Slashdot Mirror
"New Copyleft License" released
Stephen Williams
writes "LinuxToday reports
that Bowerbird
Computing have released a new open source license
called the New Copyleft
License. Seems to be aimed at people who want to sell
their free software, rather than charge for support."
At the rate these licenses are proliferating,
soon there will be one license for every app. Does anyone
besides me think this is getting crazy?
Interesting.. Be able to charge for freely editable source.. I don't think people would make much money off of it.... But at least it's a shot..
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
It says to amend the GPL (section 10), to include a proviso for the NCL if you're releasing sftwre
under the NCL. Did I miss something here? Where in the GPL does it say you can legally alter it
to include such a thing? Isn't that illegal?
...
.. "Doesn't Barbie come with Ken?" "No, she fakes it with him."
Just about one license per app (at least per software publisher.)
This fails DFSG #1:
This license and those who use it are missing the point. It's a step down the slippery slope of semi-free, nominally free, or we-can-make-people-think-it's-free licensing. I think such a mentality is bad for the community.
If you want to make money licensing code, fine, do it. You can always re-lease it under a free license later. But don't call code with a restricted license "free." It's an abuse of the term and an affront to the community.
No, it doesn't say to ammend the GPL. It says to add a preface to your licensing terms that grants additional permissions.
As I (briefly) read it, this probably goes against the grain of the GPL's viral nature. One of the central tennets of the GPL is that GPL'd code can't be un-GPL'd, and such a preface would explicity say that yes, the code can be un-GPL's and be NCL'd instead.
I think this will cause Stallman et al. To say that this license if evil.
Personally, I think it is the most interesting license of the recent variants that we've seen. It's got problems, but it's not just a fake GPL with get-out clauses. It's a genuine attempt at a new kind of Open Source licence, and that's a good bit of diversity.
Anf finally, no, I don't see a problem with all these licenses. Evolution suggests that winners will emerge, and the poor ones will fail. Fine by me.
-----
Um, I don't see the word free in it... it is called the New Copyleft License.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
I'm not sure I see the point of this license. So an author may charge for a program, with source. But as non-profit distribution is not restricted, anyone who has bought this program could then redistribute it at no charge, depriving the original author of income (for the software itself, that is).
It seems to me an unintended, although necessary side effect of "free speech" software licenses is that they are free in the beer sense as well. I may have misread a clause or two, but this is an interesting attempt to draw a distinction between the two. Also, all the positive emphasis on the GNU GPL can only be a good thing. Heck, this practically is the GPL, only delayed for two years.
iSKUNK!
You know, I like the GPL. Let's see, the Apple Public License, AlphaWorks' license, that Qt license, all specially tailored so that we can't behave quite like free-software people. Argh. It's the mixing up of all these licenses that's going to cause a bunch of problems, I think. That's why I tend toward GNOME and other GNU things, because they are absolutely free, and all covered by the same license that has made Linux become popular with many programmers and computer nerds.
Again I say, Argh.
It at least has the promise that it will be in two years.
diff GPL whatever-it-is > /dev/slashdot
How about a web site which gives you a tick-box based license generator:
..."
* You'd select what you want to limit/allow
* It'd read it back to you in
a) Formal license form (text file)
b) English, with warnings (eg. "You're forcing people to release their own source code here")
c) A Geek-code style shorthand
Then, any savvy user could take one glance at the Geek code and understand the restrictions.
"This software is licensed according to the Open Source Modular License (URL here) with the following stipulations to be interpreted as described by the license:
FREE++ SRC- DIST+ COPY+++
Comments?
Even the way in which NCL software reverts to GPL after two years is identical to the way Aladdin Ghostscript reverts to GNU ghostscript after one year. That doesn't make NCL software free software.
The NCL is not a copyleft as defined by the Free Software Foundation. The Aladdin Free Public License is not a free license as defined by the Free Software Foundation. Please do not be misled by these abuses of the terms "free" and "copyleft." Recognize these licenses for what they are: non-free licenses.
Given the plethora of licenses which seem to be appearing it's becoming quetionable whether OS is helping the community. We only have to look at the furore over Apples license to see the first inclining of our worst fears: if people disagree about whether a license is OS then before too long we'll be lost.
People should definitly read/understand the licenses of the s/ware they are using. In general I think it's getting to the point where I will prefer well-known licenses like GPL over anything else. If I *need* to use the s/ware then I'll read the license etc, but to try and discourage the practice I'm now trying not to use s/ware which isn't under one of the traditional licenses.
Sound crazy?....GPL/BSD/Artistic/X licenses were fine before I see no reason to encourage people to muddy the waters further.
If the OpenSource people want to help they should make a license from the most used ones which meets the definition and then only allow the use of the mark if this license is used. Allowing people to use the mark because *they* think it meets the definition just isn't cutting it. Further ESR isn't a lawyer, what he thinks meets the definition and how the law might view the clauses could be vastly different.......
Actually, there is at least one very good model of this that I know of. SBT Accounting systems is a Foxpro application sold by a company whose license goes something like this:
> the source code comes with the purchase
> if you don't modify the source code, they provide 100% support for a limited amount of time (I think it is like a year)
> if you don't change the source code, you may purchase additional support
> as soon as you change even one character in any of the code, it is your code, you own it, and there is no support.
And I actually think this is a pretty good business model. It is the open but not free source, and they are basically saying they will back their code, because they know it works, but they won't back your code, because. . . it's yours!
"My husband invented the internet, and I censored all the naughty stuff on it. .
Maybe we can encourage companies to use this in lieu of software patents.
GPL
I like their idea; this seems to me to be close to the original idea of patents (which is what they seem to intend): the inventor gets brief exclusive rights, then anyone may use it. Any software that is released under this license will be free software (note use of the future tense).
:)
However, this license is broken. Their stated intent in the preamble conflicts with the wording of the license.
They want the author to be able to make money by distributing the software. The license grants the author exclusive for-profit distribution rights, but lets anyone distribute the software for free. From a commercial standpoint, how is this different from GPL software? If I'm selling software, I still have to compete against distributors who charge $0 for the software. Customers would have no more reason to buy from me under this license than they would under the GPL.
I think it would make more sense (given their stated purpose) to give the author exclusive distribution rights for a year or two (before GPLing it), and require that the source code be included, and allow licensees to modify the source code.
They should have thought about this a little more before releasing it. On the other hand, maybe they figured that given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow, including legal ones
Maybe what us free software advocates need to do is draft a shell licence for commercial software companies. If you look at their "open source" licences, they're all basically the same. We seem to have problems with the portions of thier licences that we feel funnels the benefits of the open source model to "the company" exclusively. They seem to believe that they've created an open source license that protects their IP from becoming public domain, and from the threat of cloners. Maybe we can create a license model that satisfies both requirements. ;) should be working on, not trying to get a bunch of commercial software companies to dilute the free software with a bunch of "not-so-free" software. The GPL is great for new software that has no real original owner and no need for IP protection. For commercial SW companies, it not just gives away the code (a good thing), but it gives others the right to burn it to CD and sell it as is (a bad thing). -earl
Essentially, they want to maintain the ownership of their "open" code, and we want to maintain the freedom of the improvements that result from the opening of that code. I think that's the issue that ESR, and BP and the other "champions of open source"
I agree. Users get the software with a
web-generated license telling them what the
packager or person who gave them the software
can do with it. The license also says which clauses can be added/removed or where to find
new clauses and register on the web.
If you don't like the license you've got in your
hands then go to that server and re-generate a license with your own selections + ID number.
It's good for developers because it helps them get
in touch with users and keep some stats.
It's good for users because they hopefully can find a solution which pleases them.
It still lets everybody see the source but specific parts can be subject to different
permissions.
Then turn off the ads. See http://www.junkbusters.com for more details. Substituting a 1x1 transparent GIF for each ad does wonders for download speeds :-)
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
No, the point is clear. These people are (just like several other "open source proponents," doing what every competitive (or sometimes greedy) living thing does when it comes time to compete--they're creating lots and lots of eye-catchers. These things are intended to look "just like" the GPL "except for..." and usually, the exeception has something to do with watering down the GPL's intent. Why not be straight with people? This is not copyleft. If you want to license your software with something other than the GPL, do so, but don't pretend you're using the GPL.
A good example is GhostScript. They license under a different license, then eventually re-license under the GPL. Nothing wrong with that, but they don't pretend to have a "public license" when they really don't have one.
