Slashdot Mirror
The Free Software Foundation Releases New Comments About Licenses (fsf.org)
"We recently published a number of updates to our licensing materials," the Free Software Foundation announced Thursday, adding that "While we generally post individual announcements for these types of important changes, there were so many in such a short span that we needed to combine them all in one place."
We added the Commons Clause to our list of nonfree licenses. Not a stand-alone license in and of itself, it is meant to be added to an existing free license to prevent using the work commercially, rendering the work nonfree. It's particularly nasty given that the name, and the fact that it is attached to pre-existing free licenses, may make it seem as if the work is still free software.
If a previously existing project that was under a free license adds the Commons Clause, users should work to fork that program and continue using it under the free license. If it isn't worth forking, users should simply avoid the package. We are glad to see that in the case of Redis modules using the Commons Clause, people are stepping up to maintain free versions.
There's also a new addition to their GNU Licenses FAQ which explains what the GNU GPL says about translating code into another programming language. ("If the original program carries a free license, that license gives permission to translate it. How you can use and license the translated program is determined by that license. If the original program is licensed under certain versions of the GNU GPL, the translated program must be covered by the same versions of the GNU GPL...") And they've also clarified how to handle projects that combine code under multiple compatible licenses.
The FSF has also updated a document commenting on various licenses, clarifying that the Fraunhofer FDK AAC free software license "is incompatible with any version of the GNU GPL. It has a special danger in the form of a term expressly stating it does not grant you any patent licenses, with an enticement to buy some.
"Because of this, and because the license author is a known patent aggressor, we encourage you to be careful about using or redistributing any software under this license..."
If a previously existing project that was under a free license adds the Commons Clause, users should work to fork that program and continue using it under the free license. If it isn't worth forking, users should simply avoid the package. We are glad to see that in the case of Redis modules using the Commons Clause, people are stepping up to maintain free versions.
There's also a new addition to their GNU Licenses FAQ which explains what the GNU GPL says about translating code into another programming language. ("If the original program carries a free license, that license gives permission to translate it. How you can use and license the translated program is determined by that license. If the original program is licensed under certain versions of the GNU GPL, the translated program must be covered by the same versions of the GNU GPL...") And they've also clarified how to handle projects that combine code under multiple compatible licenses.
The FSF has also updated a document commenting on various licenses, clarifying that the Fraunhofer FDK AAC free software license "is incompatible with any version of the GNU GPL. It has a special danger in the form of a term expressly stating it does not grant you any patent licenses, with an enticement to buy some.
"Because of this, and because the license author is a known patent aggressor, we encourage you to be careful about using or redistributing any software under this license..."
I don't think a translated program is a derived work. If I draw a picture of a picture, the original artist has entitlements to it?
But what is the Fraunhofer FDK AAC you ask?
Fraunhofer FDK AAC (Full title Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android) is an open-source[5] software library for encoding and decoding Advanced Audio Coding (AAC) format audio, developed by Fraunhofer IIS, and included as part of Android. It supports several Audio Object Types including MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 AAC LC, HE-AAC (AAC LC + SBR), HE-AACv2 (LC + SBR + PS) as well AAC-LD (low delay) and AAC-ELD (enhanced low delay) for real-time communication. The encoding library supports sample rates up to 96 kHz and up to eight channels (7.1 surround).[6]
You're welcome internet.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Translation is generally considered derived work and so covered by copyright
People that read all this legal stuff are already aware of it, so such clause is entirely superfluous. All the rest will just press "Next" anyway.
So by the same logic, a compiled executable of GPL code isn't covered by the GPL anymore ?
See because a compiler is also translating, merely to machine code.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Translation is generally considered derived work and so covered by copyright
Not necessarily. A person may rewrite an algorithm, and that rewrite is not covered by the original copyright. This is because copyright governs the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. That is, copyright governs the way that an algorithm is written, not the algorithm itself.
A translation between closely-related languages (from C# to C++) may involve a lot of copying. But a translation between distantly-related languages (from Assembly to LISP, for example) is much more like rewriting than copying.
If you really want your code to be free, abandon licenses altogether. All you're doing is increasing the probability that some lawyer will get a new Porsche. Instead, say that you're giving the code away, no restrictions, no rights reserved, no credit required, period — and then have the stones to stick to your word.
