Toward a Better Open Source License

Rene S. Hollan has sent an insightful piece regarding the use of a non-GPL license that is still fair to the free software community, and might even win the approval of RMS ^[?] . Toward a Better Open Source License

With the success of GNU/ ^[?] Linux in the hacker community, and it's subsequent notice by the mainstream, there has been a rapid attempt by many businesses to "cash in" on the free (as in beer :() software phenomenon. This has led to the euphemization of free as "open source", and a plethora of so-called open source software licenses, that are almost, but not quite, as free as the GPL. With business being what it is, this should come as no surprise.

The trouble with many of these open source licenses is that they tend to be received with less than abundant enthusiasm by hackers -- the very people that business is counting on to debug, extend, and support, some latest software venture, all for free, while someone else makes a profit. If that isn't enough to discredit any semblance of inherent fairness, many of these licenses have been denounced as unfair by Richard Stallman, architect of the GPL. Many heed what he has to say.

The definition of fair in an exchange depends on both parties believing themselves better off with the exchange than without it. In theory, at least it is possible that while the above situation might be viewed as "fair" by somebody, it isn't very likely. So, the hacker community loses the opportunity to work with more software, and business loses in not having the support of this community. There must be a better way.

If the NPL were modified so that some limit was placed on what could be folded back with Netscape's proprietary code, this would be a start. But, who should decide what that limit is?

Clearly, anyone who comes up with an open source license can establish such a limit, even if only to say there is none. However, this does not make the license popular. Business will always want to "have it's cake and eat it too" and it should come as no surprise that present open source licenses suggest that the "cake" be pretty big. We can either wait for some company to come up with a fairer open source license, or we can respond with an alternative of our own, that need not be equal, but that many of us think is fair. To gain rapid acceptance, it would probably have to have Richard Stallman's approval (or at least be free of his disaproval), because of the respect he commands.

Here is one proposal, to put the ball back in the court of business, as it were:
the Transitional General Public Licens (TGPL).

The TGPL is the same as the GPL, with two important exceptions:

1. The originator may combine distributed derived works produced by others and released under TGPL with the originator's proprietary code and redistribute the result.
2. The producer of a derived work may elect to distribute it under the TGPL, or the GPL, at their discretion.

Basically, this is the NPL in spirit, except the "in perpetuity" bit is cut off at a point decided by members of the community at large, in effect letting the originator have his pound of flesh, but not one drop of blood.

Obviously, an entire class of open source licenses can be thought of, that permit release of derived works either under the existing licence, or the GPL. The fairer the license, and the greater the value of the work released, the more likely it is that the originator will be granted his "edge" by grateful people who produce derived works. Furthermore, such community support encourages even more code to be released this way. That can only be a good thing.

Opinions are welcome, and openly solicited. Send them to rhollan@flashmail.com.

Comments

Problems with "originator"

[ajs]

First off: who is the originator? The company that produced the first version? The individual who re-tooled the entire thing over night, re-wrote it in C++ and added a GUI? Who?

Second: If I (say, Sun) can pull the code back into my proprietary source, what happens when someone makes a change (say, writes a driver for Solaris) and I then pull that back into my source tree. I add features, I bug-fix, I embrace-and-extend. Why should I show the world what I've done? I'll release those changes as one big wad next major release, stomping on the existing source-code base, and pretty much guaranteeing that no one will try to fork their own version of my code (say, Red Hat Solar-OS for Alpha ;-)

I don't mind that companies will do this. This is called capitalism, and I'm a fan of that model. However, I refuse to call that Open Source, and think its a bad idea to start getting people used to the idea of a GPL--

If companies want to release source "a little" and go half-way, let 'em. In the end is business-model vs. business model. I think the one that attracts the most developers will win, but perhaps I'm wrong.

But why would any derived works use the TGPL

[shawnhargreaves]

I like the idea of a transitional license that is more commerce-friendly, but still encourages people in the direction of using a true GPL distribution, but I think this particular concept is flawed.

If I grabbed the sources to a TGPL program and made some enhancements, I could decide whether to release this as TGPL or GPL, right? But if I went for the TGPL, _I_ wouldn't get any of the special benefits from this license, because those would go to the original company. This being so, I very much doubt that anyone would use it: we would all just put derived works under the GPL, which would essentially fork the project. This might work as long as the originating company was very active in development so that other people felt it was worth merging their changes back into the original source tree, but as soon as some other company made more substantial changes (which is exactly the situation that some licenses are trying to protect against), they would go for the GPL option. I think this would result in a lot of confusion, while simultaneously failing to protect the original company or feel truly free to the hacker community...

Would this work?

[Can]

People are always complaining about the quantity of OpenSource licenses out there. Would it be possible for the OSI or someone to develop a single license with 5-10 "optional clauses" that an organization could add or remove when they release their software.

Presumably, in it's stripped-down state, the license would barely meet the Open Source Definition, and this would be the standard license that most companies would go with. People could then add clauses to make it similar to BSD, or the GPL if they are feeling very generous.

When an organization publishes the software, they can include the full license with it's clauses, but in press releases and such they can say "This code is licensed under the Flexible Public License, amended with Special Clause A, F, and H" or something like that.

I would think it could eliminate some of the bickering about licenses, some of the confusion about what one license offers that another doesn't, and also allow us to reduce the legal hassles involved in checking all these new licenses.