No doubt about it, every author has the right to license her own work any way she sees fit, but this pretentiousness about "public licenses" has got to stop.
I'll never forget a certain (nameless) "open source" guru who once wrote me: "We can't let Richard Stallman hold us back any more." Well, nameless one, this crap is the result.
Want my advice? I believe the moral thing to do is license your software as you see fit, and it you want to then switch it to free software, use a free-software license later. Don't pretend.
--------------Rev. C.C.Chips---------------- For the real truth, visit
As long as the NPL keeps being updated, the new code is newly released under the NPL. Thus the clock starts again for any of the updates. If you make a derivative work, it is considered newly released under the NPL, and the clock starts again.
Sure, the restriction is lifted for the original version that was released two years ago, but that code will be awfully stale after two years.
----
Open mind, insert foot.
Well, the author would decide the options, permanently, and the options could be endless, from "You must distribute the source code" (optional) to "You may only distribute this software on Wednesdays while wearing a blue shirt" (very optional), "You must pay $xxx for the software after xxx days of use" (shareware), "You must send me a postcard from somewhere", "You may not use this in a commercial product", "You may not use this in a commercial product without contacting me first", etc.
The software would compare the license you had designed (and in the case of a user, the license you had retrieved) and describe the nature of the license informally, and show comparisons with other licenses and software, whether it fulfils the requirements of Open Source, whether it includes all of the stipulations of the GPL, etc.
The possibilities are endless.
I'm a programmer, not a lawyer, so I want to tell the site what I mean, and then let it turn it into legalese. I also want my users to see at a glance what I'm getting at with the license and compare it to other software/licenses they know and use, and also have the option to retrieve the full legal document.
This simply goes back to one of the fundemental problems the Linux/open source/free software movement faces...in involvement of comercial organizations or not. Most commercial entities will not go for the GPL, yet have valuable contributions to make. On the other hand, this license proliferation is just mucking the whole thing up, and licenses like the BSD license allow the code to be exploited too easily without return to the community. IMHO, we need to have just three licenses, the GPL, LGPL, and a third one which will make commercial entities more cofortable yet still enable it to work with GPL software and its devotes...something like a NQFPL (not quite free public license). make no pretense to be compelety free, but yet still works with the movement. In the NCL license defense, I think the two year expiration period is a decent idea...but, simply put, we have too freeking many licenses running around, their going to become meaningless soon. Perhaps dialogue on a third license of non-commercial origin, but with commercial entites in mind, could be developed. I would love to see FSF and OSI involved in this...an attempt to build consensus.
While certainly not an RMS-approved idea, this is at least a reasonable way to ensure that your software will be "truly" GPL after a period of time.
Aladdin's Ghostscript does the same thing; which is why everybody is a year or two behind the latest version...
Mark
This makes as much sense as Microsoft releasing a version of Linux -
"New MS Linux, all the power of Linux without the messy source code. No need to worry about non-Microsoft programmers 'fixing' our (errr... YOUR) operating system!"
It just doesn't make sense.
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you!
It is fully buzzword compliant, that is it uses the terms "Copyleft" and "Free" (while avoiding the legally protected term "Open Source"), but this is a very dangerous license to the Free Software community. I urge you not to treat this license as "Copyleft" "Free" or "Open Source", and avoid software licensed under the NCL.
I call this license dangerous because, while it pretends to be a Free license, it deliberately interferes with the redistribution of its software, one of the three pillars of Free Software.
Here's a hypothetical example, lets say the NCL becomes popular. There are fourty commonly used NCL packages out there. None of the authors are greedy, they just want $1 per copy sold for their two years. If a company like RedHat were to include these popular packages, the cost of their distribution will have gone up from $50 to $90. This will hurt sales, with no increase in their profit, thus hurting the free software community (a little).
Worse, when CheapBytes goes to repackage this version of RedHat, they will have to make their own arrangement with each of the authors, and their distribution will have gone up from $2 to $42, probably heigher, because they will need to hire someone just to manage all these agreements. This will destroy them, companies like them, and seriously harm the entire free software community.
Unencumbered redistribution is part of what makes Free software Free. This license mocks the community while asking us to accept them. I say throw them on their ear.
----
Open mind, insert foot.
The idea of this license is to delay this clause for a couple of years so that the author can "try" to make a few bucks on it before it becomes truly open source...
Absence of proof does not equal proof of absence. Until a court decides one way or the other it's not really decided. And even then, courts change their minds.
Your best bet is to use either a BSD-style license of the GPL. Most of the other licenses that abound have been custom tailored for a specific company and product. With BSD licensing and the GPL, you also have the advantage that more people will tent to know the basic tenets of the license.
The differences between the GPL and a BSD-style license generally relate to reuse of your code. GPLed code must always remain GPLed. BSDed code may be made proprietary or included into other codebases with different licenses.
--Phil (Personally, I prefer the GPL. Once free, always free.)
355/113 -- Not the famous irrational number PI, but an incredible simulation!
You can't ammend the GPL. The copyright on the GPL itself says:
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
You can probably release a program with a license of "You must follow the GPL as given in the file COPYING with the following changes:", and have the terms of your license an ammended GPL. This will confuse people, and licenses are confusing enough. You're better off finding a license that suits you better, or writing your own.
You certainly cannot alter the terms of someone else's GPL software. Only the copyright holder can put a license on software. You can't add restrictions under the GPL, and you can't remove restrictions without relicensing.
----
Open mind, insert foot.
We are free to ignore software if we don't agree with how it is licensed. Software under the NCL deserves to be ignored, except to make sure that they haven't violated other people's licenses in making their program.
----
Open mind, insert foot.
Hey,
I think that there is a fondamental diffrence between the two that we have seemed to have forgoten lately.
Sure, commercial software has to meet deadlines and stuff, but, it meets peoples needs. For example, just imagine your grandma recompiling a kernel or something.
The advantage to it is that it is, most of the time easier to use and configure.
On the other side, free software tends to be more "fun" to play with, and, sometimes, it just doesn't work right.
The point is, it shouldn't just be about giving the sources away or not, it should be about getting an easy to install package that does the job right the first time and that can be configured to the exact user's needs (for an example, I use gnumeric, and I am french speeking. Unless I play with the sources for a couple of days, I will never get it to work in french...)
Papi
PS: Excuse my poor english
- Chernobyl used windows
Anyone can use any licensing terms he likes for his own code. Thus if I wrote something, I could use a modified GPL that code. It would not affect the "real" GPL license on other people's code.
The problem with doing this is that your specially modified license will no longer be compatible with the ordinary GPL, thus it will not be possible for you to use code under the ordinary GPL in your project.
The DFSG #1 states that the license "may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software".
The NCL states: "You MAY NOT distribute this work for profit as an executable or in object form".
Does anybody else remember a little thing that programmers like called "source code"? The NCL doesn't appear to restrict source distribution, just binary. Thus, the DFSG only chokes if it defines "software" solely as "binaries". If, however, it includes "source code" in its definition of "software", there's no inherent conflict.
The NCL is intended for programmers who wish to make a livingout of writing free software but have no desire (or ability) to offer consulting services.
To encourage cooperation between all free software developers however you should preface the GNU GPL by stating:
The entire Section 5 is labeled Integrety of Free Software.
It is clear that they are trying to piggyback on the Free Software Community, while putting a monkey wrench in both the terminology and business plans of Free Software companies.
----
Open mind, insert foot.
Those are irreconcilable aims. Companies need to understand that things just don't work the same way in the free-software (my RMS alligience slips out) world as they do in the proprietary world. They can't have it both ways, and neither can we.
This fracturing of the market is inevitable under "open source". Companies want to exploit open source for the technical advantages it brings just like Eric Raymond is telling them too. It makes sense that they will try to do this by writing licenses that provide as little true freedom as possible in order to gain the technical benefits.
Anonymous Coward (but we know who you really are) wrote:
:-).
Maybe RMS should copyright the term "Copyleft" since it is his term,
I think you mean trademark, you can't copyright a single word. I think he can legitimately trademark the term as far as use in the computer industry goes.
Man, these licenses are doing my head in. Must be a corporate conspiracy like those guys in suits on the bus and the barcodes and the CONTRAILS... muttermuttermutter.
Try tinfoil around your head. I've found it works wonders. A real fashion statement
----
Open mind, insert foot.
