internet problem" in a nut shell... taking an Abraham Lincoln quote and then mis-attributing it to Albert Einstein.
#DeleteChrome
Free as in beer?
"When the Internet is invented, I think it would be really cool if people misquoted me on it."
-- Abraham Lincoln
This space unintentionally left blank.
"The definition of insanity is misquoting the same thing over and over and expecting different attributions."
- President Benjamin Franklin
lucm, indeed.
FAKE NEWS!
I fail to understand the rules of logic in this alternate reality of yours.
Did you really ask this? Seriously. Did you?
Your opinion of GPL aside, are you remotely aware of law at all? Seriously. Are you?
I'd be curious to see if on your keyboard the "?" key is as worn down as the space bar.
lucm, indeed.
Exactly this.
I've seen multiple pieces of software, including Paint.net and Classic Shell, change to proprietary licenses because of this exact issue; being able to effectively plagiarize a program just because it's open source and you can theoretically do anything to it, like change the name and claim it as your own, claim it's a "new version" that's littered with malware or add-ons that aren't open source, etc. Open source licenses do not give you a carte blanche to infringe on any other proprietary intellectual property associated with the software, such as trademarks and trade dress.
I am become death, destroyer of BSD sphincters.
-- Bhagavad Torvalds
How is doing things secretly under NDA "in the public interest"?
It's the first question he would be asked. "Will do discuss this under NDA". So he's getting that out of the way before they start.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
"Lick, lick, lick my balls"
-- Rick Sanchez
Indeed, if you plan on reaping the benefits of open source while preventing others from doing the same, then you should avoid GPL at all costs.
Of course, that means you shouldn't start a business centered around GPLed software.
However there was no risk here. It's insanely easy to see that what they wanted to do was against the GPL and from that point they should have dropped the entire thing and went on to do something else.
That's your right. Of course, this matters more if you've actually released anything under it.
I should tell you, though, I have had more than one person who used gift-style licenses come crying to me about how badly they were abused. Some decide the GPL is a better idea too late...
Bruce Perens.
Right. Nobody and their legal counsel want to talk about this without an NDA. I am taking on some liability by accepting an NDA and still doing the whole thing for free.
Bruce Perens.
I think that argument sounds wrong.
Do they distribute anything that's under the GPL? The summary speaks of patches. That means they don't distribute the Linux kernel, which is GPL, but only their own code.
Since they don't distribute the kernel, they don't need a license for it, as there's no copying for which copyright applies. And their own software they can distribute under whatever terms they like.
As long as it's not bundled along with the kernel, they don't even touch the kernel's GPL. It's the customer that patches their code.
And also, since the GPL is not an EULA, their customers are free to do whatever they want. That includes linking the kernel with a GPL incompatible patch, as long as they do not themselves distribute the result. Only distributing it would violate the GPL.
I think it was eminent physicist Sergei Eisenstein that said that.
The problem with using the Founder's Copyright is that Public Domain is not more free for the aggregate of all people than the GPL would be. It's just an invitation to integrate the public code into private works without returning anything, while the GPL promotes that more code is shared.
Bruce Perens.
The GPL does not require any "giving back". It says that if you change the software, and give the changed version to somebody else, you must give them (a) the source code and (b) a GPL-compatible license for the combined/modified software. You could call that obligatory giving forward, but not obligatory giving back.
Linux should do like OpenBSD did with pf and just replace it. All this yelling and screaming just turns people away.
They don't have to distribute the kernel to violate the GPL in this case. Copyright also restricts the creation of derivative works. Grsecurity definitely is derivative of the kernel. The GPL would be their only permission to create and distribute a derivative work of the kernel. And one of the terms of the GPL is that you can't add any rules to your derivative that aren't in the GPL itself.
With respect, your understanding of copyright and licensing isn't quite complete. This is not a personal criticism, it's true for most people. But legal theories based on what you know so far might not be correct.
Bruce Perens.
Citations would be really helpful... Otherwise it's a bit worthless, whatever your name is :-)
Open source can be abused as well that's why you all had to come up with a GPLv-(everyone loves us)-3.0.
I scanned the comments looking for some explanation of what Grsecurity is and where it comes from but no luck. With too many Slashdot stories it's like trying to join a conversation half way through. I could go and look it up but thought I'd post this instead.
If the GPL was really about freedom then it would contain exactly one sentence.
"You are free to do whatever you want with this software. "
Wow, why do you hate freedom so much?
How am I "free" if I, as you claim, am forced to grant permission to others that allows them to assume ownership of everything I make, and at the same time deny me usage and possession of everything I make?
Sounds like forced slavery to me...
Grsecurity is definitely a derived work of the kernel, which I think grsecurity doesn't even doubt. After all, the patches they distribute are licensed under the GPL. They don't prevent you from using your rights under the GPL, they might not want to do further business with you if you do, but you can still use the rights and share the code legally.
To me it seems the legal question is whether or not they are using their influence to, indirectly, add a non-disclosure clause to the GPL. I am not a judge so I cant answer that but it doesn't look that clear cut to me.
https://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/1349461349639_258855.png
If insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Then I guess I'll stop cleaning the house.
Creator of the Open Source AMBE codec. He doesn't want his name known because he doesn't want to be sued by DVSI.
Bruce Perens.
You understand the difference between "me libertarianism" and "us libertarianism". Some of these folks are offended that they aren't allowed to keep slaves.
Bruce Perens.
Original terms in which country? Finland, USA?
AFAIR the USA original term was 14 years, plus the ability to extend for 14, but I could be wrong.
As sort-of blessed by Stallman? Well, at least before they made their peace with CentOs by eating them?
Hi Bruce,
Since you say that GRSecurity is 'definitely' a derivative work, and since you know about a million times more than I do, let's accept that claim as a fact for a moment.
GRSecurity is primary distributed as a set of patches which modify the Linux kernel's operation in various ways. The end user takes those patches and combines them with the kernel to achieve the desired (or maybe not, doesn't matter). According to your claim, they are not permitted to do so without license from the original work (the kernel).
The implications of this claim seem to be very broad and, to me, undesirable. It would seem to indicate that people would not be free to build and share aftermarket enhancements for any commercial product that contains a creative element (that is eligible for copyright) without license from the company that produced it.
For instance, Subaru sells a car containing an ECU, and no doubt that Subaru retains copyright in the code that runs in that ECU. Joe and his friends develop a software patch for this ECU in order to improve the characteristics of their automobile or to make it compatible with some other usage or accessory. According to your claim, this is a derivative work (it patches the ECU software, the ECU software is copyright) and so if Joe distributes this patch without license from Subaru, he is liable for infringement.