Is this even remotely feasible?

Re:Would this work?

[Ray Dassen]

Maybe segfault's License Codes story might become ha-ha only serious. I doubt it though, as there is a strong tendency to reinvent the wheel when it comes to licenses. But who knows. Try proposing it on the license-discuss list (preferably with a concrete template).

Does this really change anything?

[ebcdic]

If I understand this correctly, the originator can only "proprietarize" derived work if the deriver agrees to it by choosing the TGPL instead of the GPL.

But a deriver of a GPL'd work can already agree to allow the originator to use his contribution in a proprietary version.

I suppose this makes it a bit more straightforward, though.

Fork the source - TGPL vs GPL ???

[redelm]

I doubt RMS will go for this one. TGPL source is _not_ free, it can be imprisoned at whim (forgive the anthropomorphism). Free software isn't about programmer freedom, which is obviously less under GPL than BSD.

Moreover, software companies will be fearful that the source will get GPL "contaminated" immediately. They like the NPL bargain "I'll let you have my code if you let me have yours". They don't see the critical importance of "Here's the code. It's free (speech)."

The GPL is very virulent. A softening is to allow the modifying coder an easy way (TGPL?) of granting a _second_ licence if s/he wishes back to the originator for the mods. The originator would then have to sift through unproprietarizable GPL'd mods, and proprietarizable TGPL mods. Not an easy task, but easier than asking permission much later.

-- Robert

Re:Fork the source - TGPL vs GPL ???

[nevets]

I believe (please correct me if I'm wrong, somebody), but I don't think "anyone" can just take it and re-release it under GPL. Nor can they add GPL and "contaminate" it. Only TGPL code can be added. I believe that only the owner can release it later under GPL. Its still "free speach" because noone can (but the owner) make it their own. But even the owner can't suddenly make restrictions on the ones who have the released (TGPL) code. That code is just like GPL, except that the owner can incorporate any changes back into their proprietary version. But that alone may be a task.

I still see it as free, just that the one who released it has the advantage. And I don't have any problems with that. This way if you have an existing product that under various reasons, you can't put under GPL, and you like to make something that uses it and place that under TGPL, then you can and still incorporate your product with it.
Steven Rostedt

The Stupidity Tax

[Per Abrahamsen]

The same reasons that make people and companies sign over ownership of changes to gcc to the FSF, and that make them contribute changes to software under the BSD license back under the same license, and that make them publish new modules for Mozilla under the MPL.

To avoid paying the stupidity tax. The stupidity tax is a term invented by the Mozilla team to describe the cost of having to constantly merge back changes from the mainline sources into your own project. The cost are very real, companies like HP pays significant amounts of money to Cygnus in order to have Cygnus merge their functionality back into the official product.

Of course, the stupidity tax only works when there are active development on the main code, so there _are_ changes to merge back. If a company have no intension of putting more effort into the code, they cannot rely on other people contributing their changes back to them.

What's the payoff?

[LL]

I fail to see how this will encourage more companies to open up closed source applications. Supposing a company has got a killer product that is 5 years ahead of anyone else. Now the open source community could threaten to reproduce it (given enough time any software functionality can be replicated) and by throwing enough warm bodies at the problem, could perhaps come up with equivalent features in say 3 years. Now from the company's point of view, all they need to do is sit tight for 3 years of additional profits, then perhaps release it as LimitedSource. The question should really be, how should the payoffs be rearranged to encourage companies to release source now, without cannibalising their expected profits? Unless both sides can benefit, it will just not happen.

A couple of possibilities, if you look at the price of software (assuming it is a manufactured product) then we would have components like

+------------------+----------+----------------+
| Development cost | Know How | Marketing Hype |
+------------------+----------+----------------+

Now from the OpenSource community, amortising the development cost over a wider base and eliminating the hype and know-how (ie stupidity tax for not understanding how it all hangs together) creates cheaper and more robust solutions. Would it be fair to say that all the community really wants is the source but not the hassles of marketing, distributing and supporting the product? If so, then value in excess of potential "lost profits" can be restored via:

• inclusion of history with embedded links to the originator for support and value-added stuff
  
• giving originator first rights of distribution for each release for a limited period (ie only original company can release binaries + branded documentation for say 3 months before becoming open slather
  
• segment the market into budget (source-only, limited edition), value (binaries) and premium (bells and whistles) with a matching recommended price
  
• relicensing, if someone comes up with a vastly superior hack, then the originator has first right of refusal to market the improvements
  

In essense, this is looking at the GNU license and seeing what areas could be temporarily weakened without losing the principle of OpenSource. If people think hard enough, perhaps they can come up with other win-win scenarios. A trade is not a deal unless both sides can benefit.

LL

Ambiguous

[scrytch]

1.The originator may combine distributed derived works produced by others and released under TGPL with the originator's proprietary code and redistribute the result.

Redistribute under what licenses? If a patch is submitted without specifying whether it's for the GPL'd or TGPL'd fork, does it automatically go into the TGPL'd fork?

And I say "fork", because that's exactly what will happen the instant the code is released. Someone will grab it, rename it, put it under GPL, and isolate all further improvements to the GPL'd version. Which leads one to wonder why you wouldn't just create the fork in the first place by simply dual-licensing it.

