You can take a public domain, or Apache, or BSD program, and modify it, and keep the source code to yourself. At that point, the modification you've produced, which is called a "derivative work", is "All Rights Reserved" until you say otherwise. But the original program is still Open Source.
The Open Source definition doesn't require you to make that derivative work Open Source. But some licenses, like the GPL, do require you to do so in certain cases.
No, it doesn't work that way. While there was some parametric animation that was not software, much of the creativity when I worked at Pixar was embodied in procedural programs in the 29 separate computer languages a technical director had to deal with. These defined objects, lights, atmosphere, movement of characters and cameras, textures, the layout of synthetic film sets, etc.
It's all about a quid-pro-quo. The folks in India get paid. The sharing-with-rules folks get improvements to their code - and will again with licenses that work in today's context. The folks willing to make a gift of their code with no reward are generally working for someone while they write it, so they get paid too. And then there are some who ask for nothing, but not enough of them to make users happy.
Lots of folks have forgotten what null modems were for, and how networking had to be wedged into windows 3.1 after the purchase. I'm not at all sure that hyperterminal had telnet out of the box back then.
TIVO is just one of a large number of entities that attempted to find loopholes in GPL2, and not even the most serious.
While client-server has existed for some time, there was no potential for client-server performance of anything but a phone system or broadcast media to the mass consumer when GPL2 was created.
So, what we have here are not changes in the basic goals of the license, to implement Free Software, but in the implementation itself. These were required by the changes in markets, the style of accessing computers, and law.
Sure, it was explicit in its intent. Part of that intent is what FSF's goal is: Free Software. This has not changed. Another part of its intent is what FSF had to do in the license to actually implement Free Software in the context of the existing law of the day. That has indeed changed over time.
You and the rest of the OSI crowd created a definition of Open Source that precludes public domain software from being Open Source; I can take a public domain software, modify it, compile it, and sell it without the source code.
This is allowed by many Open Source licenses, for example Apache and BSD. An Open Source license can require return of source code, but it's not required that it do so to be accepted as Open Source. Or Free Software, for that matter.
While a judge might be interested in the public domain issue, IMO it's moot. You have to consider how such a case would get to a judge, and what the judge would then have to decide. In this case, it would be about deception, or such a case would not be brought at all.
Radcliffe gave the public domain argument at an OSBC conference. I don't have it in writing.
It was the express intent of GPL2 because there was no substantive use of derivative works that were not distributed at the time.
It's a little silly to claim that GPL2 was not arbitrarily socialist and AGPL3 is. Either both are or both are not. Each is equally radical for its time.
The problem with having many licenses for Open Source / Free Software is that they are not compatible with each other. If you stick to Apache, LGPL3, GPL3, AGPL3, they all are compatible with each other, and provide you with essentially all of the operable strategies.
How can you consider activism new in this context? GPL1 and GPL2 were activism against the copyrighting of software, and GPL2 adds activism against software patenting. The preamble to GPL2 lays out the license's activism very clearly. I expect that Richard would describe AGPL3 as a logical extension of his 25-year fight against software hoarding.
Actually, it states that output is not covered as long as that output does not embody a copy of the program. Which IMO moots your point for such things as web templates.
Mark Radcliffe is enamored of fictions that only matter to legal theorists. For example, he tries to make a point that public domain software isn't Open Source. He then argues that software could be in the public domain, but contractually restricted. A lawyer might still see such a thing as "public domain" but any non-attorney of reasonable intelligence would see it as contractually restricted and ignore the rest.
OK, I accept that you're not anti-freedom. GPL2 used to work because there was not substantive use of derivative works without distribution. That's not true any longer. Protecting freedom used to be easier than it is today. IMO the difference between us is that you haven't yet accepted that.
We made movies the algorithmic output of software at Pixar. They were protected under the performance right, and nobody doubted that the work was creative. I don't see a substantive difference where other software is concerned.