Or for another example, a company sells an electronic microscope to Janice's school. Janice and her friends patch the software running on the microscope to improve the noise reduction algorithm or increase the maximum frame rate. Janice wishes to distribute this improvement to other students. Again, the same story.
So much then for Janice and Joe's right to tinker with the software running on their devices then.
[ For what it's worth, if I were writing the law instead of describing it, I would avoid this entire mess and make it clear that a patch or modification on an existing work that does not itself any part of the original is not derivative. It's just a set of instructions for how the rightful possessor of the originator work can change it, nothing more. ]
This is a very large discussion and I'm not going to put in the hour necessary to explain it fully. One of the relevant cases is Galoob Games v. Nintendo. In that case, the Game Genie made by Galoob, which let you have infinite lifetime and ammo and thus cheat in Nintendo games, was thought to be a derivative work by Nintendo. Galoob won, because the Game Genie connected to a plug and only modified a few memory locations.
Unlike the modularity of the Game Genie and that of some of the other things you mention, Grsecurity does not limit itself to dealing with Linux through its APIs (like the plugs in the Nintendo console and game cartrige). Instead, Grsecurity gets dirty fingers all over the kernel internals. So, it's derivative.
I am very much a supporter of right to repair and to interoperate, and we should discuss that another time.
Bruce Perens.
Do not feed the trolls.
Code have no freedom, nor rights. Information have no desires.
I don't see the problem. If you work with open source because you expect other people to give something back, then you are in it for the wrong (selfish) reasons.
You are more than welcome to make derivatives of the Linux kernel and sell them (see Android). You do however have to comply with the license and thus you should see GPLed release code on sites from Samsung etc (which you often but not always do).
The company is not required to release the code publically either, only their customers can demand the code, however this has to be under the same license (thus you cannot do like Amlogic does and claim NDA for the Linux kernel)
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Likewise, laws against murder are the worst! Sure, they protect me, at least as much as any law can, but they don't allow me to murder whomever I want! This is why laws against murder are horrible and have to go!
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
I understand the GPL is "word libertarianism" a.k.a "just do as I say libertarianism" a.k.a. not libertarianism at all. Many (not most) GPL adherents see it as an inspired text with religious meaning and try to redefine common terms. No you people don't get to change the meaning of freedom and you don't get to define what people should want.
The GPL have an important place among other software licenses. It however do allow people to keep the metaphorical slaves as long as they swear to uphold the holy GPL. Most other licenses accept that it isn't about the holy idea but about allowing others to modify, study and distribute creations with the question of (still metaphorical) slaves being controlled by other, separate, rules.
All kernel work should be GPL. It's time that Linus steps up his act. Because of his stance that it's ok for GPU vendors are ok to make non-GPL licensed kernel modules, we get into this shit. And while that position was defendable in the '90s when Linux was new, now it isn't.
It's because of this that Android phones are stuck at whatever kernel version the proprietary drivers enforce. E-waste galore...
GRSec might be flawed, but it cannot be considered more absurd than the original MySQL license, nor morally worse than proprietary kernel drivers.
Linus, wake up and create a timeline for proprietary drivers to phase out!
Ok, like 3 people use BSD for security roles.
The problem with using the Founder's Copyright is that Public Domain is not more free for the aggregate of all people than the GPL would be. It's just an invitation to integrate the public code into private works without returning anything, while the GPL promotes that more code is shared.
Well, that depends upon whether you want freedom or a set of rules. I respect your opinion on most things, but in this case you cannot make the case that GPL is about freedom, because its not. It's about controlling those who use it while giving them great latitude in one way, but constraining them greatly in others. The closest thing to freedom regarding copyright and code are licenses such as MIT, BSD, and the Apache 2 licenses, and even those have clauses constraining use. They're just a lot less restraining than the GPL (2 or 3).
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
I'd call it relinquishing control of your software. We don't touch GPL source or libraries anywhere I have worked precisely because of this show-stopping feature of GPL.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Anybody who cleans their house and expects it to never get dirty again is simply a retard. It's not the act of doing the same thing over and over again that makes someone crazy, it's the expectation that the outcome will change.
Talk about not getting the point. An idiot must have created that image.
Linux will never takeover the desktop. You spend more time on pedantic licensing arguments than MAKING SHIT WORK BETTER!
Humans can keep these arguments going for literally thousands of years, I wouldn't expect to hear the end of it any time soon.
My contention is that the current state with Grsecurity is like releasing it under NDA. I just wanted to make sure you understood that part.
Bruce Perens.
Bruce Perens played Mr. Lippman on Seinfeld
It however do allow people to keep the metaphorical slaves as long as they swear to uphold the holy GPL.
No one is forcing the GPL on anyone.
Absolutely no one is forced to take GPL code and do anything with it. Not a single person.
Slaves do not by definition have the choice to not be a slave.
If you don't want to "uphold the holy GPL" as you call it, you are perfectly free to get code in any one of many other ways.
You can find code licensed in some other way.
You can learn to code and write your own.
You can pay someone to write it for you and give you copyright ownership, after which you can license it in anyway you please, including not licencing it at all.
You are the one redefining "freedom", "slaves", and "forced" here.
It is a perfectly viable business model: they are not licensing the linux kernel, they are only licensing patches, and possibly some technical support. You don't get any right besides using the patches, whatever you do internally with the linux kernel and the patches is your own thing. If you distribute the kernel, you may have to make the patches available but that is a liability a liability for using linux anyways. Do they care about the community? NO, they are not forced by license to do it.
Don't like it? sue them. VMware got away with much more, so it is pretty likely a waste of time.
My company has purchased grsecurity patches in a fashion where it's possible for someone to buy a product and request source from us under the GPL. We have been told explicitly by OSS that we are to provide source and honor the GPL. There have been no caveats or asterisks associated with it either, it is very straightforward.
Are people just making this shit up for fun or something? What gives?
You can learn to code and write your own.
You can pay someone to write it for you and give you copyright ownership, after which you can license it in anyway you please, including not licencing it at all.
Not so sure these are entirely viable in every situation. One can easily run afoul of patents when writing your own code. Additionally, if your code looks and/or acts like someone elses code, you can easily be accused of stealing it by entities protecting whatever it is you seemed to have re-invented.
While programming and coding should be fairly free and loose with regards to the above concerns, it is not. Not in this reality. Tread carefully.
As an addendum to the above, I just wanted to point out, the above scenarios won't activate until you start making money with your work. You'll be absolutely amazed how much crazy will come out of the woodwork, then claim patents, theft and/or any other sort of misrepresentation in order to grab a slice of your pie.
Again, tread carefully.
I don't think I understand what you are meaning to say.