Better would be a license that creates a publisher/author relationship, where copyright of any modifications is automatically assigned to the originator. Some sort of "good faith" enforcement clause would be needed to ensure that redistribution rights are not terminated. The FSF has this written into their charter. If they decided to revoke the GPL for every GNU package and turn it into closed-source commercialware, the rights of the consumer (redistributor) under the GPL would be upheld because the FSF would be acting in bad faith. Well, probably: "good faith" is always a judgement call. And they can play with the license as they please, within the boundaries of good faith: they OWN every line of code in official GNU software thanks to the copyright assignment agreements they require.

The charter of the KDE Free Qt foundation would be one place to look for a charter spelled out explicitly. If Troll ever goes out of business, Qt becomes BSD licensed.

But all this said, licenses are not computer programs. They are subject to interpretation, loopholes, and flat-out nullification in the case of bad faith, violation of existing law, invalidity under statutes of contract law, or just the amount of money one can spend on lawyers. If you do not trust the license issuer, you cannot ever really trust the license.

I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on Slashdot.

Difference between the LGPL and the TGPL

[Le douanier]

The difference is that with the LGPL ANYBODY can link their program to your program/library.

With the TGPL this is the same as the GPL, that is only GPL compatible software can reuse/link to your code except that the originator can double license it to make it proprietary again.

I would like to have a TGPL license, this would help people to realease copyleft software. The scenario would be: You have a great software/library. You want to open it but you need to gain some money from it in order to live.

If you use the BSD/X license type you can make it proprietary but everybody else too, so if someone come with big bucks he can use your work, improve it quickly than you then outspace you technologically and you are stuck.

If you use the LGPL anybody can use/link to it and you will need to make money on support, which can be harder (because you're on quite the same level as other companies).

If you double license and use the GPL for the open license you probably will have some contribution for the GPL part which will become better than the closed part (because the claused part need to reimplement all the GPL contribution in a proprietary fashion) and the hassle to support both version can be very high (they risk to fork very quickly).

If you do like Aladdin (cf Ghostscript), you use a proprietary license and release the old version with the GPL you have the same risk (the GPL version overthrow yours).

BUT

If you use the TGPL license you have the same effect of the GPL (only GPL projects can use your code) but you can still relicense it under a proprietary license for your products without having the risk of the open version to cut your revenue because everyone use it. This is possible because the license allow you to incorporate the changes made by other into your product under your license. You then can release a proprietary version with all the features of the GPL + some feature you add to attract customers.

The problem with the TGPL as she stands is the second part: like other people said, if someone else can change the TGPL to the GPL for their derived work, then you risk to have the same problem you would have by using the GPL. I think this would be better if only the originator could switch to the real GPL.

The other problem is (like other pointed out) "who is the originator?". If I do a software under the TGPL but stop to develop after version 1.5 because all the feature i wanted are in and almost all bugs are out, will I still be the originator? If somebody else take the lead to the project and produce version 2.0 that is a 80% rewrit eof my crappy code, should I still be the originator? Shouldn't the new maintener be the new originator? Idem if somebody fork with my project.

I think the originator rule should apply while somebody is "actively" maintening a project. If they stop and somebody reactivate the project then they should find a ground to transmit the originator rights.

But this risk to shift the problem to the definition of actively. Am I still active if I contribute a small patch here and there while other are doing huge improvements?...

Ok, I'll stop here because I have to go but there are a lot of questions to talk about this subject, and /. is a great place to discuss (and hop, some shoe-waxing for Rob ;-)

This needs to be said

[extrasolar]

What troubles me the most about the Open Source Movement is that their focus seems to be to get businesses to open their code. While it seems to be a good motive but I need to ask, at what cost? The movement seems to marketing the Open Source Development to businesses. Open Source makes sense in a lot of cases but I doubt that this is always so. And now a new liscense? How far will the movement go to cater to businesses? Do we need even need businesses?

That last question is the entire point of this response. It seems to me that the businesses that would benefit the most from Opensource software is the large businesses. I make this statement from the evidence, look who is doing Open Source now: Corel, IBM, AOL(sorta), etc. Where is Ma and Pa's Software Company? Maybe small businesses have already been opening their software but the advantages seem to be exponentially less. One of the assumptions of the Open Source development model is widespread distribution. Surely Corel and IBM will get plenty of users but what about Ma and Pa's? Be? Opera?

Now for Part B of my argument. The biggest reason I use free software is that I no longer need to be spoon-fed by big businesses. It is nice. I can update when I want, check the progress of various software packages, and and recompile if I want. This is freedom people. I have grown tired waiting for Press Releases and exlusive Beta software to find out what is happening with the software I used to use in Windows Land. Now I can get a good idea by going to mailing list archives or web forums. Heck, I can even ask someone if I was really interested. But most of all, there is no need for buzzword features to get people to upgrade. Next buzzword: Open Source.

The effort the Open Source Movement has done to cater to big businesses really scares me. I still say we don't need to be spoon-fed by businesses.

--

Re:This needs to be said

[vyesue]

there are the mom and pop companies? dont think companies, think "groups of people".

and small groups of people (small compared to IBM and Corel) are writing GIMP, emacs, linux, etc.

it doesnt make much sense to start up a small company to write free software, but that doesnt stop people from just writing free software.

