Slashdot Mirror
Friendlier GPL-Enforcement Permission Proposed By Linux Kernel Developers (kroah.com)
The former Executive Director of the Free Software Foundation -- and Slashdot user #41121 -- contacted Slashdot with this announcement. bkuhn -- now president of the Software Freedom Conservancy --
writes: Software Freedom Conservancy, home of the GPL Compliance Project for Linux Developers, publicly applauded today the proposal of the Linux Kernel Enforcement Statement, which adds a per-copyright-holder-opt-in additional permission to the termination provisions of Linux's GPLv2-only license.
It apparently addresses a developer who "made claims based on ambiguities in the GPL-2.0 that no one in our community has ever considered part of compliance," according to a statement from some of the kernel developers who drafted the statement. While the kernel community has always supported enforcement efforts to bring companies into compliance, we have never even considered enforcement for the purpose of extracting monetary gain... [W]e are aware of activity that has resulted in payments of at least a few million Euros. We are also aware that these actions, which have continued for at least four years, have threatened the confidence in our ecosystem. Because of this, and to help clarify what the majority of Linux kernel community members feel is the correct way to enforce our license, the Technical Advisory Board of the Linux Foundation has worked together with lawyers in our community, individual developers, and many companies that participate in the development of, and rely on Linux, to draft a Kernel Enforcement Statement to help address both this specific issue we are facing today, and to help prevent any future issues like this from happening again. It adopts the same termination provisions we are all familiar with from GPL-3.0 as an Additional Permission giving companies confidence that they will have time to come into compliance if a failure is identified.
It apparently addresses a developer who "made claims based on ambiguities in the GPL-2.0 that no one in our community has ever considered part of compliance," according to a statement from some of the kernel developers who drafted the statement. While the kernel community has always supported enforcement efforts to bring companies into compliance, we have never even considered enforcement for the purpose of extracting monetary gain... [W]e are aware of activity that has resulted in payments of at least a few million Euros. We are also aware that these actions, which have continued for at least four years, have threatened the confidence in our ecosystem. Because of this, and to help clarify what the majority of Linux kernel community members feel is the correct way to enforce our license, the Technical Advisory Board of the Linux Foundation has worked together with lawyers in our community, individual developers, and many companies that participate in the development of, and rely on Linux, to draft a Kernel Enforcement Statement to help address both this specific issue we are facing today, and to help prevent any future issues like this from happening again. It adopts the same termination provisions we are all familiar with from GPL-3.0 as an Additional Permission giving companies confidence that they will have time to come into compliance if a failure is identified.
Copyright law says you can't make copies for another without permission.
The BSD license grants an exception to copyright, (like all distribution licenses for copyrighted works,) which lets you copy it, but also lets you take away that permission from whoever you distribute the software too.
The GPL license also grants an exception to copyright, but says you can't take it away from whoever you distribute the software too. In other words, they get the same right to run, modify, and distribute the software as the licensed work you based your changes upon.
but switched over to be more in favour of the BSD/ISC/MIT licences because they are maximally free.
I take exception to that. The BSD and GPL are equally free, but they split on whom gets that freedom; one gives an extra freedom to the immediate developer to change the licensing, one gives extra freedom to the downstream developer by propagating all the freedoms onto to them.
Most people using BSD 'derived' code have none of the freedoms BSD offers. How exactly do you argue with a straight face that this is the better outcome?
More and more, academics are releasing their code under the BSD/ISC licences because they realise that because they are receiving public money to fund their code and research, by dint of this, they must release the results of that money to the public in a maximally free way,
That amounts to the public paying for all the bakeries ingredients, and then the bakery sells bread back to the public. Yes, that's a pretty ideal system for the baker; not such a good deal for the public though. Why are they funding the baker's ingredients exactly?
If it were the GPL the baker would also have to share how the bread is made, and people wouldn't have to depend on him if they wanted to make their own bread. (This, according to you is the 'less free' option.)
Small wonder the baker prefers the BSD.
Some code needs to be proprietary--life is about pragmatism sometimes, not always about ideology.
IF you ever bother to ask yourself why, and really dig deep, you'll have a tough time coming up with a satisfactory answer.
Note that I don't contend the pragmatic arguments aren't real, just that they are deeply unsatisfying on a philosophical level. They point to difficult to solve problems with society itself, and rather than solve these difficult problems, the pragmatist just accepts them as unsolved and proceeds to go for lunch. That's not much of a solution.