Yes, those are valid concerns when writing your own code and hiring someone to write code for you...
But compared to the other options listed (using code under another license, and using GPL code while agreeing to the GPL), plus the option the parent poster said was preferable, namely using GPL code while violating copyright laws in doing so, I'm fairly certain all of those have the same patent risk just the same.
Even purchasing a license to commercial closed code isn't free of those risks.
Although if the commercial entity you purchase the code from is also the patent holder for the process it works by, your risk is greatly reduced at least so far as being sued for a patent violation.
As for the problem of "being accused of a crime you didn't commit", at least in the US, this is a risk everyone is exposed to no matter what they do in life.
Unfortunately that can happen if you stay in bed sleeping for 23 hours a day, if you happen to piss off the wrong person in you one waking hour.
As a warning to people, fair enough.
I just don't see what any of those have to do with the "need" to violate copyright laws like the parent was saying is the best option regarding copyright licenses.
Libertoon ... grok GPL ... because you took, now you must give! A just king would also assert such a social structure. Contra ... if you never took then you need never give. Of-course a strong productive man naturally gives and rarely becomes weaker for it.
It's true, I verified it. Mod parent up.
My software is released under this license: "This software is information. It is subject only to local laws of physics." Basically just obey the laws of physics. Like a good lump of matter.
Have you stopped fellating your neighbor's dog yet?
"Linux sucks my cock"
--Hillary Clinton
Except in this case you mean.
I'd call it relinquishing control of your software.
That's exactly what it is. Some people find that letting go results in a better deal. Some don't.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
>> I'd call it relinquishing control of your software.
> That's exactly what it is.
Not quite, because if you make a derivative work, it's not really "yours" under copyright law. GPL has nothing to do with this fact.
The growth in use of permissive licenses (particularly if you look at github) over restrictive ones is a demonstration of pragmatism and the idea that not everything must be free and we can have non-free and free components working together and cooperating rather than focussing on a pure free software ideology.
Even the most prominent FSF project, GNU, has made sacrifices of freedom in service of being pragmatic: Specifically the endorsement of the Linux kernel despite the lack of copyright assignment, the elimination of the 'or later versions' clause and the preamble permitting syscalls from GPL-incompatible software.
Many businesses spend millions or even billions on R&D so often do not want the results of that to be just a charity offering (particularly to their competitors) and the complexity of the legal system and interpretations of the license mean it is much easier to use permissive licenses to be able to make contributions to the open source community than having to consider the ways in which the GPL might be interpreted in the context of how code is integrated. It's easy to provide your own black-and-white definition of what you think it means but we all know the legal system is shades of gray.
"take away" in the same idiotic brain-dead sense of the RIAA/MPAA's "copyright violation is theft" argument.
How am I "free" if I, as you claim, am forced to grant permission to others that allows them to assume ownership of everything I make, and at the same time deny me usage and possession of everything I make?
Sounds like forced slavery to me...
No. If you want to release truly free code then release it to the public domain where nobody has ownership of it and nobody needs to be granted permission to do anything with it.
Unless of course the goal is to keep the software open/modifiable by all while disallowing poaching by closed source developers. This frees the project from parasitic closed developers. They'll have to write their own code if they want to keep it closed.
Then perhaps free software developers should write their own kernel with a license that disallows those "parasitic closed developers" from deploying software on it. But they won't because they need closed source software in fact the GNU project would have been an utter failure if it weren't for the preamble in the Linux kernel license that exempts software making kernel syscalls from being infected with the GPL license terms.
Collaboration and cooperation regardless of ideology is essential, you just seem incredibly ignorant of the fact that the free software movement would be completely defunct if it weren't for the ability of closed and open source developers to collaborate on the GNU/Linux platform.
No, you misunderstood the case here. GPL should be keeping it open source, but company is trying to restrict that, which is contrary to the license.
Then perhaps free software developers should write their own kernel with a license that disallows those "parasitic closed developers" from deploying software on it.
If, as you say, they need closed developers, why should they do that?
But they won't because they need closed source software in fact the GNU project would have been an utter failure if it weren't for the preamble in the Linux kernel license that exempts software making kernel syscalls from being infected with the GPL license terms.
I suspect the MODULE_LICENSE() macro acts as the barrier between what they consider GPL kernel internals and 'boilerplate' code. GPL (and GPL/MIT hybrid) licensed code gets full access while others do not. It's not hard to write closed drivers for linux if you want to, but you'll be limited to what you can touch. You need not worry about 'infection' from GPL code just as the kernel devs don't need to worry about 'infections' from closed blobs. Just remember that nonfree modules 'taint' the kernel, so if your users have crashes, the devs will not support them nor accept bug reports. Seems fair to me as you cannot expect them to support software they don't have the source for.
you just seem incredibly ignorant of the fact that the free software movement would be completely defunct if it weren't for the ability of closed and open source developers to collaborate on the GNU/Linux platform.
What are you babbling about? All three licenses allow such collaboration. Obviously, the industry chose to involve itself with linux or, like you said, it would not be where it is today.
Cuck, all I'm saying. Don't like it? Use OpenSolaris. Enjoy that CDDL and no market.
This is why some projects have a dual GPL / Commercial licence...
Anyone is free to use it under the GPL terms, but if you want to embed it in some proprietary software without giving anything back you will need to pay for the commercial licence..
Is it so hard to understand that some developers don't want their code to modified and locked down by some private company that will then make money off it, without them giving anything back...
In other words, you expect stuff for free but you don't want to give the same to others.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
Who cares what other people do with it? I dont doubt there are people that are worried that other people might make money of free software but thankfully, if you take a look at github, that attitude is waning as more projects favour permissive licenses over restrictive ones.
Not everything has to be open source/free software so there is huge benefit in releasing bits of projects as open source to be collaboratively improved and used in both free and non-free software, just as free software has done pretty much since its inception. In fact without non-free software the free software movement would have gotten nowhere, GNU/Linux would barely run on any hardware at all.
Awesome - and now you're at a big competitive disadvantage. =) I license all the free software I produce under GPL or AGPL, just to fuck over stooges like you.
GPL is communism, not libertarianism. That's why it actually benefits the world. Duhhhhhh.
Pfff, everybody knows this is from Justin Bieber. Who's this Frankling guy, anyway?
Tell him to stop bitching.
But his name if next to yours on the Wikipedia page....and even in your Blog from March 2010.
I respect you not wanting to call out names to protect a point you're trying to make, but a better excuse next time might be in order. ;-)
If you want the code to be free, then release it freely. Code under the GPL is NOT free. It is encumbered.
Let me know when inanimate code takessomeone to court. And how could code have freedom like you imply, who are you to impose a license on it?