Re:This needs to be said

[JordanH]

it doesnt make much sense to start up a small company to write free software, but that doesnt stop people from just writing free software.

I'm not at all sure that this is true. It is common to see a small company start up that will support, integrate and consult about software. Such a firm could make available Open Source software to get their foot in the door and as a means to advertise their existence. Of course, if someone wanted enhancements, support or consulting involving said Open Source product, you can guess where they might look first.

In fact, this article , which was referenced on Slashdot in August seems to suggest that the future will have many small companies writing Open Source software. Here's an extract from that article that seems to suggest this:

"The open-source community has long been working and waiting for the day when Linux becomes widely used, and developers will be able to develop for a popular platform on which no vendor has a secret advantage. But the vendors in this new world may find it looks much like the world we now have. There will be no Very Large Software Company to scare ISVs into sticking to the niches, but any vendor with a horizontal product (that is, one in wide use), will face a host of competitors. Both the number of competitors and the availability of useful free products will help drive down application prices and profits. And vendors of widely-used proprietary products who keep their prices too high may find their products cloned! As a result, vendors will find they can make more money in the niches--where they are today."

Now, this article is brought to you by IBM, and I'm thinking that IBM is hoping that those who want support for Open Source in the future will come to IBM Global Services, particularly the big firms, governments, etc.. Perhaps this article is glossing over the benefits to the really big ISV of Open Source. I do think the article is well reasoned though, and does support the idea well that there will potentially be a lot of small firms writing and supporting Open Source software in the future.

I've even seen this business model in action. I recently saw the author of a popular Open Source (GPL) eCommerce perl application give a talk about his product. He currently has more consulting work that he and a small band of associates can handle.

Tap dancing.

[Ih8sG8s]

Loss of control over the evolution of the software and revenue potential is the source of corporations' fears. What we are witnessing is the jockying by corporations to come up with the perfect 'get what we want from the free software community, retain rights and make all the money' licenses for their products.

I find this insulting to my intelligence, and to the collective intelligence of the very community that they attempt to tap while keeping their gold.

I have no pity for companies that do the license shuffle. This is what separates the greedy from the good.

It may be concidered a leap of faith to most corporate types, but that is what's required.


To the corporations:

If you want to reap the benefits of the bazaar, participate under the already proven methodology and ideology of the movement.

see: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

Contact successful OSS companies such as Redhat and ask them for advice on how best to give it all away and still make your money.

Ultimately it boils down to a company's true motives. Is your corporation opportunist or do you really buy into the movement? The truth is in your liscence, plain as day.

Ugh..

[Kitsune Sushi]

Hmm.. Be gentle.. or not.. I'm delirious today.. ;)

This has led to the euphemization of free as "open source", and a plethora of so-called open source software licenses, that are almost, but not quite, as free as the GPL. With business being what it is, this should come as no surprise.

At this point I'd like to extend a big thank you to ESR and OSI.. real swift going, guys.

The trouble with many of these open source licenses is that they tend to be received with less than abundant enthusiasm by hackers -- the very people that business is counting on to debug, extend, and support, some latest software venture, all for free, while someone else makes a profit.

Hackers.. not as stupid as the suits seem to think. I swear each new "open source" license feels like a direct insult. Makes me want to strangle the legal team who wrote it up and the people who set them loose on such an unholy task.

Ok, I'm sick of looking for quotes, so the rest of this is going to be off the top of my head (be afraid.. I just woke up..).. Do we really want to make "big business" all warm and fuzzy? It seems to me that if they want to survive in our little part of the software community, they need to find a way to do it themselves, without trying to compromise our integrity (screw us over with stupid licensing) or insult our intelligence (think we'll get a nice warm and fuzzy feeling because they used the words "open source").

Coining the term "open source" was entirely so it would not be threatening to businesses. Look where that "intelligent" decision got us.. I'm not so sure why everyone thinks we need to bend over backwards to get commercial support. We certainly don't need a whole lot of help producing quality products (a lot of GPL'ed alternatives blow the traditional software out of the water), nor do we need to do much of anything to have commercial support (I don't think we had to hold Red Hat by the hand to get them to participate.. do you?). The question being, I suppose.. what the hell do these companies who are scared to death of the GPL really have to offer us? And why are we trying to seduce them? Why does that even make sense to anyone? Someone care to explain this to me..?

Look, if you want to "play nice" with business, use a BSD- or X-style license (give up hard work to be popular if someone wants your work), or the LGPL (keep hard work free (speech) and still let it play with the "slaves"). Otherwise, why not stick to the GPL? I see no need to reinvent the wheel. If businesses want to make an "open" license that allows them to bundle stuff back into a proprietary ball, screw them. I've got better things to do than help someone make a buck without making some money myself. If they want to make it convertible to the GPL, guess what? I'm going to do so and they can just about kiss my ass.

Why are we constantly reinventing the wheel just to screw ourselves? Using the term "open source" instead of "free (speech)"? Trying to think of idiotic licenses that don't serve to fill any real niche in the world? Argh.. Brain.. hurts..

TGLP, LPGL, GPL... who cares?