The BSD license is not a good one to use because of the advertising clause. If you wish to use a non-copyleft license, please consider the FreeBSD license instead. It removes the advertising clause.
The Artistic license supposedly has several flaws in it, and is not widely used. I haven't looked at it in detail, but you should before licensing any code under it. (This is true of any license, I suppose).
Anyone with more legal knowledge than me want to try this?
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
Don't say that too loud, you radical! Are you trying to get yourself killed?
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
There is very little difference between this
and the policies currently followed by Microsoft,
IBM et al. If you shell out a (very large)
bundle, you will have access to the source code
of Microsoft products. Its true that you will get
slapped with an NDA, and hence you wont be
allowed to redistribute, but your customers could
make the same deal with Microsoft that you could,
and thus obtain the source.
Indeed, under the NCL, why would anyone want
to contribute any code to software written by
someone else? The other person would end up
making the profit for work that you did.
If you want to charge for a product, charge
for whatever you think it is worth, or charge for
support. Charging for the source code goes
against all the tenets of free software. IMHO,
this new license must be quashed like the termite
that it is - designed to bring down the house of
free software.
There is no such thing as luck. Luck is nothing but an absence of bad luck.
True, but the license differences ensure that different programs can't "interbreed". Which is a shame. Mozilla and KDE or GNOME could have beautiful offspring.
I values freedom of information and cool stuff that works well.
This basically makes me a GNU sort of guy.
What do I do about all these coporates jumping on my bandwagon? Nothing. I use stuff that meets what I value, and rememebr that we got this far without them. They didn't matter then and don't matter now, at least not in a way that guides what I do.
If what this community has done is so great, then the last thing we shoudl do is change as soon as somebody (or some corporation) agrees that it's great, but wants to change it.
People like Linux becuase it's good. If we keep making good things, world domination will happen naturally. If people don't like what we make, chances are we still will and we'll have the stuff we like.
What more do you want?
The NCL is not what I like, so I won't use it. I'll just go back to doing what I did before and save my public displays of opinion when somethat that actually tries to stop me comes up. (Like the US government's ideas about privacy or regulating the net.)
NEw liscences, new apprioaches, new coproate ideas about our community,... they all fall under the utlimate equalizer that is the internet. It will be only as big as it is cool in the eyes of the netizens.
--
Erskin
geek.
"distribution" here of course refers to the "Free distribution" that #1 is about.
DFSG #2 are part of the reason why e.g. Pine and qmail are not DFSG-free. Debian has source packages of them in non-free (pine396-src, qmail-src).
It refers to source code and binaries. The DFSG requires both to be distributable. Remember that Debian is a binary distribution.
I accidentally used NPL where I meant NCL in my post (the 'P' and 'C' keys are so close together?). I meant to refer to Bowerbird's New Copyleft License, not Netscape's Netscape Public License.
----
Open mind, insert foot.
It's termed a "Copyleft", but to me "copyleft" always meant "GPL, or another free software license that uses copyright law to prevent hoarding into proprietary software". But NCL isn't a free license.
Look at what Stephen Williams says in his submission: Seems to be aimed at people who want to sell their free software. But software licensed under it isn't free software.
Look at what Stephen Williams says in his submission: Seems to be aimed at people who want to sell their free software.
Yup. I saw the word "copyleft" and immediately associated the license with "free software". I should have done more than skim it before submitting the story to Slashdot; then I wouldn't have used the word "free" in my submission.
I've sent a message about the NCL to the FSF. They might want to comment on the copyleftness or otherwise of this license.
As much as I think Hungarian notation is outdated and annoying in the C/C++ world, I think we've finally found a new application for it: Hungarian License Notation. You know, a "p" before the name indicates that modifications must be distributed as patches, "Csl" indicates that closed source programs may statically link to it, and "Dmf" means that you can distribute modified versions freely. So the LGPL would become something like the CslDmfLGPL instead. (If we're really cool, we can be like Visual C++ and have all sorts of prefixes that are no longer relevant. Don't they still have lp for long pointer in 6.0?)
--JZ
In short a free distribution under (the spirit of) GPL but with the adendum that the 'original' copyright owner may (for a fee or not) licens the code (with changes and contributions) acording to the added rights off LGPL (linking in to commersial and propriatary programs).
This means that contributers to the code give this extra rights to the 'original' copyright owner. That is not more then the contributer gives to the whole world under LGPL!
This is much what Netscape done with the exeption that ther 'freeware' licens is closer to the spirit of LGPL then GPL (to bust ms dominance as commersial platform I guess).
This will make it posably to use the code without restriction in free projekts.
And that you may make profit from the code by using it in commersial 'valuadding' products (wich migth or might not be semi free).
The big advantage over LGPL is that ther is a biger reason to build free aplikation and that if the code is still used in an commersial applikation, then some of the profit comes back to the original autors (or FSF or SPI or who ever is the 'original' copyrightovner).
The advantage over GPL is that passability to commersial use is still ther (or att least clerer stated ;-).
priveleged copyrigtowner is possably a better term then 'original' copyrightowner. It chould be the original author or someone the original author chose to donate the right to.
Is what I try to say at all andurstandable? I think a community effort to fill this gap betwin LGPL and GPL would be better then everyone making ther own licens ;-)
(and I think a licens like this would be better for project like GTK then the LGPL licens)
WHat is the point of this? We Linux people need but one license. I am quite happy with the GPL, and I believe that it is the bible to other hackers like me. LONG LIVE THE GPL
Buy the ticket, take the ride.
I have a serious problem with the assumption that "free" software automatically refers to "free according to the FSF", because it seems to me that the GPL sacrifices important freedoms in some areas in an attempt to preserve it in others.
But the term "copyleft" was specifically invented by RMS, at least as far as I know, and it's discussed extensively at the FSF web site, so I regard RMS and the FSF as having a legitimate claim on the word.
As near as I can see, this license would not be regarded by the FSF as a "copyleft", but they're the ones to be the judge of that.
There is, however, a crying need for a standardized open software license that simultaneously makes source available for hacking, allows contributing hackers credit for their work, does not require the original source (person or company) to sacrifice all of their intellectual property rights, and protects the originating source against litigation in this crazy lawyer-ridden society. Netscape, IBM, Apple, and Sun are all struggling with this, and doubtless more is to come. If O'Reilly wants to host another Grand Summit, this would be a good topic. The sooner we have a uniform "Commercial Open Software" license that we all understand, the sooner we can stop quibbling about this nonsense and get back to hacking.
Craig
My personal opinion is that licenses should first be read as moral obligations, and after that they should be gone over by lawyers. -- Linus Torvalds, March 1999
It disregards the role of the unpaid collaborator who would add features to your program, because the initial developer has an advantage that the unpaid collaborator can neither obtain nor circumvent. This is a disincentive to the unpaid collaborator because instead of contributing work to the community they are now contributing work that someone else will be paid for no matter what they do. Contrast this to indirect revenue methods. If I don't like Red Hat, I can circumvent them and make my own Linux distribution, obtaining what would have been their profit for myself for some (possibly small) number of customers. Consider this in the case of a product like Linux, where the initial developer contributed a small amount of the total work and his services as an architect and coordinator, while the lion's share of the work was done by others. It makes collaborative development unwieldy. If every developer insists on their own revenue capture, you would soon have a too-expensive product or a paperwork and procedural mess. Who decides how much each developer gets? Who decides who is worthy as a developer? Do they all make that decision for themselves and then compete with each other in some way? It gives the initial developer a lock that causes a disincentive to "fork" a product. If Linus had direct revenue-capture from Linux and I decided to make a fork of it because I felt I could engineer it better, I might be able to do an excellent job, but Linus would still be compensated for my effort.
So, to sum it up, I think that direct revenue capture works to the detriment of collaboration.
Thanks
Bruce Perens
Bruce Perens.
This license and others like it can be classsified as "Mandiatory Direct Revenue-Capture for the Initial Developer."
It disregards the role of the unpaid collaborator who would add features to your program, because the initial developer has an advantage that the unpaid collaborator can neither obtain nor circumvent. This is a disincentive to the unpaid collaborator because instead of contributing work to the community they are now contributing work that someone else will be paid for no matter what they do. Contrast this to indirect revenue methods. If I don't like Red Hat, I can circumvent them and make my own Linux distribution, obtaining what would have been their profit for myself for some (possibly small) number of customers. Consider this in the case of a product like Linux, where the initial developer contributed a small amount of the total work and his services as an architect and coordinator, while the lion's share of the work was done by others.