The growth in use of permissive licenses (particularly if you look at github) over restrictive ones is a demonstration of pragmatism and the idea that not everything must be free and we can have non-free and free components working together and cooperating rather than focussing on a pure free software ideology.
I wouldn't necessarily even go that far. I am entirely in favour of a world in which all software comes with the FSF's four freedoms. The reason I release code under FreeBSD / MIT licenses is that this seems like a path that has an actual transition plan. If there's a BSDL project available that does 90% of what you need, then you can adopt it and add the remaining 10% without needing to change your business model. Most of the time, it's then cheaper to release the code. If it doesn't give you a competitive advantage, then upstreaming your changes means that your maintenance costs go down (and, often, other people will fix your bugs, in exchange for being able to use your new features).
If there's only a GPL'd project available, then I've worked with a lot of companies that aren't 100% sure that they will never want to do anything that the GPL prohibits and so will instead write a proprietary version (if you're lucky, you can persuade them to write a permissively licensed version). The GPL'd project doesn't ever enter the company (particularly with GPLv3, where anyone who owns patents gets very nervous) and so they never see the benefits of Free Software. It doesn't provide them with a transition path.
This transition path is particularly important because around 90% of all software developers are employed by companies that are not primarily computer companies. They are developing software for in-house use and so implicitly have all of the four freedoms (because they own the copyright), but don't contribute anything to the wider ecosystem (other than money to Microsoft, Oracle, SAP, and so on). Getting them to start using, contributing to, and then preferring open source solutions can unlock a lot of developer resources.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
You are a bloody idiot who can't parse sentences. Finish 3rd grade first please.
From GRSecurity's "Stable Patch Agreement":
"Notwithstanding these rights and obligations, the User acknowledges that redistribution of the provided stable patches or changelogs outside of the explicit obligations under the GPL to User's customers will result in termination of access to future updates of grsecurity stable patches and changelogs."
IE: If you choose to redistribute, other than in the case of a demand made by a user, retaliation will occur
I think that above the bullshit there is actual legal issue here.
If i took GPLed code, made some changes and produced a patch, which is a list of instructions on how to replay my modifications on the original source to get to the same result I did. The original code is GPL so is the resulting code after applying the patches.
But is the patch itself under GPL? Are instructions on changing a GPLed software not a separately copyright-able content?
So what grsecurity do is sell patches. They technically do not distribute a piece of or a whole GPLed software. They can claim full rights over those patches.
Are the patches a derivative work of the kernel? They may be considered "Based on the Program" but "Based on.." defined as a modified copy of the Program. And patches are nothing more then modification instructions.
Legally grsecurity can't prevent their customers from distributing the GPLed result of applications of their patches.
What they can is ask nicely for their customers not to do it and be angry if their customers will distribute the patched version.
What they can't do is sue anyone over copyright violation. Because the customer did not distribute grsecurity patch but the modified kernel itself.
Good. The GPL is working as designed.
You do realise that that's a feature, not a bug, don't you? It's an anti-leeching provision. They should not be benefiting from the work of GPL developers if they're unwilling to abide by the terms.
In that case. they should be writing their own or paying for a proprietary product. Exactly the same as if they don't want to pay the license fee and/or royalties for a commercial product, they have to write their own or get what they need from someone else (incl. of course, GPL software).
these companies are exactly the ones who benefit most from copyleft software. They're not making money from the software, so there's no financial incentive to avoid copyleft. In fact, there's a huge incentive to use copyleft code because they can co-operate in improving the code and gain the benefit of sharing the dev workload with similar companies and enthusiastic individuals.
copyleft is better for their needs because they don't have to worry about free-loaders or anyone else taking their contributions and embedding them in proprietary/commercial software.
And many/most of them don't distribute even binaries of their code (and certainly not binaries of any proprietary business-logic or other code), it's all in-house use, so they don't even have to distribute their changes if they don't want to.
BSD-style licenses are only good for two kinds of developers:
1. Gigantic software & hardware corporations who want to profit from open code without incurring any obligation to contribute back (i.e. parasites who sometimes manage a decent emulation of a symbiote). This is where the huge push towards non-copyleft licensing is coming from.
It's even better than exploiting interns, and the unpaid programmers provide their own desks and computers.
2. Developers who really don't give a fuck about what is done with their code when they release it (a much smaller group than you appear to imagine).
Everyone else is better off with copyleft.
1. who the fuck are you to decide what are the "wrong" reasons?
2. I don't particularly care if users give something back or not. I do, however, care a great deal about parasites trying to steal my code into their proprietary shitware. THAT is why whatever I write is GPL, and also why I almost never contribute to non-copyleft projects.
The GPL has one of the license features I care most about: ONCE FREE, ALWAYS FREE.
I'm so sick of seeing this bullshit.
The ONLY (alleged) "freedom" that the GPL restricts is the "freedom" to fuck over downstream users and take away the rights granted to them by the upstream authors and all contributors.
Only psychopaths, wannabe-psychopaths, and psychopath-sympathisers think that that's a "freedom" worth supporting.
It however do allow people to keep the metaphorical slaves as long as they swear to uphold the holy GPL.
No one is forcing the GPL on anyone.
Absolutely no one is forced to take GPL code and do anything with it. Not a single person.
Slaves do not by definition have the choice to not be a slave.
If you don't want to "uphold the holy GPL" as you call it, you are perfectly free to get code in any one of many other ways.
You can find code licensed in some other way.
You can learn to code and write your own.
You can pay someone to write it for you and give you copyright ownership, after which you can license it in anyway you please, including not licencing it at all.
You are the one redefining "freedom", "slaves", and "forced" here.
I am? First of all I don't remember writing anything about someone forcing someone other, let's see... No, I didn't define nor use the word "forced". That's an indication that you maybe should re-read my post. I don't define slaves (just continued the _bad_ analogy used in the post I replied to) and I don't define free - as that definition is well known and can be looked up if needed. So no, I do not redefine anything.
The GPL people like to pretend their idea of freedom under certain conditions (that actually reduces freedoms) is the "true" definition of Freedom. That's bogus. Real freedom is to be able to do what one want. GPL hinders some of those wants of certain people/organizations/corporations. That's fine by me, as I think the GPL is a good license for _some_ things but limits freedoms too much for most things. But I'll not let people pretend removing freedoms makes something more free - they could argue that those limitations on freedom is better (which I generally don't agree with (but see above)) but outright lying is bullshit.
To answer your first paragraph last: I never claimed or hinted anyone is forced to use the GPL or even (if they choose to use the GPL) to follow the semi-religious ideas of the FSF. So why do you like to pretend I did? I didn't use the word forced/force at all nor anything that could be constructed as being forced to do something.