[BobandMax]

The recurring references to "free software" and beer, phrasing which seems to have originated with Mr. Stallman, are as specious as the slim distinctions between the various acronyms discussed above. The only "free licenses" that exist are the UC Regents BSD and releasing to the public domain. The other licenses mentioned above are simply various means of maintaining control. Mr. Stallman, while loudly (and lengthily) proclaiming his eschewal of monetary gain from programming, certainly seems to enjoy the miniscule kernel of power his GPL licenses have given him.

There is a class of human, Stallman and Nader among them, who bypass money as a means of keeping score and get right to the heart of the matter. They seek to self-aggrandize and accrue as much power, within their limited sphere of influence, as possible. Fortunately, the spheres are usually rather small. Al Gore is an exception to this; he seeks a rather larger sphere.

BSD projects, notably *BSD OS's, seem to get along just fine without the accretive GPL. When the dreaded "forks" have occurred, (i.e. when Theo de Raadt correctly insisted that FreeBSD was insecure and orchestrated the OpenBSD variant) the community of users and developers has benefited and acquired more choices.

The manner in which a developer releases his or her work is irrelevant to me. Do whatever you think is best for you or satisfies your priorities. But please, lose the pious, sanctimonious and hypocritical tone of these arguments. State plainly that you wish to maintain control and prevent others from acting contrary to your wishes. Any other discussion smacks disgustingly of lawyers and pinhead-dancing angels.


"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."

Re:TGLP, LPGL, GPL... who cares?

[JordanH]

BSD projects, notably *BSD OS's, seem to get along just fine without the accretive GPL.

They get along fine, if your goals are modest. The "advantage" to GPL is exactly that it is accretive. People cannot take advantage of GPL software without contributing back to the original author any changes and enhancements.

(Sorry for the lecture on GPL here, most people know this, but I have to develop this for those who don't.)

RMS believed that this would grow a body of software that would benefit everyone and the recent evidence seems to suggest he was right. Chart the growth of *BSD vs. Linux. While a lot of *BSD folks grumble that this is all just hype and marketing, I disagree. I feel this is a direct result of GPL.

When the dreaded "forks" have occurred, (i.e. when Theo de Raadt correctly insisted that FreeBSD was insecure and orchestrated the OpenBSD variant) the community of users and developers has benefited and acquired more choices.

Has the community of users and developers benefited from the fork that occurred when BSDI developed BSD/OS?

I ask this a lot here, and I've yet to be answered. Why are there not organizations that have grown up to support, package and sell *BSD distributions, except for BSDI, the way there are with Linux distributions? I'm beginning to think the existence of BSDI suppresses the *BSD support market.

If a business wants *BSD, packaged and supported, well there's BSD/OS, with it's proprietary drivers and kernel enhancements. It's priced such that many would just buy BSD/OS rather than try and support FreeBSD themselves. If a business wants Linux, there's an active competitive market out there. All the Linux competitors have to stay sharp and be intensely customer focused or someone else will take their product and do a better job of it (witness the keen competition between RedHat and Mandrake).

This is a healthy situation for Linux and a stultifying one for *BSD.

Perhaps someone should take the *BSD source base, package it, support it and release any modifications under GPL (or some slightly modified GPL if there's some conflict between the BSD license and GPL that makes this problematic). This might be the best thing for the future of *BSD.

It seems to me that the same thing that happened almost 10 years ago with nascient Operating Systems (Linux and BSD) using GPL'd GCC as an enabling technology is happening today with a broad range of computer applications using GPL'd Linux as an enabling technology.

If BSD has a better base kernel and is easier to port - claims that I have no reason to doubt - couldn't there be advantages to applying the "accretive" nature of the GPL to it?

Perhaps I'm not appreciating the *BSD culture, here. I've heard it argued that BSD has better 'roots' and that it is a more stable, better designed base to work from. If this is the case, is there some problem with placing mods under GPL? Or, is the main problem with GPL is that it is too restrictive, not allowing your mods to be used profitably in proprietary ventures?

*BSD supporters who feel this way should recognize that, in all likelihood, there would be no freely redistributable BSD today if it weren't for GPL'd gcc. The accretive nature of GPL guaranteed that gcc would be continually improved and new architectures would be supported such that it eventually provided an important tool to springboard both Linux and *BSD.

I find it ironic that *BSD supporters would claim that GPL supporters are pious and hypocritical. I guess this parallels someone who has fallen from the graces of some Church who complain that what they don't like about that Church is that the people there are too pious.

Mr. Stallman, while loudly (and lengthily) proclaiming his eschewal of monetary gain from programming, certainly seems to enjoy the miniscule kernel of power his GPL licenses have given him.

There is a class of human, Stallman and Nader among them, who bypass money as a means of keeping score and get right to the heart of the matter. They seek to self-aggrandize and accrue as much power, within their limited sphere of influence, as possible.

As much as you might like to pillory RMS for maintaining some kind of "control" over GPL'd software, it's clear to me that the aims of the GPL are to remove truly restrictive controls over software. RMS invented the GPL because he saw that entities were taking public-domain licensed software, making modifications and placing this new software under proprietary licenses and copyrights. The BSD-style licenses allow for entities to gain this same proprietary control over derived works. GPL is the license which attempts to remove "control" from software in so far as is possible. To accomplish this, the GPL requires the small bit of control that those who derive works from GPL'd software not exercise "control" on it. You can do whatever else you want with the software, you just can't modify it and claim it as your own. The BSD license requires that you include the Berkeley copyright. Both licenses imply some control. One guarantees that noone will take control over derived works and the other one doesn't.