It makes collaborative development unwieldy. If every developer insists on their own revenue capture, you would soon have a too-expensive product or a paperwork and procedural mess. Who decides how much each developer gets? Who decides who is worthy as a developer? Do they all make that decision for themselves and then compete with each other in some way?
It gives the initial developer a lock that causes a disincentive to "fork" a product. If Linus had direct revenue-capture from Linux and I decided to make a fork of it because I felt I could engineer it better, I might be able to do an excellent job, but Linus would still be compensated for my effort.
So, to sum it up, I think that direct revenue capture works to the detriment of collaboration.
Thanks
Bruce Perens
Bruce Perens.
I worry that this may be a trend. Will the next generation of Linux developers all be a bunch of commercial wannabes? As Linux grows in popularity, I worry that there are a bunch of people out there trying to figure out how they are going to make a buck out this new thing. As the mad rush of burnt out M$ Windows developers start changing over to Linux, I expect to see all sorts of semi-commercial copyrights popping up. I hope the GPL & LGPL are strong enough to stand up to the challenge!
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
You can always release it under a free license later
True, but buyers/users of your software have no guarantee that you will. The advantage of NCL is that it spells out precisely when the software will become totally free (ie, two years after release).
There are advantages here: the fiscal incentive to create new/better software remains, yet there's a cap so that what might otherwise be kept closed and proprietary forever will become open.
Sure, there'll still be always-closed software, and GPL'd software, but at the margins this sort of license should increase the total supply of free software.
(Not that the license doesn't have its problems -- the details of stewardship might stand some refinement.)
-- Alastair
What we really can't tell in advance, though, is which of these putative issues will prove to be a real problem and which will remain purely theoretical. And until we have several years of experience with different "commercial open software" licenses, any conclusions about how the hacker community (or the lawyer community, or indeed the user community) will behave under conditions X, Y, and Z will be purely speculative.
Netscape, after a year, seems to offer a couple of tentative observations:
All we can really do is enjoy the new flood of source washing in and try not to spend too much time quibbling about exact license terms. (By and large, corporations will listen more closely to the lawyer they're paying hundreds an hour to than to J. Random Hacker anyway, and there's not much we can do about that.) It'll be fascinating, though, to watch the commercial license situation shake itself out. But it'll take patience.
Craig
No magic bullet? Did they expect microsoft to roll over and die or something? Instantly? The jury is still out.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
There are a class of programmers out there who have no problem giving software away, but do have a problem with other people making money off the software they gave away.
Software licensed under the NCL may be freely given away, but if you want to make a profit off of redistributing it, you owe the author(s) a piece of the action. How big a piece is subject to negotiation.
Given the folks here who've griped about Red Hat, et al. making some bucks off of free software, I'd think this license pretty popular. Not, of course, to the strange idealists who seem to think that software development is a Holy Cause and don't want it tainted by anybody making any money (ugh, root of all evil, don't you know) from it.
-- Alastair
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Was I the only one that had immediate red flags at the beginning, where it said you can't distribute modified versions of the license?
Seems to me that most Open Source software licenses are free themselves.
-Nick
I don't know about you, but I write code for a living. I write a lot of it. I spend a lot of time at work. The more I work, the more money I make. You see, I make money so I can eat and live in a decent place.
I would much rather work on my hobbies than my professional stuff, but I need money. So, in the few minutes of free time that I have, I hack up a few little GPL'd programs.
If I could sell those programs, I might work a lot harder on them, and not spend so much time at work writing proprietary code. The problem is nobody wants my code unless it's GPL'd. It's a religion. Must... have... GPL.... Look at what happened to Qt. It had a free license (not GPL free, but free enough for free software to benefit.) Nobody wanted Qt until it went QPL, and most people still don't like it.
We wouldn't have Ghostscript without licenses like that (AFPL).
Does it really matter if the FSF or Debian say it's not free? It will be.
This license is great because it *forces* those that use software licensed under it to give back to the community instead of people just leeching off of the community. Granted, it needs a little revising, but the spirit is good. Feed the coders; They give you free stuff.
I agree with the folks who think this thing is bad juju. It's basically the same as "Free for noncommercial use" only with that clause expiring. That's not free software.
Anyway my question is, how will this thing work in real life? Say I write SuperWidget 1.0 under the NCL, Bob comes along and modifies it, Larry modifies that. Then Will Fences decides he wants to make a commercial app from Larry's code: does he have to pay Bob and me, too? Seems like that could snowball quickly, making the license something businesses would want to avoid, not embrace.
--B
No, the Aladdin license is a "free-beer" license. You're explicity forbidden from making money by reselling it or any derived work.
The NCL license provides for (re)selling, so long as the original author(s) is(are) compensated.
(The GPL, of course, provides for (re)selling without any compensation to the authors, as long as source is made available.)
-- Alastair
Presumably the printed version will include the actual license text; oddly, it's not as easy to find current, definitive versions of the various licenses on the 'net as one would think (or at least I've not found it as easy as I thought). Are you planning to add them to the page?
[slightly off-topic] The summary of the Great Qt License Struggle was interesting but I found its presentation a little one-sided (quite legitimately; it's your book, after all). In the great 'net tradition of presenting all eighteen sides of a two-sided question, do you know if Troll Tech has posted anywhere a (non-PR sanitized) account of the process from their point of view?
Craig
Exactly!
This license will have very little, if any, negative effect on the supply of GPL'd software from those already writing GPL'd software.
It will have a positive effect (how big remains to be seen) on the supply of (ultimately) GPL'd software from those currently not writing GPL'd software because they can't afford to (or think they can't). It might, for example, encourage some shareware authors to release source.
-- Alastair
The entire purpose of the Alladin license is to make people who want to sell the software buy a commercial license from Peter. It's really the same as the NCL in this respect.
Bruce Perens.
If I'm selling software, I still have to compete against distributors who charge $0 for the software. Customers would have no more reason to buy from me under this license than they would under the GPL.
This is true. However, this situation doesn't seem to bother Red Hat, Caldera, SuSE, etc, who are all competing against potential distributors who could charge $0. It would of course be a factor in negotiating the payments to the software author(s).
-- Alastair
It would be a boon to OSS. Right now, we're headed to a "license for every app" scheme that will lead to nothing but annoyance and legal difficulties on the part of users and developers alike.
A fact that does need to be addressed, however, is that not everyone wants their software under the same set of terms. The GPL isn't for everyone, no more than the BSD license is, or the MPL, etc.
A good approach, I think, would be a single yet variable license. Say, the XPL. Then one talk in terms of various flavors of this one license, e.g.:
XPL Level 1 - free for noncommercial use
XPL Level 2 - modifications must be distributed as patches
XPL Level 3 - source to modifications must be published
XPL Level 4 - code can be made proprietary
Something along those lines. We would hear, "Xapp will be released under Level 4 XPL," "Apple will announce today it is changing the OSX license from Level 1 to Level 3," etc.
If all the big players in OSS put their heads together-- everyone from the FSF to the OSI, with a good team of lawyers to back them up-- this could happen.
iSKUNK!
I must not have made myself clear. Of course Red hat, Caldera, etc. can make money. However, the stated purpose of the New Copyleft license was to make it easier for the author to make money by selling software. It did not do that.
We wouldn't have Ghostscript without licenses like that (AFPL).
I'm not so sure about that. The programming effort that Ghostscript entails is a fraction of the effort that many other free software projects entail. There's just no way to tell how ghostscript "might" have developed without the AFPL.
Not bloody likely. This license gives the author 2 years (sort of). A software patent gives the holder iron-clad control for SEVENTEEN YEARS!
I think you're thinking of the Geek Code.
;-)
My Web Page
I'm not even sure that's true. Taking the GPL,
changing a few lines, and calling it your own
license is akin to taking somebody else's code,
changing a few lines, and calling it your own.
If nothing else, it's plagairism.
At least, that's how I have always read the GPL.
In my younger days, I once licensed a program
under the GPL simply because it was easier than
coming up with my own licensing terms, and I
have always assumed that was part of the point.
My Web Page
Because you raise some red herrings, and it answers some of your legitimate questions.