This is a work-around for the bug that copyright law does not define a public-performance right for software, although a similar right is defined for audio recordings, movies, and theatrical scripts.
Thus, we had a loop-hole in that companies which performed the software over the net without ever distributing it can make substantive derivative works of the program from which they derive tremendous profit but have none of the obligations. Think of google in this context.
I think the first FSF meeting where we discussed this was in 1994. It was seen as a significant problem even before google.
You really can run "patch" on the old and new GPL texts, but the result is larger than the original. The intent is the same in both licenses. But the original didn't require as much firewall code as, alas, we do today:-)
You went with BSD because you were willing to make a no-strings-attached gift of your software to everyone. Had you not been willing to do that, you would have found a license that did acceptably what you had wanted from GPL2.
For many of us, sharing-with-rules is more attractive than gift. This is especially true for business, because sharing-with-rules admits the potential for dual licensing. This is one of the few ways to carry out Open Source business that actually works.
GPL vs. BSD is essentially a matter of business (or non-business) strategy. You pick the rules that work for you, and then you pick a license.
GPL2 is not about to become invalid. But consider all of the changes we have gone through since GPL2 came out. Back then, the most complicated input device that people were likely to have in their homes was a touch-tone phone. Music came from phonograph records and cassette tape. The "@" sign was a little-used oddity on the typewriter keyboard for most people. Home computers were more the exception than the rule, and their CPUs used 16-bit addresses.
With the advent of consumer digital media we got a ton of law, both legislative and case law. Garbage legislation like ECPA and then DMCA, and a great increase in software patenting. All of that law essentially blind-sided the GPL, which had to cope with it but was not written with knowledge of it.
So, a license upgrade to deal with all of this is like installing a security patch on your operating system. It's just a sensible thing to do.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I see what's confusing you.
You can take a public domain, or Apache, or BSD program, and modify it, and keep the source code to yourself. At that point, the modification you've produced, which is called a "derivative work", is "All Rights Reserved" until you say otherwise. But the original program is still Open Source.
The Open Source definition doesn't require you to make that derivative work Open Source. But some licenses, like the GPL, do require you to do so in certain cases.
No, it doesn't work that way. While there was some parametric animation that was not software, much of the creativity when I worked at Pixar was embodied in procedural programs in the 29 separate computer languages a technical director had to deal with. These defined objects, lights, atmosphere, movement of characters and cameras, textures, the layout of synthetic film sets, etc.
It's all about a quid-pro-quo. The folks in India get paid. The sharing-with-rules folks get improvements to their code - and will again with licenses that work in today's context. The folks willing to make a gift of their code with no reward are generally working for someone while they write it, so they get paid too. And then there are some who ask for nothing, but not enough of them to make users happy.
Lots of folks have forgotten what null modems were for, and how networking had to be wedged into windows 3.1 after the purchase. I'm not at all sure that hyperterminal had telnet out of the box back then.
I'm sorry, you're just confused about what the OSD says.
I, by the way, am a working expert witness. That means in court.
TIVO is just one of a large number of entities that attempted to find loopholes in GPL2, and not even the most serious.
While client-server has existed for some time, there was no potential for client-server performance of anything but a phone system or broadcast media to the mass consumer when GPL2 was created.
So, what we have here are not changes in the basic goals of the license, to implement Free Software, but in the implementation itself. These were required by the changes in markets, the style of accessing computers, and law.
Sure, it was explicit in its intent. Part of that intent is what FSF's goal is: Free Software. This has not changed. Another part of its intent is what FSF had to do in the license to actually implement Free Software in the context of the existing law of the day. That has indeed changed over time.
This is allowed by many Open Source licenses, for example Apache and BSD. An Open Source license can require return of source code, but it's not required that it do so to be accepted as Open Source. Or Free Software, for that matter.
While a judge might be interested in the public domain issue, IMO it's moot. You have to consider how such a case would get to a judge, and what the judge would then have to decide. In this case, it would be about deception, or such a case would not be brought at all.