What are the reasons for releasing under BSD-style licenses over a GPL license? I can think of three; 1) All men, even those who would take advantage of this work for their own profit, are brothers and this software should be made "free" to the brotherhood of man. 2) Self aggrandizement. You want your name to appear in as many places as possible, including in proprietary derived works. 3) I wish to promote this particular piece of software as free software, but reserve the right to make some changes it to it later and then make it proprietary.

Please enlighten me about other reasons for choosing a BSD-style license over a GPL license. I don't have any problem with reasons #2 and #3 I've given above, but only reason #1 is selfless. I do consider reason #1 to be unrealistic and ultimately leading to a situation where more software is "controlled" and proprietary.

Are GPL supporters hypocritical because they claim to be selfless when in fact they are not? Show me a GPL supporter who claims to be selfless and we'll check this on a case by case basis. Some are possibly hypocritical, others may truly be selfless (in so far as that applies to anyone), but I think you'll find that most don't claim to be selfless.

It's probably true that RMS appreciates any recognition that he may get as the founder of the Open Source movement. What, exactly, is wrong with that? Because he doesn't do things for remuneration, but, in some part, instead for recognition and honor in the eyes of his peers, he's somehow hypocritical? I'm sure RMS would never claim to have been a Buddhist, doing what he does to annihilate his ego.

Why do Jordan Hubbard and Theo de Raadt do what they do? So they will have better software to use for themselves and work in a team environment where this can be developed? I think this is the primary motivation of most GPL supporters, including RMS.

Again, I apologize to Slashdot readers for the polemic on GPL. Most of you have heard it all before. I do feel that people who come to Slashdot to criticize Linux and GPL should get what they should reasonably expect to get, an argument.

Output of GPLed programs

[MenTaLguY]

The output of GPLed programs does not fall under the GPL, unless that output contains parts of the program itself (in translated or untranslated from; in other words, only those things that would constitute a "derived work").

In any case, this bit is only an issue for parser generators like bison and so forth, and IIRC, bison's license makes specific exceptions for this case.

Berlin-- http://www.berlin-consortium.org

However..

[Kitsune Sushi]

If big business wants to play, it's on our terms. Not theirs. I steadfastly refuse to accept any new license. Why? Because it could only do what the GPL does, only worse. Wow. Pardon if I don't get all excited about that ..

Big business will be forced to play along whether they like it or not. They can adapt.. or die.. While I don't usually agree with ESR, I do in the following case:

Do you see our designs, or our licenses, or our coding practices being changed in any significant way by corporate participation? Again, I think the answer is pretty clear.

The truth is, they're not transforming us. We're transforming them.

Damn right. As it should be. Anyone who disagrees.. Obviously isn't very into free software..

Besides, software companies will produce products for Linux simply because of its growing popularity. Otherwise they miss out on a new market oppurtunity. And the vendors who put together distributions of Linux don't need any "coaxing". They see a chance to make a buck, and take it, and don't try to introduce some new screwy license. Point is, we don't have to pretend to be their "bitch" in order to get companies on the ball. If you think so, there's no point in using the GPL, or inventing a new license. Just use BSD- or X-style licensing. Real simple.

Missing the point...

[Fnkmaster]

I think some of you are missing the point, either because you are fed up with the plethora of licenses out there that complicate things (when we spend more time worrying about licensing than coding, we really have lost our hackerdom), or because you see any compromise on the GPL as a weakening of free software. But the point of this proposal for the TGPL is, as I see it, to *discourage* big business from using all of that semi-free "Open Source" licensing BS that's getting thrown around these days (a la SCSL or MPL). The point is that it is clear that some companies don't want to give up control of their projects (Netscape & Mozilla, Sun & everything they release). This *could* be the community's response, saying effectively that we will play ball with companies using the TGPL, but that more restrictive supposed "Open Source" licenses will not be received with enthusiasm. Now, I'm not saying that the idea of the TGPL is thrilling, as it may discourage full-out embracing of the GPL, but it does offer big business an alternative to using some half-baked licensing scheme that they pay their lawyers a fortune to cook up. The great part about this would be that other GPL projects could nab code willy nilly from a TGPLed project (and simply GPLize it). On the whole, I like this idea despite the problems some have already mentioned about determining who is the originator, etc. Whether or not RMS would call it Free, I'd like to see some company pick up the TGPL instead of MPL, SCSL style licenses.

TGPL Originator

[nevets]

I don't know about the TGPL, but I want to comment on your questions about the originator. These are my own thoughts and do not apply that this is how the TGPL works.

I believe that if you start a project and produce TGPL code you should be the owner and be the only one to re-release it under GPL. The TGPL should stay intact until the owner relinquishes it. Even if you don't support it anymore, but you should have the option of transfering ownership to someone else. If you enhance the code (even rewrite most of it) it stays under the TGPL. If you are going to rewrite most of it, might as well rewrite the whole thing under your own license.