It clearly does not "disregard the role of unpaid collaborator". Depending on how the steward chooses to divvy up the money (if any), the all collaborators are paid. If not, the collaborators are free to choose a new steward who will divvy up the money they way they want it divvied. (Although the exact details of this seem to me one of the weaker areas of the license.)
You ask "who decides how much each developer gets?" The license answers this very clearly: the steward, who is elected by the developers.
Take the Linus/Linux example which you raise. If Linus (as steward) chose to keep all the money himself, no doubt an election for a new steward would quickly occur. The new steward might decide that Linus gets no more money, since his contribution in terms of lines of code is small compared to the total size.
Of course, the details on a project with that many contributors gets hairy very quickly, which is why I think this is the real weakness of the license. But that's a detail.
If you're going to attack this license, read it and attack it on its real flaws, not on some strawmen you conjure up. A license something like this can significantly add to the availabilty of free software, by encouraging those who would not release under GPL or BSD. Let's fix its real flaws, instead of wasting breath on imagined ones.
-- Al
-- Alastair
I sent this to Bruce via email but thought it was worth pointing out to the public.
--
Bruce,
Thanks for putting up a resource like this. For a while, I have been
looking for a site I can point people to when they have questions about
which license they should use. I do have a couple of nitpicks though.
I was under the impression that the MPL was intended to be used by the
general public and not just for Netscape. Last I checked, the MPL is
just the same as the NPL except that it allows the Initial Developer to
be someone other than Netscape so the original copyright holder would
still have special rights over the code. The MPL/NPL seem to be better
explained than other licenses (GPL/LGPL in particular) and don't solely
rely upon the, IMO, vagueness of copyright law to make their points. I
was quite surprised at the recommendation to avoid using the MPL.
In the list of questions, you left out one that I'm frequently asked:
"Do you want people to use your code without being able to sell it
commercially?" A lot of people seem to mistakenly think that GPL will
prevent their code from being sold which is definitely not the case. It
doesn't look as though any of the OS licenses would apply in this case
though (except maybe the Artistic license).
Also, perhaps you should be a bit clearer on what you mean by
"modifications". The MPL/NPL specifically define modifications to be
changes to the original files or new files that contain code from the
old files. In this case, you cannot make modifications private as you
claim in the document. Only new files that do not contain any Original
code can be made private. It's sort of a nitpick but it will confuse
some people who were previously told that MPL/NPL would insure that the
code they contribute will always remain open. The contributed code
placed under the MPL/NPL will always be open, but it can be used in a
closed product.
Yes, but there is nothing mandating that those changes had to be made public. Look at Apple, sure they released many of the modifications that they made to the BSD design, but they didn't have to. The BSD license, while enabling companies and organizations to protect their interest, also has a problem in that it could easily lead to fragmentation as the design gets modified and the changes are not released back. You start getting propriatory versions. This doesn't always happen, the FreeBSD people are proof of this, but it can, hence mine concern.
Most open source licenses do not allow people to change the license itself -- otherwise no one could ever be sure exactly what "GPL" or whatever meant.
If you want to change the terms invent your own license. But better, don't: just use one of the existing ones.
So, to sum it up, I think that direct revenue capture works to the detriment of collaboration.
The problem with the lack of a direct revenue capture system is that it discourages commercial companies from investing large amounts of money into upfront research (for open source projects anyway).
How many companies are going to invest millions of dollars into research if the only revenue they can see in the future is from support? New companies coming in have the advantage of not having to recover the cost of developing the product in the first place.
Yes, its possible for companies to survive and propser by selling support for GPL'd products, but these companies are nearly always established after a lot of free time has been donated where the risk is a lot lower that a useful product is not eventually developed.
The lack of a direct revenue capture system may in fact discourage funding for new innovative development.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Assuming you, Larry, and Bob are all considered "contributers" to the code (the license seems to exempt simple ports etc from that category), then the three of you elect a "steward" for SuperWidget 1.0 for the purposes of the license negotiations with Will. Will pays the money to the steward who then divvies it up amongst the three of you (presumably, according to whatever agreement the three of you already came up with for sharing revenue).
Will only has to negotiate with one person, so from that point of view businesses won't have a problem with it. Whether the project breaks down over infighting over who gets how much is another question, and that's the weakness I see in the license. You'd need to have some sort of covenant amongst the developers agreed upon ahead of time (and which new contributers would need to agree to) for the project to work.
Not quite the free and easy world of BSD, or even GPL, but it might encourage those who have kids to feed. And SuperWidget 1.0 becomes GPL'd two years down the road anyway.
(That two years may seem like a long wait for projects that are in the "release early and often" development stage, but isn't too bad for more mature products.)
-- Alastair
Fragmentation is possible with any license. GCC and EGCS are an example.
;)--as opposed to being forced to by morals written into a license.
;)
Yes, but there is nothing mandating that those changes had to be made public
I consider this a good thing. I rather not be told (and forced) how to think. I rather be generous out of my own good nature--I am soooo modest
I am starting to see the BSD license as the Christianity of today: be good since it is the right thing to do.
Concerning the GPL, I see it representing the Christianity of a few centuries ago: be good or else the rack. No one expects the GNU Inquisition!
Sean Farley
I don't think anyone at *Netscape* is saying the license doesn't matter. There has been a lot of code we can't use (GPL), and a lot of people we'd like to collaborate with who can't use our code (again, GPL issues).
Those are two separate issues. Netscape will never be able to incorporate GPL code because of crypto restrictions. Our lawyers have agreed to let us take baby steps toward fixing the second problem by dual-licensing the JavaScript engine. If it works out well we may be allowed to dual-license more of the code eventually.
(Keep in mind that it has taken a year to get this far, and that we now have a new set of lawyers to deal with.)
proprietor An owner, as of a building or business.
That should answer your question. 8^) At any rate, it's not the case that "GPL'd software must be within a specific group" anyway, unless that group is defined to encompass "anybody that abides by the license," which means "every user of the software", with no exceptions.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
Yup. Sean I lean your direction. Considering the GPL is 6 pages, you would think it would at least be clear. The Berkeley license has like 3 real clauses (or 2 if you have the non advert one).
GPL is actually more hooking than most others. Pretty much anything that touches GPL becomes GPL. Which makes sense. It seems it least that RMS wants to have every line of code on the planet available under the GPL.
The GPL is actually fairly entangling (which is why I won't use it, it binds my hands as a programmer... so much for freedom)
Why?
I mean that as a legitimate question. In what ways are intellectual property rights on software advantageous? How do they make sense in the context of what we call free software? I can understand the free point of view, I can understand the proprietary point of view, but you seem to be suggesting some kind of hybrid. That baffles me. Can you explain?
You can still copy the source as you see fit and distribute binaries just like you could under the GPL. You can modify the source however you like, and distribute the modified version. The only new restriction is that you (being someone other than the author) can't sell the software for a profit.
I don't see how this violates the spirit of free software. If someone wants to make a profit by selling my software, I don't see why it is unreasonable for me to get a share of that profit.
--Artemisia
But most people who write free software can't feed their kids off the proceeds, because there aren't any. (At least, not the kind you can exchange for groceries and a place to live.)
For most folks who contribute free software, it's a hobby, or something their boss doesn't mind as long as they get their real work done.
Nobody's going to get rich writing NCL'd code, either, but the prospect of getting a piece of the action if somebody else decides to sell it will certainly make it easier to, say, justify to the wife when she asks why you're spending all that time in front of the computer.
-- Alastair
I take it, then, that you think that the next gosh-wow software project that nearly everyone will want to use should be released under a binary only, pay-per-copy license rather than the NCL?
If you say so.
Be careful what you wish for. You might get it.
-- Alastair
I may be on crack, but the implicit "sending others the money you make on your modified version of the software" sounds a lot like a pyramid scheme.
I start the scheme, I write some software program and license it under the NCL. I charge $2 to sell it to others. Alice buys the software, makes a change to it, sells it for $2. She, by the license, sends back a portion of her money to me. She sells Bob a copy. Bob makes a change, sells his copy. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Time to write that NCLed "Hello World" program.
"Whatever happened to fair use?"
-- Duff-Man
Contrary to what Bruce suggested, this liscence compensates the "unpaid contributer" more than the main author. According to the liscence each author (meaning anyone who has contributed code to the work) gets an equal vote on who the steward is, so noone has the leverage to keep most of the profits to themselves.