Radcliffe gave the public domain argument at an OSBC conference. I don't have it in writing.
It was the express intent of GPL2 because there was no substantive use of derivative works that were not distributed at the time.
It's a little silly to claim that GPL2 was not arbitrarily socialist and AGPL3 is. Either both are or both are not. Each is equally radical for its time.
The problem with having many licenses for Open Source / Free Software is that they are not compatible with each other. If you stick to Apache, LGPL3, GPL3, AGPL3, they all are compatible with each other, and provide you with essentially all of the operable strategies.
How can you consider activism new in this context? GPL1 and GPL2 were activism against the copyrighting of software, and GPL2 adds activism against software patenting. The preamble to GPL2 lays out the license's activism very clearly. I expect that Richard would describe AGPL3 as a logical extension of his 25-year fight against software hoarding.
Actually, it states that output is not covered as long as that output does not embody a copy of the program. Which IMO moots your point for such things as web templates.
Mark Radcliffe is enamored of fictions that only matter to legal theorists. For example, he tries to make a point that public domain software isn't Open Source. He then argues that software could be in the public domain, but contractually restricted. A lawyer might still see such a thing as "public domain" but any non-attorney of reasonable intelligence would see it as contractually restricted and ignore the rest.
I suspect this is more of the same.
OK, I accept that you're not anti-freedom. GPL2 used to work because there was not substantive use of derivative works without distribution. That's not true any longer. Protecting freedom used to be easier than it is today. IMO the difference between us is that you haven't yet accepted that.
We made movies the algorithmic output of software at Pixar. They were protected under the performance right, and nobody doubted that the work was creative. I don't see a substantive difference where other software is concerned.
You have achieved the proper balance of health and money when you can hold your breath for as long as it takes to make a dollar.
Isn't it interesting how some people scold us for working to keep software free while those who keep theirs proprietary get a free ride?
This is a work-around for the bug that copyright law does not define a public-performance right for software, although a similar right is defined for audio recordings, movies, and theatrical scripts.
Thus, we had a loop-hole in that companies which performed the software over the net without ever distributing it can make substantive derivative works of the program from which they derive tremendous profit but have none of the obligations. Think of google in this context.
I think the first FSF meeting where we discussed this was in 1994. It was seen as a significant problem even before google.
You really can run "patch" on the old and new GPL texts, but the result is larger than the original. The intent is the same in both licenses. But the original didn't require as much firewall code as, alas, we do today :-)
You went with BSD because you were willing to make a no-strings-attached gift of your software to everyone. Had you not been willing to do that, you would have found a license that did acceptably what you had wanted from GPL2.
For many of us, sharing-with-rules is more attractive than gift. This is especially true for business, because sharing-with-rules admits the potential for dual licensing. This is one of the few ways to carry out Open Source business that actually works.
GPL vs. BSD is essentially a matter of business (or non-business) strategy. You pick the rules that work for you, and then you pick a license.
GPL2 is not about to become invalid. But consider all of the changes we have gone through since GPL2 came out. Back then, the most complicated input device that people were likely to have in their homes was a touch-tone phone. Music came from phonograph records and cassette tape. The "@" sign was a little-used oddity on the typewriter keyboard for most people. Home computers were more the exception than the rule, and their CPUs used 16-bit addresses.
With the advent of consumer digital media we got a ton of law, both legislative and case law. Garbage legislation like ECPA and then DMCA, and a great increase in software patenting. All of that law essentially blind-sided the GPL, which had to cope with it but was not written with knowledge of it.
So, a license upgrade to deal with all of this is like installing a security patch on your operating system. It's just a sensible thing to do.
Bruce
I don't see any reason from the text you provided that anti-trust would not go forward. Perhaps you can make a cogent legal argument from the facts?
Sorry :-)
This is why our government has had such a difficult time trying to find people willing to be astronauts.
This kind of thruster doesn't have electrodes, and there's a magnetic bottle so that the ionized plasma doesn't touch the engine.