Bruce has an annoying habit of reading legal documents to say what he wants them to say instead of what they actually say.
Call me when ESR or RMS chimes in.
WINE comes to mind.
I'm so sick of seeing this bullshit.
The ONLY (alleged) "freedom" that the GPL restricts is the "freedom" to fuck over downstream users and take away the rights granted to them by the upstream authors and all contributors.
Only psychopaths, wannabe-psychopaths, and psychopath-sympathisers think that that's a "freedom" worth supporting.
Chip on your shoulder much? I cannot extend GPL code in any meaningful way and resell it and keep my IP private. I can extend it and use it internally, so a services based function is perfectly fine. But as soon as I want to sell a license to the code or supply an appliance, I must also legally give a copy of my source. So, the answer is to not extend GPL code in my IP and keep my IP mine.
Should I hoist a bucket of water from the well, should I then give that water to everyone that wants some? After all, they all the ability to hoist (extend code) themselves, right?
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
I've contributed back to several projects so that's untrue. Just not the core IP of my work. I have no issue contributing fixes, I do have issues with my core work being legally opened up to the world because I use 1 API call in a library under that wondrous entity known as the GPL v3, especially that one clause that can be added that slips my mind at the moment.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
> I cannot extend GPL code in any meaningful way and resell it and keep my IP private.
Just another way of saying "fuck over downstream users and take away the rights granted to them by the upstream authors and all contributors."
That's just good internet citizenry though - there's already far too much Windows in the world already.
> But as soon as I want to sell a license to the code or supply an appliance, I must also legally give a copy of my source.
YES. THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT OF THE GPL.
> So, the answer is to not extend GPL code in my IP and keep my IP mine.
1. "IP" aka "Intellectual Property" is a meaningless bullshit propaganda term.
2. Again, that's the fucking point of the GPL. If you're not willing to abide by the terms, you don't get to fucking benefit from the code.
Write your own fucking code from scratch, or buy it, or do whatever the fuck you want that doesn't involve you parasitising other people's work, other people's contribution to the common good, for your own private fucking profit.
> Should I hoist a bucket of water from the well, should I then give that water to everyone that wants some? After all, they all the ability to hoist (extend code) themselves, right?
right, you're just another libertarian psychopath. why am i not surprised.
Actually, all I see so far is that an intentional GPL violator's customers are not protected from that intentional violation. It's not at all clear that this is in any way different from the proprietary software licensing world, where a contributory infringement case brought on the customer rather than the vendor is a frequent strategy.
I check out the software licenses that are offered to my customers. Sometimes I red-light a proprietary software vendor because I don't believe they have the right to offer their own software. This is often obvious from their licensing. Similarly, a company should not accept a commercial issue of a GPL work if it's not sure the vendor has a right to offer the work.
I am sorry that due diligence is required, but of course the Free Software folks didn't invent this intellectual property mess.
Bruce Perens.
> I cannot extend GPL code in any meaningful way and resell it and keep my IP private.
Just another way of saying "fuck over downstream users and take away the rights granted to them by the upstream authors and all contributors."
You'll note that avoid this, because I respect the legal aspects of the GPL:
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
> But as soon as I want to sell a license to the code or supply an appliance, I must also legally give a copy of my source.
YES. THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT OF THE GPL.
Translation: I don't have a leg to stand on but I'm really angry and you should just accept my assertion, because it's profane and CAPITALIZED!!!!
> So, the answer is to not extend GPL code in my IP and keep my IP mine.
1. "IP" aka "Intellectual Property" is a meaningless bullshit propaganda term.
How about I keep my work mine and sell it based on my terms. Would that work for you, since you seem to have trouble with the semantics of the GPL and IP as it translates to work?
2. Again, that's the fucking point of the GPL. If you're not willing to abide by the terms, you don't get to fucking benefit from the code.
Translation: Here I fail again to understand your post, but I'm still angry, and profanity always adds extra weight to my points.
Write your own fucking code from scratch, or buy it, or do whatever the fuck you want that doesn't involve you parasitising other people's work, other people's contribution to the common good, for your own private fucking profit.
Once your frothing stage has subsided and you've actually comprehended what was written in the GP, you'll note that's exactly what I said, and that your apparent psychotic OCD need to vomit verbal diarrhea against anything perceived as negatively impacting the GPL only reiterates exactly what I posted.
> Should I hoist a bucket of water from the well, should I then give that water to everyone that wants some? After all, they all the ability to hoist (extend code) themselves, right?
right, you're just another libertarian psychopath. why am i not surprised.
The only one showing psychopathic tendencies is you. This analogy was merely to clarify that if I did the work, I shouldn't be forced to give it away. Now, should I choose to haul a second bucket and pass it around, great, and I very well might (and in reality I have).
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Is it a derivative work if you write 100K LOCs and 1 rarely used method in an odd library calls a GPL'd method?
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Just another attempt to steal income from unsuspecting open source users.
Capitalism at it's WORST!
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
> Is it a derivative work if you write 100K LOCs and 1 rarely used method in an odd library calls a GPL'd method?
Irrelevant how much you write or how you interface, according to FSF - what matters is whether the combined code makes a "single program."
1. I didn't decide it, the open source community decided it years before you were born, junior. If you don't like it, then don't release anything under an open source license. In addition I am infinitely more important than a petulant, entitled little kid like you.
2. I don't particularly give a shit what you care about. Don't like it, then don't participate in the open source community. It's ridiculous that you fail to comprehend something so simple.
The GPL isn't free, it's restrictive. The BSD license much better reflects the ethic, selflessness and purpose of open source.
Cry moar.
BSD doesn't restrict anything and software licensed under it remains available to all. The GPL is the whining bitch version of an open source license for people who don't get what open source is about.
It`s not "your" software, that's your first misunderstanding
Yes I do, many companies try to do this though and I'm not sure Linus has ever actively tried to stop them. Samsung, Amlogic, HP, Netgear, Minix have all done it some time in the past or are still actively refusing to release Linux source code they have modified or require some form of NDA before they will give it to you, companies in China are even worse than companies in the US.
I've contacted the FSF about it prior and they seem unwilling to pursue the case unless portions of GNU software are included in the distribution which makes it a bit of a chicken and egg problem, they won't give me the source and the binaries don't contain comments/licenses so it's unclear as to whom they are actually infringing against and FSF won't pursue it unless you can prove the source code contains GNU licensed material.