Of course, there do seem to be problems with this liscence regarding the details. I could get my friends and family and pets to submit code I wrote so that we could get a bigger share of the vote (and thus the pie). But I suppose the other authors could always fork the project and refuse to let me or my family and pets submit any code, once they realized what I was doing...
--Artemisia
>Indeed, under the NCL, why would anyone want to contribute any code to software written by someone else? The other person would end up making the profit for work that you did.
Someone please explain to me why someone making a profit over software enhanced by work you did is so much more terrible than a web company making big bucks using GPLed software you enhanced, or a manufacturer making big bucks using GPL CAD software, etc.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Only one license per app? Perl already comes with
two licenses!
Craig Milo Rogers
I'm not sure they are, or if they are, the question deserves a much longer discussion than is appropriate here.
But the point is that whatever the practical or metaphysical reality may be, the corporations that we would like to see open their source code believe that their source code is valuable intellectual property, as is evident in the various "commercial open software" licenses, and a standard license of some sort that accomodated that belief would be preferable to the current cascade of differing semi-hemi-demi-open-source licenses we're getting now.
These corporations are unlikely to be persuaded to reveal what they currently regard as their Trade Secret Above All Trade Secrets by any sort of moral or philosophical argument about the nature of ideas, so let's just accept that and move on.
Craig
It is perfectly possible to sell you GPL code under different terms to people.
The disadvantage is that when you incorporate other GPL code that you don't own into your program (like patches), the owner of said code must give you permission to license it under other terms.
You could thus in principle license code you otherwise release under GPL to a commercial company, for them to use in a proprietary product, and charge them for that.
In fact, this is Qt's model.
This won't help Free Software much, though.
---
I don't think the Trolls want to talk about their side. But you could ask them.
Bruce Perens.
What's more, there is nothing in GPL that prevents people from selling their free software. In the early days after he left MIT AI lab, Richard Stallman supported himself and later FSF by selling copies of emacs for US$150 each.
There are some good points to the BSD license, I just really don't have that much faith in most companies to not ruthlessly exploit it. The GPL is not perfect either....mainly in that it goes to the other extreme in an attempt to protect the code base from fragmentation/propriatoryness/exploitation,and other bad stuff. The question is where to draw the line. The GPL is about as save as one can get in terms of preventing fragmenting the code base, but in this protection it very likely could discourage some from developing under it. On the other hand the BSD license, while providing more freedom, doesn't (IMHO) protect the ability for that freedom to continue. Its a balancing act. I really would like to see a standardized third path that would allow for commercial development but not endanger the code base. In an ideal world, everything would be GPL. But this ain't an ideal world, there is much good software that is being developed for commercial purposes (following a more traditional model of business, the Red Hat model would not work for many types of software), it would be nice if they could play nicely with the GPL stuff. At this point, I think the safest bet is either GPL,LGPL,BSD or pure propiatory (my spelling suck,forgive me) like VMware or WordPerfect. The products add much value to the platform an, while the add nothing lasting to the code base, they provide functionality in the immediate sense, which is also good. Its the weird middle ground that needs work.
Just arambling...need more coffee
MS = Messy code....
MS = Lots of support..
But I think if MS did do it.. I think they would have the poeple working on the nt/9x platforms working on this project.. Can you imagine that.. That would be one fight I would pay to see!!!
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Just think about how the taxes would be handled. What a book-keeping mess.
Thanks, but I'm going to continue writing GPL-ed stuff and not get into squabbles over who gets paid what.
Bruce Perens.
This license seems to cover the gist of what the DSL already does.
DSL
And just think about what happens when it goes wrong. Lawsuits between members. The IRS trying to figure out who to collect from.
No, it's not for me. I have a nice closed-source job that pays for me to write Open Source software.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
> It's only when you try to mix GPL with non GPL when you really start having problems.
:)
Well... If it's more restrictive that the GPL you probably can't use it anyway and if it is less restrictive then it's probably possible to GPL it.
Ok, that makes more things go GPL and that can be considered good or bad or suggest that GPL is the 'perfect mix'
> enough holes/ambiguities to scare me
I've always seen the GPL to be *extremely* well thought-out but I could of course be wrong. What holes?
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Nor does it cover the timeout-to-GPL thing in the NCL.
"Whatever happened to fair use?"
-- Duff-Man
oh wouldn't that be terrible! Small developers actually making money! We can't tolerate this-we must only support the large companies like IBM and Intel who are supporting linux right? sheesh
---
This is all very well, and completely in accordance with both common sense and common courtesy -- otherwise one might edit one of RMS' essays to imply that he supported, say, racism or military dictatorship, which would constitute libel and fraud by any imaginable standard. But I'm not sure that this can be stated in any sort of ironclad legal way. (Indeed, events of the Year of Monica suggest that it may be impossible to state anything in a really ironclad legal way.)
And of course, if you can make whatever random changes to the license document you wish when redistributing it, then any license terms become immediately unenforcible.
Perhaps it would be for the best if we just tried to give each other the benefit of the doubt, and remembered Linus' recent comment on the subject:
Craig
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
As far as others not contributing, so far I am satisfied that the people who are selling the software are contributing to free software in various ways. Red Hat by funding various free developers, SuSE by funding X drivers, etc.
Will this feed me? No. Do I need it to? No.
Commercial viability is not everything.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
RedHat does not have to distribute any products, but if people embrace NCL software like I'm sure Bowerbird is hoping, then RedHat will feel pressure to include it. Balance this with the price pressure not to include it, and you get the problem I was describing.
Cheapbytes tries to distribute an exact copy of the RedHat CD. So they'd have the same pressure.
I'm not specifically sticking up for RedHat, they have no innate right to money from other people's work. I was pointing out the inherent lack of freedom in the NCL, a freedom that is part of every definition, from the FSF to the DFSG, to the Open Source organization.
The Free Software Foundation makes money from distributing GPL'ed software without restrictive terms such as the NCL introduces. Cygnus and Alladin make money from their software, while supporting Free Software, without blurring the distinction between Free and Proprietary licenses.
This is why I call the NCL dangerous, it blurs this distinction, not to protect authors right to make money, that right has been long established. It blurs the distinction so that authors can use it and pretend to be part of the Free software movement, and benefit from the publicity it has been getting, while in reality the license is far from Free.
I am not looking for a handout. I do not expect all software vendors to use Free Software licenses. I do think that all software developers should respect the Free Software movement, and not try to coopt the language of the Free Software movement in a blatant attempt at their own handout, free publicity.
There is no legal way I can see to prevent people from using this license. The only thing I can do is come out strongly and vocally against it, trying to discourage developers from using it, and people from supporting it.
----
Open mind, insert foot.
> This license and others like it can >be classsified as "Mandiatory Direct >Revenue-Capture for the
> Initial Developer."
> It disregards the role of the unpaid >collaborator who would add features to your >program, because the
> initial developer has an advantage >that the unpaid collaborator can neither obtain >nor circumvent.
> This is a disincentive to the unpaid >collaborator because instead of contributing work >to the
> community they are now contributing >work that someone else will be paid for no matter >what they
> do.
Bruce, you should have read my license before opening your mouth. It makes it quite clear in the definitions section that an "Author" is anyone who contributes code to the project. Under the stewardship section it then specifies that each author has just a single vote, regardless of contribution. So even if Linux were licensed under the NCL, Linus would have no special rights under it.
> It makes collaborative development >unwieldy. If every developer insists on their own >revenue
> capture, you would soon have a >too-expensive product or a paperwork and >procedural mess. Who
> decides how much each developer >gets?
Again, as a leader in the free software community you have the responsibility to actually *read the entire license*, rather than just rely on the quickly written preamble. All of these decissions rest in the hands of the steward of the work who is elected by the the authors, each with one vote.
>So, to sum it up, I think that direct revenue >capture works to the detriment of collaboration.
I understand your fears about collaboration and free reuse of code, that is the sole reason I included the stewardship system in the license. Without a guarantee of these freedoms the license couldn't be called free. I believe that this license will protect these freedoms, although only experience will tell.
I didn't write the license out of some kind of selfish grab for money at the expense of the freedoms of others. I wrote it because:
1) The free software community is bigger than the FSF, yet they are the only beneficiaries of any donations from people like Cheapbytes. The distribution of reward should be more even throughout the community.
2) There are a great many programmes that just do not lend themselves to offering consultancy services. How do you offer consulting for a game, or a genealogical programme? Home users will never purchase consulting services, so the only way to make money in this environment is to sell the software. My intention in this respect is to provide some motivation for programmers to write these sort of programmes professionally.