Trying to avoid legal entanglements by simply ignoring the fact that we actually have a legal system is terrible, terrible advice. No one cares about "your stones" - they want stronger guarantees than that.
If you want your software to remain legally protected and as free as possible for all types of use, use an MIT or BSD style permissive license. If you wish your software to remain open source only, use GPL. And like AC said, there's Creative Commons Zero for an unconditional giveaway. By not choosing a license, you're simply choosing legal ambiguity.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Common Clause is NOT creative commons. Its a clause that you put on other license to mark it "forbidden to sell or commercially profit from"
That doesn't actually work in many (most?) legal jurisdictions. Public domain doesn't even work in some jurisdictions. It needs a valid license for the public to use it in such places.
The GPL restricts rights. BSD is the path to freedom.
Commons Clause is NOT creative commons
And vi is better than emacs.
~.~
I'm a peripheral visionary.
IIUC public domain became obsolete except upon the expiration of copyright terms when works became automatically under copyright. So unless you use a license explicitly granting rights, nobody else has the right to copy your program (except for fair use, which can always be challenged in court). This is true even if you publish it on the web.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The GPL protects the freedom of the descendants of the code. BSD is more free, and allows the descendants to be sold into slavery.
This is an invalid analogy mainly because code isn't sentient, but also because if you don't distribute the descendants of GPL licensed code you aren't required to share it.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
We've been through this discussion throughout the 1980s and 1990s and there's no clear way to do this without licensing, even if only to forgo the very powers you say one should forgo.
If you relinquish all copyright power in the work (say by putting it under Creative Commons Zero which is effectively placing the work into the public domain in the US and like regimes, and forgoing all copyright power in other regimes) you won't have anything to "stick to". If someone does something with the code you could have objected to on copyright grounds you will have forwent that power. If you want to object to something based on patent power (with any patents you hold which could read on the work) you'll need licensing to grant others the freedom to use those patent ideas—to forgo that power too.
So it only makes sense to talk about "sticking to your word" if you have something to stick to. For instance, one thing you might want to stick to is looking out for the software freedom for derivative works so that you ensure the software freedom you carefully chose to respect remains intact when someone builds on that code and distributes their derivative. This too requires the licensing power you eschew with attention paid to copyright and patent power (possibly more).
I think your willingness to publish more free software is helpful but more needs to be said and done to make your view practical. Yours is a rather inchoate expression of (perhaps) frustration with the complexity of what one needs to do to come close to forgetting about legalistic considerations and enjoy one's time spent programming. But what you've offered is not a practical way to look at the world as it is and has been for decades.
Digital Citizen
Nice bait and switch there. Starting with a number of cases where following the law was the wrong thing to do, then switching "following" to "supporting" to try to make some kind of point.
Following the law is not supporting the law. it is working within the system. FSF, EFF and others are also working to change the law, and spending a lot of money and effort to do so. Until the law is changed, handing money over to lawyers by breaking the law will do nothing except give money to lawyers.
And you know, your examples are non-examples. By riding in the front of the bus, or helping people escape slavery, one is doing the opposite of avoiding legal entanglements. Same as if one decides to try to not use a license. That is ASKING for legal entanglements - which will not lead to any kind of good thing in any way. No slaves will be freed from that.
Yeah... right..e
I'm not asking people to change their licenses. If you don't want people to use your code, just don't license it at all.
I license all my code MIT. I want people to have the freedom to use the code. If I used GPL, there's a lot of people out there who can't use the code.
As you even admit, GPL removes the freedom to use the code how you want.
How the fuck am I benefiting from other people's work by writing and giving away code? Wtf is going on in your brain to draw that conclusion?
"The only right GPL restricts is the right to close the code". So, you admit the GPL removes your freedom to use the code how you want.
This is just a sign of how the GPL has poisoned minds into confusion.
"I'm not asking people to change their licenses." -Me, a couple comments up
But if you value freedom and do not want to restrict people from using your software, as I do, then you release using the MIT license. That's not trying to benefit from other people's work, no matter how you want to spin it.
I say that if people care about the freedom to share the software, they should use the MIT/BSD style. But that's no call for everyone to use those licenses. If you don't care about sharing software, use whatever license your want: GPL, proprietary, etc. There's nothing wrong with restricting people from using your work as they see fit. You created it, you have the control. But if you don't wish to exercise that control, then use a license that permits it such as the MIT or BSD license.