This is how I view GPL. If I want to continue a GPL product, I will write on top of it. If I don't feel I want the GPL license, then I will start from scratch. I find that the biggest complaints about the GPL is that it "restricts" from using with non-GPL licenses. I don't feel that this is a case. I only restricts those who did not create it. So it restricts those who want to profit off of someone elses work. The GPL is like a gift from programmers. But you cannot abuse that gift. If you use it and change it, you must also give it away (as in rights, not giving away free beer). If you use a GPL product and enhance it, give it to someone, you can charge for any more enhancements. But you can't restrict your customers from going to someone else, or doing it themselves. TGPL seems like it allows the creator to incorporate any changes that the customer has done (and released) or from anyone else.

I like this idea, because it still allows for a freedom of source, and it gives you away of being one up from it. So the community will support you as well as everyone else. But if you stop the support and don't transfer ownership, I don't see how that will be a problem because the product is still out.

Steven Rostedt

Free Software Matrix

[Arandir]

Place Free Software into a matrix defined by "pro-user/pro-originator" and "copyleft/copyright". Copyleft, for this definition, is software that must be free in every incarnation. Pro-user/pro-originator means who is in control of the software development.

We get:
Pro-user/Copyright: BSD, X
Pro-Originator/Copyright: NPL
Pro-Originator/Copyleft: GPL

(Some of the existing licenses like LGPL or QPL don't fit neatly. I'm not claiming this as an accurate model of reality :-))

Obviously, what's missing is a copylefted pro-user license. We need something that is like BSD but can't be made closed. We also need something like GPL that isn't exclusive. The Proposed TGPL is neither, and in my opinion, very wishy-washy.

I want my source code to always be free, but I have no desire to tell the end-user what he can or can't do with it.

I propose a license based upon the GPL that allows:

1) Linking or the use of trivial portions (to be defined) by anyone. We want a single license, not one for apps and another for libraries.

2) Inclusion of software or non-trivial portions within other "copyleft" projects. If your license can guarantee that my code will be Free in all instances, go ahead and use it. This enlarges the number of compatible licenses.

This new license will have to define "trivial" and "copyleft", but that shouldn't be too hard. Alternatively, the Artistic license could be "tightened" up and released at AL version 2.

free-market alternative to patent law

[WillWare]

Driving to work today, I started thinking about a free-market alternative to government enforcement of patents. This idea is still hazy, but far enough along that it might be of interest to Slashdot readers.

A HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO

Suppose that one day, all government protection for intellectual property were to disappear. Trade secrets would still exist. License fees previously collected under patent and copyright law would end, and information disclosed under patents and copyrights would become public domain. It would no longer be possible to remove something from the public domain. Invention-based monopolies would be enforceable only by maintaining trade secrets.

In the absence of government protection, it would seem that inventors would keep inventions secret forever, hoping to maintain perpetual monopolies. Obviously, innovation would grind virtually to a halt. The government's solution has been to implement a body of law, patent law, which uses government force to enforce monopolies provided the inventor willingly discloses his invention.

The inventor's interest is served by concealing his invention because there is a differential advantage in maintaining a monopoly, compared to competing against many other vendors, all familiar with the invention. This differential advantage, summed over the entire future, is a finite amount of money, and the inventor will usually be willing to disclose the invention in exchange for that amount of money. Since money in the present is more valuable than money in the future, the inventor will likely disclose the invention for a smaller amount.

DISCLOSURE TRADING

Suppose an inventor wants to borrow against the future value of his monopoly. He prints shares, or contracts, saying that either he will disclose his invention on a particular date, or he will pay a predetermined penalty to the share's bearer. He sells these shares to anybody willing to buy them.

To his customers, the shares represent a promise that he will disclose the invention, reducing its cost. Disclosure benefits the customers, so they will start buying the shares. They are willing to pay some money now, so they can save some money in the future.

The cost of shares fluctuates as the market's estimate of the secret's value goes up and down. Many purchasers will buy shares just to try to make money on price fluctuations. The price will tend to track the market's estimate of the future value of the monopoly.

If the inventor ever succeeds in buying back all the shares, then he is relieved of the need to disclose the invention, since he would only be paying penalties to himself. If he sells only a few shares, he may decide that paying a few penalties is worthwhile in order to maintain the monopoly.

I've assumed here that government intervention isn't necessary to enforce contracts. There is some good evidence to support this assumption. Most business contracts these days (the sort under discussion here) are privately arbitrated and privately enforced.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN TODAY?

In reality, there is an essentially-zero probability that government protection of intellectual property will cease. In a world with patent and copyright protection, can disclosure shares do anything useful?

Some ideas that originated as oddities of libertarian thought have gradually trickled into the mainstream. Among these are privatized mail delivery, education vouchers, and private arbitration and enforcement of contracts. One might hope that if enough functions of government are obsoleted by free-market replacements, the government might eventually dry up and blow away. Not likely, but we can always hope.

One place to experiment with disclosure shares is the world of proprietary software. Software companies are tinkering with the idea of open-sourcing their efforts (or at least some of their efforts), with varying degrees of success. Netscape's Mozilla project is probably the most famous example, the one everybody hoped would succeed, and which has run into grave difficulties.

If Netscape had chosen instead to sell disclosure shares, things might have gone easier for them. Share sales would represent income, at a time when they were having trouble finding income. By tracking the price of shares, they could have measured the market demand for an open-source browser. This might have provided better information for committing resources to the Mozilla project.