Given Linus is also more of a technical rather than legal mind, I doubt the GPLv2 on the Kernel is even enforceable at this point unless individual coders want to pursue cases against their more recent contributions.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
What *I* write is absolutely *my* software. I like to keep it that way for certain things I write, so I avoid anything GPL'd.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
And people like me will never see nor use your software, and be at a competitive advantage by writing only what we need, and not the kitchen sink approach you likely used.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
> Is it a derivative work if you write 100K LOCs and 1 rarely used method in an odd library calls a GPL'd method?
Irrelevant how much you write or how you interface, according to FSF - what matters is whether the combined code makes a "single program."
Exactly, why risk someone *stealing* your code because you mistakenly or erroneously somehow linked to a single API call? Which is why we avoid GPL code like the plague it is. And yes, someone taking something from you because you linked to a library that links to a library that links to a library that calls a piece of GPL code is why you should always fully audit your entire library dependency tree and strictly control it. It's also why the maven repo system sucks more than a little bit, because it doesn't really help you with this situation much at all. Gradle is no better in this regard, btw.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Just another way of saying "fuck over downstream users and take away the rights granted to them by the upstream authors and all contributors."
How does that fuck over anyone? If I take a copy of code and close it off, how does that erase all other copies of that code in the world? How does that magically make it so other users can't download the exact same code that I downloaded in the first place?
You are a fucking moron and GPL is for lazy cocksuckers who want to begin a stub project, but expect everyone else to finish and perfect it.
BSD is better. Give if you want. Take if you want. Do whatever you want.
"Pull my finger!"
-- The idiot sitting in the control center next to the guy who pushed the button to do the Trinity test.
This space unintentionally left blank.
2. Developers who really don't give a fuck about what is done with their code when they release it (a much smaller group than you appear to imagine).
And that itself is a much bigger group than copyleft advocates. Even Linux, the darling of the open source world, is not driven by free software ideals. Sure it may be a modified GPLv2 (with a preamble to override the free software nonsense that would otherwise prohibit non-free software and code from using it) but it certainly isn't Affero GPL or GPLv3 and its leader sees Tivoization as a *good* thing and that moving to a more restrictive license (GPLv3 or AGPL) would be a *bad* thing.
The best thing about copyleft is how it is adapted to be used by the kernel, it largely prevents the rampant NIH syndrome in the FOSS community from creating a fragmented mess like we see with Linux distributions in general.
Then perhaps free software developers should write their own kernel with a license that disallows those "parasitic closed developers" from deploying software on it.
If, as you say, they need closed developers, why should they do that?
Well if they don't want "parasitic closed developers" then kick them out, but the fact is the Linux community are just as "parasitic" and are dependent on closed source developers to remain viable, that cooperation is important for both camps, you don't seem to understand this. Collaboration is a good thing and thankfully Linus chose to include overriding license preamble that allowed this rather than the GPLv2 which would have prevented this.
You need not worry about 'infection' from GPL code just as the kernel devs don't need to worry about 'infections' from closed blobs.
Right because the kernel is not GPLv2, if it were then programs/modules that make syscalls would constitute a derived work and would therefore be subject to the terms of the GPLv2, that is why the license preamble is necessary.
What are you babbling about? All three licenses allow such collaboration. Obviously, the industry chose to involve itself with linux or, like you said, it would not be where it is today.
Wrong, that is the whole point of the license preamble. You have actually read it right? You understand the difference between the kernel license and the GPLv2 don't you? Because it appears you do not.
Because GPL covers derivative works, dipshit.
The idea is to give everyone the benefit of not only the original work, but additional works built on that original work.
Just because you disagree with that philosophy doesn't mean it's stupid or wrong or communist.
Your problem is you think you have a right to use other people's code on your own terms. You don't.
> Exactly, why risk someone *stealing* your code
You can't steal what is freely given. GPL is about SHARING your code.
Look, it's real simple-- if you don't intend to share your code, don't use someone else's GPL'd code in your project. Nobody is forcing you.
Of course none of the people who make this comment ever acknowledge for one minute that there wouldn't be any of "your code" to be forced to release unless you started with someone else's code in the first place. Yes, it is certainly your choice not to use any GPL code, and write all your own under whatever license you want. But it is silly to say that if you modify someone else's code, the only consideration is "your code".
OK, how about "You are free to use my land for picnics as long as you pick up your trash, and don't camp overnight.".
Wah Wah Wah - They are forcing me to pick up trash on their land, and not allowing homeless people a place to live! Wah Wah.
Then you do not understand the licenses and impoverish your employers due to your ignorance.
you're a fucking moron who doesn't understand the GPL and whines about the fact that it does exactly what it intends to do.
You are absolutely correct, you were not one of the people using the term "forced" nor redefining it.
I apologize for my mistake.
But you still keep referring to the GPL removing freedoms.
You are aware that it is copyright law that removes your freedom to, as you say, to be able to do what one wants.
The GPL, like most licenses, actually *counters* the removal of rights that copyright law forces on you.
As you say, it may not grant you all the rights you wish to have, but not giving you something is quite different from taking something you do have away.
Copyright law takes nearly everything away, and the license gives it back to you.
Maybe that library's author didn't want you to be able to make that call without paying him or opening your code.
Maybe if you have 100kloc you can write your own version of whatever else isn't already clearly part of the platform.
How in the world can there be a right to repair/improve when anything that modifies the internals of a copyrighted work is a derivative work?
For instance, a modification to a car ECU would not "deal with it through its APIs" (there aren't any API, it's not meant to be accessed by developers!) and would "get its dirty fingers over the ECU internals" (since there is surely no nice external interface to modify the behavior). So there goes the right in that respect.
Similarly for any attempt to improve nearly any non-extensible closed system. In fact, now that I think about it, this means there is a very high incentive for a company that wishes to lock tinkerers out to design things to be as closed and rigid as possible. The lack of configurability will means that anyone wishing to tinker will need to 'modify the internals' and the closed nature of the system means there will no API to deal with. Both of those factors will increase the chance that any aftermarket modification is a derivative work and thus empower the company to bar its distribution without license.
It would be very unfortunate if our system incentivized this sort of engineering by conferring additional rights based on engineering details about API and configurability.
The freedom to sell the works of others for personal gain is not a freedom worth protecting, in my eyes. The profit motive corrupts everything it touches. The GPL actively prevents that, and grants freedoms to the USER, not the developer.
If you care more about developer freedoms (specifically to pull a bait-n-switch as grsec and others have), then you deserve the dumpster fire that results from such behavior.
How so? The GPL deliberately and explicitly allows you to sell any GPL'd work for personal gain.
The gpl has nothing to do with the success of Linux. It was only successful because bsd had a questionable legal battle with at&t, otherwise nobody would have given a shit about Linux and the gpl would be dead
I have to disagree. AT&T settled with Berkeley Systems in January 1994, two months before Linux 1.0 was released. The vast majority of Linux adoption came after BSD was freed.