As I said, only experience will show if the license works properly, but I believe that it is atleast worth a try. The GNU GPL itself was a radical idea at the time, so I don't see how a supporter of it can then turn around and refuse to even support a trial of a license that contains a new idea.
Matthew Parry
Bowerbird Computing.
Can we support an entire industry that makes free software? No. We don't need an industry to do that. Free software's purpose is not to supplant Microsoft. We'd be much better off if we let Microsoft continue to be Microsoft and worked on the things that free software does well.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Hey, I want to sit around on my arse and swill beer all day! It's not fair that nobody will pay me to do it! :)
:)
If you want to get paid for writing free software, then get yourself hired by someone like red hat. You can get paid for writing free software. But the truth of thematter is, right now there are fewer positions availible than there are people who want those positions (much like positions for someone to sit around and swill beer).
Unfortunately, the reality of capitalism means that most people can't work in the job the want to do. Learn from it, but don't live with it, support anarchy today!
"Now watch what you say or they'll be calling you a radical, liberal, fanatical, criminal." - Supertramp, The Logical So
You'd have programmers voting as blocks to get their pet steward elected. You'd have people creating false identities just to get another vote. You'd have elections every week.
Go ahead and try this. You'll have to walk away from your own software within a month or two.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Come on, it is "donations." There is nothing in the GPL that requires donations, and there is nothing preventing others from donating to other parties. Trying to confuse revenue with donations? They are separate matters.
Also by mixing money issues in the license you are creating all kinds of potential interest conflicts. Free Software works partly because of the lack of financial conflicts. For people who wants earn money by writing software, they can always determine their own price. There is no need to confuse that with Free Software. Anyone writing GPLed software decided already they don't make guaranteed income from this activity.
Basically it is fine for you to make any license you like, but you shall not try to confuse the issues by using the term "copyleft" while your license does not follow it.
Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people. Develop! Share! Enhance! Enjoy!
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
It's probably a little late to bring this up now, with over 200 comments, but here goes anyway.
I don't know where the "New Copyleft License" idea came from but this license is called the "Non-Consultant's License." As for my opinion... I don't quite trust the thing. The stewardship system has potential for a lot of confusion given a loose-knit set of developers. There are a few other things which have been said, so I won't repeat them... but the word "copyleft" is not under attack here.
ElpDragon.
I agree with RMS on this point: These add-ons aren't value adding, they're freedom subtracting.
On the complexity of using the license, this is a license for bussinessmen, not students or hobbyists. Bookwork is a natural part of running any bussiness. As for there being a new election every week, I think you're being a bit overly pessimistic about it. But as O'Reilly said - The market will determine who's right.
PS
I changed the name of the license to reduce the antagonism towards it through the use of the word "copyleft". I've also made a few other changes based on feedback here.
Matthew Parry,
Bowerbird Computing.
Use Lynx. Or turn off automatic image loading in
Netscape. Either option will remove the slowdown.
(And if you have a decent cache in Netscape,
you'll see all the pretty pictures anyway)
Anonymous Cowards: Proving daily that human beings are innately jerks.
You need only one license until such time as a sufficiently determined legal team pokes a hole in the GPL that makes major portions of it unenforcable.
I've heard people suggest this, but haven't heard what they think the holes in the GPL are.
Anyway, so say I write some code, and release it under the GPL...
At that point, either the software becomes illegal to distribute
I see. So a court decides that it's illegal for me to say that people can freely copy my code? I'd like to see them explain the reasoning behind that! It's my code. I can give it away if I want.
or the copyleft becomes illegal to enforce
So a company can pick up my code and use it as they like without my permission? Presumably this hypothetical court feels like rewriting major parts of copyright law while the going is good...
I guess the point is that the GPL is just a way of applying copyright. It doesn't magically change it. So where are the major holes again?
dylan_-
--
Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
That really sucks dude. As a person involved in the XFree86 project for some time (look through the code, you'll find me), like most hobbies, it ended up costing me money. I paid for my PC and living expenses through working at a job that really ate into my social life. If I could have made money writing and testing "free" software (certainly to the same level of pay I'm at now), I would still be at it. I still have that "itch", and occasionally I feel the need to scratch. But I can't devote much more than a few hours a week because I have a real job.
I think these sort of licenses will have to come around sooner or later because Red Hat should not be the only entity to make money from my and all the other coders' work. Sure they pay a few people like Alan Cox, David Miller, and my countryman Rasterman (giants all), but realistically all the coders deserve to make money from their efforts.
rant off
As a person who was around when GNUStep wanted the Display Ghostscript stuff written, I can assure you that Ghostscript is a bigger project than you seem to realise. None of us had any chance of making that happen. We needed Aladdin's skills at that time to make it happen. And it was going to cost $$$.
Andrew van der Stock
Don't start without a lawyer and accountant, or you could be in trouble with the Oz equivalent of the IRS some time later.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
With indirect revenue streams being the only real type of cash inflow, I don't think there is a better way (yet).
For instance, you can work for a company that has such indirect revenue inflow, OR you can consult. (Or you can become a not-for-profit organization, like the FSF. Free software could conceivably be seen as a charitable cause.)
The thing is - indirect inflow most likely will dwarf the reveues of non-free software sold directly (for the near future, at least). This means that it's reasonable to expect that a free-software company isn't going to get insanely rich, nor will a free software developer working for such a company. This becomes a problem if you're talented and want a better than average lifestyle.
SO - It could work this way: Some software does not need to be open. Custom software through consulting, for instance. For the individual or small company, consulting and contracting are excellent ways to make an above average wage - while supporting free software (either by using it in your work, or just doing it in your spare time)...
-Stu
Indeed it does, though this does conflict with RMS' view that everything should be free.... do you believe this is an unworkable goal, just something that we can't do *today* ?
:)... So, this doesn't look like an easy problem.
Personally, I think it's probably unworkable, unless we can find a way to keep indirect revenues for free software at the same levels as what we're getting for direct-revenue closed software. Software developers are *not* going to want to make less money (though I'm sure the market would love that
-Stu
This might have been a good idea in the days there was no widespread Internet yet and people had no easy way to copy software. But once there is the net, only one person needs to buy the software and then upload it to metalab or something, and after that noone would buy the software from the author anymore.
no, GPL promotes common ownership for software,
in contrast with communism which promotes
common ownership generally. As result free
software is only a subset of communism, which
means that a free software programmer does *NOT*
need to be a communist.
If you generally, as a pure and "politically
correct" American hate the idea of sharing and
common ownership, stay with Microsoft, which
follows all capitalism standards.
sorry for my poor english, I am NOT an American.
Seriously- with all the talk about rights to make money and hide source, who's looking at the end result that's bringing about? Privacy issues everywhere, commercial app after commercial app going totally sour and stale and in some cases borderline criminal. So what's wrong with deciding that since computers are so totally important, and since we depend on them so much, all the code must be open to auditing at all costs? That makes very good sense to me, as the alternative keeps getting more horrific. My software isn't that hot (it's OK) but I release it under the GPL, and my motivation is not primarily hatred of monied people. It's a pointed attempt to share what I got only with people who are _not_ galloping full tilt towards what I see as a cliff... and to totally cut dead, completely refuse to cooperate with, people who still think software is something private.
The time for software privacy is long gone- it's too dangerous, like private little nerve gas laboratories or missle bases owned by individuals. Flawed or evil software (evil == actively sabotages/damages your other software property for its own gain) is too dangerous and there must be auditing for it- the alternative is for programming to descend lower and lower in reputation until it's like lawyers and politicians, simply because unmoderated self-interest combined with secrecy allows incredible acts to be done in computer code, in virtual secrecy, and it's always some other vendor's fault, and people end up piecing together the damage only after it is too late.
The GPL is relentless in its refusal to compromise or bend the slightest amount to appease people who want to be able to do things like privacy invasion and planned obsolescence unhindered, and that's why I use it despite the slamming it gets. I see no alternatives that do what I want, nothing that really is willing to enforce the auditing I think needs to be pervasive.