Re:Why another licence?

[Arandir]

"Anything else (and I mean *anything* *else*) is just a half-baked attempt by Big Greedy Corporation Inc. to rip-off and exploit the open-source community."

The GPL and BSD are our **ONLY** choices? If I as an individual use the AL or QPL or MPL I'm a "Big Greedy Corporation Inc."? You need a big dose of reality.

The GPL and BSD are on opposite sides of the Free Software spectrum. There is plenty of room in the middle for other Free Software licenses. Lot's of room. What about something on the GPL end that doesn't have political verbage included? Or something on the BSD end that doesn't allow changing the license? Or something in the middle with no restrictions whatsoever except to keep it free.

p.s. You mentioned "free(-speech)" software. If you truly believe that Free Software is equivalent to Free Speech, have you ever considered drafting an Free Software Amendment to the US Constitution? Or perhaps an amendment to the International Treaty on Human Rights?

Re:TGPL == Public Domain + Licence Conflicts

[Chris Johnson]

"To me, this is spiteful and authoritarian-communist; nobody can "steal" public domain code, they are only free to use it and retain all rights to their own mods and derivatives (whereas the GPL grabs the work of others)."
That's an odd perspective. I don't see anybody forcing you to use the GPL for your own work. In fact, if it's your own work you have total freedom to do anything including keeping it utterly proprietary, and nobody can stop you.
Now, if you instead want to take _my_ work and modify it and release it, and my work is GPLed... well, tough. If you want total control of your code don't base it on my work. If you want it to be a secret, then don't base it on my work. You might be able to make money (probably not as many as you think- it's like the music business, what are you going to do for business plan and distribution and public relations? Are you a full-on businessman or just a programmer with an idea worth money?) However, if you're expecting to do this, you've got no right to _my_ work to do it with. Heaven forbid you should expect to make money for yourself off _my_ work! :P write your own!

This doesn't 'get' the purpose of the GPL

[Chris Johnson]

I'm sorry, but I am unhappy seeing yet another 'open source' license turn up that undercuts what the GPL's about. It's this simple- the GPL is primarily, blinderedly, obsessively about causing the flow of information to continue and be unblockable. That's it! That is the primary goal.
The GPL is brilliant in its singleminded pursuit of this goal. There isn't a situation that couldn't be dealt with under the GPL. Every detail is perfectly realized in fulfilling this goal. For instance, there's no requirement to get consent of previous authors- so a piece of software, once GPLed, is guaranteed to live as long as it's needed, even if the original author wants to kill it! The doctrine that source follows binaries provides the opportunity to safely _use_ such software or privately develop it with no conditions on the development- and the use of 'distribution' is on a personal level that applies even to one person getting a GPLed software project from his boss at work- that person under the GPL _owns_ the software and has rights to redistribute under the GPL, any way he pleases so long as the source accompanies it. It's amazing that RMS saw all this- perhaps he didn't, perhaps it's simply the logical consequence of his passion for unhindered flow of information. The important thing is, it's here, it's available, and in fact Linux (at least big chunks of it) are licensed through the GPL, making Linux a form of information that cannot be effectively blocked or confined.
It's distressing but probably shouldn't be surprising to see these continued efforts- efforts that can only be to 'make a license that seems free/open but still allows the originator to block or withhold their information for the sake of profit'. Now, profit's dandy- wish I had more of it- lots of ways to get it, too. Freedom's dandy too- highflown words, pontificating, all very fun. However, the point at which the seeking of profit starts to undercut the safeguards of the GPL that keep information un-blockable- is the point at which my sympathy runs out.
The mere fact that this is granting extra benefits to the writer of the software isn't enough to impress me, either. Such a person is perfectly free to write proprietary software, nothing is stopping them, an entire legal edifice built around intellectual property is ready to defend their rights to do so.
People writing open source software ought to consider what they are writing it for. What is Linux for, when you think about it? What good is it? There are commercial Unices that are arguably as good technically, even better (depending on your particular requirements). What's so special about Linux?
Linux cannot be taken away.
Not even Linus can- if he threw a fit and decided never to share anything again, the license he chose, the GPL, would ensure that the work would continue, and would be available to all who wanted to get involved. No ifs, ands or buts about it. Even if Linus himself tried furiously to block any further development, along with the whole bunch of top-level maintainers. Linux _cannot_, legally, be taken away- that would be quite blatant contract breach, and nothing that is GPL can be withheld from you, no matter what anyone thinks, even if the original author gets nasty and wants to totally starve you of information.
Now, would that be the case if Linus was granted the special dispensation to release a proprietary version of Linux? If the authors and contributors all got to 'shut off' their code should they have a bad beard day? If that were so, Linux would be built upon sand- lots of pieces would exist on sufferance of the original authors, and you'd have to humor them.
We don't have to deal with that.
And I, for one, intend to continue releasing software under the GPL- and in so doing, I make a contribution that I can't un-make. I like it that way. Whether my work's good or bad, it is part of the great hoard of free information, the collection that will always be there to be used- on its own terms.
I'm never gonna use a GPL-variation that sets restrictions on the unimpeded flow of information. And that includes variations that give _me_ the ability to impede. I consider that wrong. If you're gonna write proprietary software, just do it, don't put up smokescreens.