No, I think Linux succeeded because it was easier (read: more flexible) to install and the community was there to support each other. Plus a lot of drivers got written in that time period.
That's a valid attitude. Lambasting the GPL for being something you don't want is less so. The GPL protects freedom, just not in a way that's useful to you and the way you operate.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
If I release code under the GPL, anyone can use it for whatever software they want to write.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The GPL provides you with very restricted patent protections. Someone else with a patent can come along and screw you over.
What the GPL does is give you an automatic license for the patents actually used that are actually held by upstream providers. There's no reason you can't negotiate your own patent licenses, just as there's no reason you can't write your own code.
Most of the non-copyleft licenses I've looked at have no mention of patents, so you're in trouble with that.
Again, if you don't want the benefits of the GPL, don't use GPLed code. You're whining that GPLed code has certain protections that shield you from some inconveniences you whine about.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
If I release code under the GPL, anyone can use it for whatever software they want to write.
Can they sell it? Can they bundle it? Can they do so without providing the source to modifications they've made? Can they ... ?
The GPL is restrictive. You may like the ways it's restrictive, but not everyone does. And just what are we talking about? v1? v2? v3? Some modification of any of the above?
That's a valid attitude. Lambasting the GPL for being something you don't want is less so. The GPL protects freedom, just not in a way that's useful to you and the way you operate.
It doesn't protect "freedom" at all under any standard definition. It does a great job of restricting freedom, however.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Riddle me this, oh wise AC - why does the Linux kernel not use GPL v3?
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
I understand the licenses much better than you, apparently. I also understand my and my employers needs. So far there has only been 1 case where GPL software was acceptable.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Maybe that library's author didn't want you to be able to make that call without paying him or opening your code.
Maybe he did, but maybe someone a couple of dependencies up didn't, and also didn't properly legally vette their code.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Ah, but the GPL can take from you if you're not careful. It's very wise to know exactly what the GPL costs you, because it can cost you.
The entire point was that the GPL forces you to relinquish control of your work. It's implied that only happens if you use GPL'd code, which is why I normally don't touch anything with GPL on it.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
>> If I release code under the GPL, anyone can use it for whatever software they want to write.
> Can they sell it?
Yes.
> Can they bundle it?
Yes.
> Can they do so without providing the source to modifications they've made?
No.
> Can they ... ?
. . . read the terms of the license?
No, it most certainly does not. You own your own work; you can use GPL or not, or dual- or triple-license it if you want.
If you use someone else's code, COPYRIGHT LAW forces you to abide by the author's license, not GPL.
"Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
Some Legal Analysis:
--
The GRSecurity patch snakes through almost the entire kernel; it really touches everywhere
(and Brad Spengler etc have publicly attested to this as a bullet point as it doesn't only
add features but fixes various in-place security errors); and not even as a monolithic block,
it puts a paw here, and there, and there (so on and so on for 8MBs), with the deft agility of a cat,
and the dexterity of a vine wrapped every which-way around the many branches of a bush:
it is a non-separable derivative work.
A counter example would be the Nvidia GFX driver: a portion of that driver works across platforms.
That portion which works on Linux, Windows, etc is a separable work and thus can be argued
to be standalone before a court. Furthermore, in the Nvidia case, that portion was likely
developed on another platform and the wrapper was then built to conform to it.
The wrapper itself that interfaces with linux is licensed under the same terms as linux.
Other drivers can be written in a similar way.
With GRSecurity, on the other-hand, that is absolutely impossible. GRSecurity exists
only to give the linux kernel "self protection" (their words IIRC). They do this
by going in with a scalpel to thousands of areas in the kernel and making small
but important* edits and additions, as-well as by writing some new routines to then
use throughout the kernel.
Unlike a plug-in; their derivative work does not and cannot stand alone.
The Anime-Subs cases reaffirmed somewhat recently that a derivative work
that cannot stand alone and is not authorized is an infringing work.
(Ex: You're a fan, you listen to the Anime Girl cartoon in Japanese,
you write down what they say, you distribute that: that text is a
derivative work and not a standalone one: it required the existence
of the cartoon to itself exist or have any meaning).
I think the situations are very different thusly and that a court
would find GRSecurity to be infringing. If the GRSecurity patch is not
a derivative work then nothing in the realm of source-code is.
To Brad Spengler I'm referred to as a "troll" (months, perhaps a year later
in a discussion I was not involved in), for engaging with RMS on the issue earlier
(something which remains in Mr Spengler's mind:
http://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2017/06/04/24 ...
>... It has been nearly 4 months now and despite repeated follow-ups, I still
>haven't received anything back more than an automated reply. Likewise
>regarding some supposed claims by RMS which were published last year by
>internet troll mikeeusa -- I have been trying since June 3rd of last
>year to get any response from him, but have been unable to. So when you
(RMS' opinion can be seen here:
(*7) https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2016/06/msg00020.html )
As for making modifications: To create the patch Brad Spengler modified the
linux-kernel over the course of 15 years, and to continue continually producing
new patches he continually modifies the linux-kernel even more. Without
permission of the license he has no right to modify the kernel. The mechanical
modification that is done by patching is a red-herring in this case since it's
not needed to argue infringement on Mr Spengler's part once he has been found
to have added an additional term to the agreement between him and further
distributees of the derivative work. Once he has done that, he has violated
the license grant, and he no-longer has a right to distribute the work, nor
to distribute derivative works, nor to modify the work in-order to create
future derivative works.
--
Correction to common
programmer's misunderstanding
--
They don't have to add a term to the GPL per-se as the GPL is not a party to the agreement, it is "merely" the (not-fully integrated) writing describing the license that the rights-holders have granted GRSecurity et al
Nina committed adultery against Hans Reiser, she also divorced him.
Such is forbidden by the God of the book of the Law (Deuteronomy). (The man is the ba'al (master))
Hans Reiser did the correct thing in killing Nina Reiser, as commanded by the Overlord of the Armies.
Hans Reiser didn't obey the white man's false idol Jesus; but Jesus clearly isn't Hans Reiser's God.
Those who entice one to follow another judge/ruler/God are commanded to be killed immediatly.
Which is why your Jesus was killed.
>To me it seems the legal question is whether or not they are using their influence to, indirectly, add a non-disclosure clause to the GPL.
They are forbidden by the terms from adding additional restrictions between an agreement between THEM and furthur Distributees.
They are adding an additional term.
Open and shut. Blatant violation.
No, you programmers who scream "BUT THEY DIDNT ADD THE ADDITIONAL TERM __TO_THE_GPL__!!!!" They added it to the agreement between them and the furthur distributee, which the terms underwhich linux is distributed explicitly forbids.