You don't see medical equipment designed to break older versions, or heart pacemakers with special backdoors so the vendor can make it start to miss beats when a new heart pacemaker comes out. (Gee, looks like the new version is a good buy!) But more and more, this very equipment is being controlled by computers- often deeply proprietary computers such as NT boxes. Yet that computer equipment is allowed to be as treacherous as it could want, simply because it's computer equipment and the business is 'a jungle' so therefore there are no rules. Sometimes that's just not good enough- and so I feel strongly that there has to be openness and ability to audit exactly what is happening in computer code- and so I strongly advocate the GPL as the most uncompromising license I know of to accomplish this goal.
I have a nice tech-support job. It pays sickeningly little 'cos I'm a Mac repairman and don't get enough work, but I'd rather be stuck with that than dive into political madness. ;)
Example? If (to reverse my usual bias) Gnome people got together and each wrote enough minor bugfixes to KDE to elect a steward who slapped on a $9999 licensing scheme to kill it as a choosable option, would that be appropriate? Hackers woefully underestimate politics- even when practicing it.
Maybe those who are determined to make money coding need to figure out another line of work. There's a parallel to what might be happening- art and literature. Most writers don't make money writing. Should they, too, be guaranteed an income? Exactly what about programming makes it automatically merit a living wage? Perhaps the reality is that it's another form of art- which just happens to be profoundly important and affect countless people.
In that case, establishing accountability (in the case of affecting people) is important, yet there is no guarantee that any one person will be a programming 'star', not even a direct correlation with skill. It'll be like the rest of the compositional arts, creating artworks, only more like building bridges for regular people to use.
Hell, you could even make a case for pay-to-play. If you want to actually have your program used and trusted by kajillions of people, you gotta pay the source so it can be checked out to make sure it's not some hellish trojan
I have bills to pay.
I guess this makes me a capitalist.
If you pay money for my stuff, you're entitled to all the documentation I can give you, including the source code, for the purpose of figuring out what I've done, and how to work it. You can't say you're getting that from Micro$hit!
Want help in making it go? Well, I'll try, but you have to realize that, while I *do* feel that you're entitled, for your money, to have something which works, there comes a point where it makes more economic sense for me to just give you yer money back than mess around with you forever.
Wanna port it to some bizarre (non-wonbloze) platform? Well, I'd be interesteed in that, for the sake of 1) getting you yeour money's worth and 2) penetrating whatever market.
Wanna modify it? Don't expect me to be interested in debugging it for you after you've pissed in it. On the other hand, if you come up with an improvement I like, I'll be interested in buying it *from you*!
Wanna *Sell* it? Well, it's MINE, not *yours*, and I'll make a distribution agreement with you, but I'll DEFINATELY want a piece of the action. How big a piece will depend on *MY* assessment of how much work I put into it vs. how much work you'll put into selling it, and for how much. (A lot of musicians feel real good if they can get "a dollar a copy".)
Maybe after a couple years, after I've made my nut, I'll be ready to throw it out on the "free" market. Maybe I'll throw out the 90% version, in the hopes of drawing attention to the edition I want money for.
It's *mine*, I'll license it however I please. You have the option to buy it, or *not*. I have to provide something that's *worth* yer hard-earned bucks. Again, I think you'll have to agree that this is *not* what's available from Micro$hit!
But I have bills to pay. For the most part, I can't *give* it away.
Hooray for those who can!
Mikie
Exceeding the recommended torque is not recommended.
Greetings,
Bruce, you once commented about how you were trying to avoid sounding catty. I've been reasonably impressed with your ability to do that on this issue (with only a few exceptions), but this is just a poke to note that you didn't need to say that quite like that. You could just have easily said 'Trolltech' instead of 'the Trolls'.
Cyberfox!
It is perfectly legal to develop proprietary software with gcc, if that's what you're worried about.
Well when I saw the poll I thought FSF had released
a new GPL. But then I read through the post, and
read many user comments. After this I was
thinking this license sounds useful except that
it is calling it self "open source", and
"free software", and the worst... copyleft.
I do not make comments my self yet because I have
not checked out the license. So I go check it
out (Read the first bit up until the specifics,
then mainly browse and search for such things as free software, copyleft, etc...). I do not see copyleft anywhere........ I think it was very inappropriate to send this article in with the subject saying the new copyleft license... I do not think the license needs to say such things as its trying to be in the spirit of the GPL, but I also do not think it is trying to be *We are the same thing as the GPL*, or *we are almost the GPL* or anything like that. I am assuming that most people who posted for this article did not even read the license. I personally think the license's name is not that good and also think the 2 year term should be shortened (also it should not say it can go under gpl or lgpl... it should say one or the other IMO), but overall I think the idea is fine, and not trying to ride the backs of the opensource band wagon. Some areas could be clarified, but its nothing like some of the so called open source licenses that have come about. Read the license before commenting
I for one need to write code for MONEY
Wait--is it that you need to get money for writing code, or that you need to get money for copying code?
-rozzin.
the New Copyleft License. Bowerbird changed it after going through a few rounds of flak here on /.
However, the goal of corporations is not to give away their products and have 100 % percent market share, the goal is to make money. There are many demonstrated ways for a software company to give the software away for free, and still make money ( Netscape, RedHat, Sendmail, etc). Not every software company wants to do business this way. They have the right to operate their business in any _legal_ way they choose.
The real issue that is dividing free software supporters and commercial software companies is how to open commercial software without effectively giving away ownership. RMS chooses to give away his software in a way that grants ownership to each and every contributor. Now for free sowtware this is a "very good thing"(tm). For commercial software, it has the opposite effect. It stops the free flow of IP in its tracks.
If company A writes KillerApp(tm) and wants to make billions by selling it, the GPL is not the best license to use. What would happen is that companies B, C, and D would make minor modifications to it, and repackage it as KillerApp.b, KillerApp.c and KillerApp.c respectively. Not exactly what company A had in mind right? If there was a license that gives the community the free and open exchange of IP that the GPL does, while maintaining the "ownership protection" that a standard commercial software license does, we would see lots of commercial software companies open up their code to the community. The result would be that the original owners could profit from their own work, and the community could distribute for free the improvements that they've made. Consumers get a better program, companies can stay in business simply selling software. I don't see that there is a fundamental conflict here, and I believe that given the necessary attention and intelligent thought, this issue can be resolved, and everybody will benefit.
Now I'll get off my high horse, and get back to work ;)
-earl
You may license your program in any way
you want, this is at your option.
I didn't say non-GPL programmers are
capitalists, but the way the proprietary
software is beeing developed is a part
of the capitalistic society.
I think that the new license is that you
were seeking for.
However, there are some people who do not
want to use the word "MY* or "YOURS" so
often. Don't forget that we use a lot of
GPL software that it was made by them.
Shouldn't we give something for return by
giving our programs in GPL?
I mean, did you ever contributed to FSF?
Why not? You do use GPL products, such
as linux, which were made spending many
many many hours of work. Why you do not
feel the need to give back?
Free software helped a lot the programmers
by giving away many powerful tools or libraries.
Also developing in GPL means that other people
help you to develop your program. Linus admits
that he has written about the 5~10% of Linux.
Why it would be right to sell it?
Moreover, the GPL license was made to keep
the information free, not to prevent you
from paying.
All of us we have bills to pay. By using GPL soft-
ware we do not have programs to pay. I mean, if
I should pay for linux, gnome, gimp, and other
software I use, I would have gave many thousand
dollars. I DIDN'T PAY FOR OBTAINING THE
PROGRAMS I USE. Why not give back the 0.01% of their value by making my programs free?
Can't you see that "common ownership"
helps all of us?
Sounds find to me. But the GPL is not means to that end. The GPL is promoting companies not to open up their code.
And yes, I did mean that statement. The transition to open code is going to be a gradual one. The first step I see is making the libraries open.
Unfortunatly with the GPL it is all or nothing.
I can't making an open lib for use in the both GPL'd and non GPL'd apps period end of story.
That sucks. Under clause 2 of the GPL (since it is so broke it doesn't say clause 2 refers only to source code definitions) anything linked with GPL based code has to be GPL. whoops...
I use the phrase "World Domination" as making Linux and apps for it available to me as easily as any other OS.
While I am happy with the ways I can get it now, and hopeful for the applicaitons (and games!) to keep coming, I wouldn't mind if it was easier.
Regardless, if I was interested in plastering the world with Linux CDs instead of AOL CDs, (as some of the previous comments (and Linux users) seem to be) I'd use the same method that got us this far. Coding cool stuff we like.
Sorry if that was unclear.
--
Erskin
geek.