The licenses is NOT BETWEEN "The GPL" and GRSecurity but between THE LINUX RIGHTS-HOLDERS (linus et al) and GRSecurity. "The GPL" is the memorization of the license grant. It disallows additional restrictions placed by GRSecurity on people to whom it distributes a derivative work.
It is NOT saying (in that section) "oh you just can't pen your restriction in here, go write it on a napkin or something wink wink nod". (*cough codicil*)
No, you Programmers do NOT know what you're talking about when it comes to the Law. Yes I _DO_ know what I'm talking about.
Wrath0fb0b:
Copyright is alienable in the same way real and personal property is.
Complain to the legislature if you don't like it you fucking idiot.
I can place whatever restrictions I like on MY property. I can allow you to use it (license) and then rescind at will. That's what being alienable in the same way real and personal property is means. Go read the copyright statute you fucking self-sure retard.
Even if you possess my intellectual property, does not mean you OWN it (in the way you might own a physical object), unless I ASSIGN copyright TO YOU.
Fucking retards here.
And they think they know more than lawyers and law technicians.
The GPL is nothing without copyright law.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Not sure what that's supposed to mean, but GPL won't work without copyright law, no. But without copyright law, you wouldn't need a license to distribute other people's code, would you?
Without copyright law, I don't have to worry about being forced to distribute any additions I might do to such code either, because the code wouldn't be protected any more than MIT, BSD, or Apache, and actually less.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
You also wouldn't have to worry about keeping people from stealing your code, because there'd be nothing to stop them.
Nah, the problem is that you're an entitled little shit who has no business around the open source scene.
So grsecurity aren't included as part of the "all" of humanity? What a very selective, judgemental and bigoted license the GPL is.
The fire rises...
Write your own kernel if you don't like it.
You don't even use linux anymore..
If no one sues them they'll keep getting away with it...
Hi Sweden!
You lay people are idiots when it comes to copyright law.
It's called a "stand alone" work.
(Which GRSecurity is not, but your example that links to 1 easily replaceable library would be (though you would have to show this in court, and the retention fee for the lawyer is where the costs come in))
Consult a lawyer or read a book before arguing the law. May I suggest anything written by a nice bloke with the name of "Nimmer"???
I really don't understand why White American Men who are Programmers don't understand that they don't know everything in all fields. European Men who are Programmers are not afflicted with this.
Bingo. The GPL is the China of Software. It brings to the people of the world the software they would be paying thousands for otherwise. It is a collective agreement between software artists and engineers to create a better world that benefits all common people.
"Just because you disagree with that philosophy doesn't mean it's stupid or wrong or communist."
We have affordable material goods because of Chinese Communists. Before trade was opened wide with them nothing was affordable. Then it was like a switch was flipped.
"Should I hoist a bucket of water from the well, should I then give that water to everyone that wants some?"
You should collectively build a community water dispensation system known as a "Muni-ciple Wa-ter Wo-r-k-s" and make sure the little girls and their families from which you and your sons draw brides do not die of thirst.
"Code have no freedom, nor rights. Information have no desires." ....
"Only Purpose"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Your code is all-rights-reserved since you didn't modify any of the standard default copyright terms.
Red Hat did not light this fire.
Sure. No problem.
If they're bundling, sure. Otherwise, no.
Correct. However, it's a free license in that it allows anyone to distribute the software, with or without modification, under the terms of the license. You may not like the restrictions, but many people do. I don't think it's the best license for everything. For example, I'm just as happy that Microsoft was able to appropriate BSD-licensed networking code for Windows, which would not have happened if not for the less restrictive licensing.
I've never seen GPLv1. Presumably I could find a copy if I liked, but I've never seen software with that as a license. There are, AFAIK, three versions of both v2 and v3: the standard license, the Library/Lesser license, and the Affero license (which applies to server-side software on the Web or similar environment). The answers, to the best of my knowledge, are the same with the Affero and standard licenses for both versions. For the LGPLs, if you use an LGPLed library, you are free to distribute as a DLL with source, with none of the software that calls it necessarily being GPLed in any form.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
If you have some GPLed software, you may copy it as you please. You may make changes as you please. You can redistribute as you please. What you can't do is change the license, which makes it incompatible with certain business models.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Have you ever decompiled a sizable project and tried to do anything with it? I have.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
So you admit your response to my post was incorrect and completely pointless?
If you want the code to be free, then release it freely. Code under the GPL is NOT free. It is encumbered.
If I release code under the GPL, anyone can use it for whatever software they want to write.
Code under the GPL is not free. There are restrictions involved, and you have admitted this. If you release code under the GPL, people are NOT free to use it for whatever software they want to write. They are free to use it for software they want to write and release under certain restrictions. If someone wants to use GPL code directly in closed-source software, they cannot. There's a legal maze to navigate with any version of the GPL. It's a showstopper for many, despite your personal feelings on the matter.
If you want your code to be used freely, then let it be used freely. Not some sort of politically-motivated, feel-good, anti-corporation, abusive definition of "freely".
Do we have to have this stupid debate every time an article is posted related to the GPL?
Everyone knows what the license does and what its purpose is. At least they should, but certain idiots insist on misrepresenting the actual terms of the license for propaganda purposes.
For the record, GPL does not restrict distribution (the law does), is not "viral" and doesn't infect your code, and does not force you to do anything including publish your changes to GPL'd code.
Mostly this argument is about people whining that GPL isn't as liberal as BSD/MIT/Apache etc. in the permissions it grants. Tough luck.
Ah, so we're back in the insult level of debate.
You're wrong about "If you release code under the GPL, people are NOT free to use it for whatever software they want to write.", of course. Anybody can use GPLed code to write whatever they want. Your " If someone wants to use GPL code directly in closed-source software, they cannot." is correct, but I never said anything otherwise. Software itself is not Free or proprietary on its own, that's an attribute people assign to it with licensing. "There's a legal maze to navigate with any version of the GPL." is also false, since all versions of the GPL are reasonably clearly written and understandable. It's not a legal maze, unless you're looking for loopholes to abuse the license, which you shouldn't be doing anyway. " It's a showstopper for many, despite your personal feelings on the matter." is partly true. Some people want to do things incompatible with the GPL, and that's their business, but any whining about how someone else didn't let them use the code for their own specific purposes is unbecoming. Some people just have inept and lazy lawyers, who'd rather advise their clients to do nothing rather than do a little work to understand the legal situation.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Apparently you also can't stop working for someone, either.
Not a sizeable one, no.
Was that binary your own work? Or are you blowing smoke about copyright and have no problem stealing others' work to benefit yourself?