Using the GPL for libraries doesn't help the community, it just tries to force the GPL upon people.
That depends on which community you mean. Using the GPL for libraries certainly helps the free software community. It may not help the community of proprietary software companies, but then I guess that this is not the goal.
It is common practice in the GP2X community to simply give source away in return for credit and a free copy of anything commercial that comes out of it.
Then I guess you must use a custom license, as the BSD license does not have any such provision.
As for MS/Novell, well, $deity forbid that we make it easy for commercial software and OSS to work together.
Did you just crawl out from under some rock? Nobody criticizes the interoperability and virtualization agreements, it is the patent agreement that is criticized, and it is just this part of the Novell-Microsoft agreement that the GPLv3 targets.
Here's why the GPL3 is bad for business: it has shown itself for what it is: an ideologically-driven legal document. And those *always* make for bad business, because you cannot predict where it will go next. If you're laughing at Novell now, what happens if/when in a few years *you* are on the FSF's shitlist and the GPLvNext comes out?
This is pure FUD. The GPL has been very clear since time immemorial that it is all about protecting the four freedoms outlined by the GPL. That is all it intends to do. The companies targeted by the GPLv3 have all used creative ways to sidestep the requirements of the GPLv2 while still technically complied with the license. It could come as no surprise that the FSF intends to close such loopholes.
Only companies that use loopholes and creative sidestepping need to worry about new versions of the GPL. Companies that do not do such things have nothing to worry about.
Freedom my ass. If the bill of rights were written based on current expediencies like the GPL is, we'd be living in a ideological gulag reminiscent of the Soviet Union's less-than-stellar days.
Ahh, a not so subtle variant of the age-old "GPL is communism" FUD.
The right to use a program object (executable, library, whatever) programmatically is a very limited right when divorced from the right to updates to that object. Most library vendors know this and provide lifecycle policies for this. Hell, even Microsoft -- notorious for slipstreaming license terms -- provides for _seven years_ of updates, even for people who _don't_ accept slipstreamed updates but did accept the original EULA. I still see nothing about a sunset period or grace period in the current GPL3 drafts.
You don't have a "right to updates" with software that you received for free. You paid for Microsoft software, and thus it is sensible for them to provide updates to old versions for several years after a new version is available. But just like Microsoft, I would imagine Red Hat to provide updates for a long time without any change in the software licenses, and my guess is that Red Hat won't ever supply GPLv3 updates to RHEL5 since it was released when the GPLv3 was not yet finalized (I know, it still isn't finalized).
If you got the software for free off the web, you can still hire a software developer to implement security fixes into the current (GPLv2) version for as long as you wish.
Except the right to updates. Which is a pretty big right for software infrastructure. Which every responsible software vendor gives you, once you accept the EULA. Even in the worst case (MS), if you've accepted the EULA to XP, you get updates for seven years per their lifecycle policy. Some of the updates provide "additional functionality", e.g., Windows Update->Microsoft Update delivers additional functionality and requires an additional update. Or Windows Media Player 11 adds new DRM features and requires agreement to a rather nasty EULA, but you still get updates to WMP9, which XP came with, even if you don't agree to the updated EULA.
Maybe you should suggest that they only apply the GPLv3 to any new version that includes new functionality, and keep a GPLv2 branch that only provides security updates. Oh wait, you can already do that yourself (which isn't possible with Microsoft products), so they don't need to keep such a branch.
In essence: Since the code is free software, you can fix any security flaws yourself (and even add functionality you would want to have). Any new (and thus GPLv3) version is analogous to a new version of Microsoft software with an amended EULA.
In addition, there is no right to updates with free software. You didn't pay a dime for it, so you cannot demand that they provide any updates for you. That they'll do it anyway, albeit with an updated license, is another story.
Prediction: if the GPL3 comes out the way RMS has been saying it will, Ubuntu, IBM and others will fork the GNU system in a heartbeat
If IBM were going to fork the GPLv2 software anyway, why would they voice their concerns over the DRM clauses of the GPLv3 to the FSF? According to several sources, IBM's concerns are pretty much the reason why the DRM restrictions now differ between consumer and business environments.
By the way, why would Ubuntu fork the GPLv2 packages? What do they have to lose with the GPLv3? I think that you are just tad too quick in assuming that "everyone" will just fork the last GPLv2 release of the GNU packages.
however if they can't put DRM on there then they have no way to protect the content that you download.
They can use DRM to their hearts' content, just not to prevent modification of software covered by the GPLv3. The GPLv3 does not say anything about DRM for content (i.e. movie, music, etc), only about using DRM to prevent modification of software covered by the GPLv3. In my opinion, it would probably work fine to run proprietary DVR software on a free software operating system.
And yet the FSF hasn't gone after hardware manufacturers who provide binary drivers for free OSes even though they're already in violation of GPL2.
Where is the violation? The driver isn't licensed under the GPL. The combination, when loaded into memory, would probably be in violation if distributed, but distribution of the combination never happens. It could also be argued that distributing the kernel with a proprietary driver module (even as a separate file on disk) would be in violation of the GPL, and that is probably why most Linux distributors do not include those, but rather let users download these drivers separately from trird-party repositories.
Since users are allowed to do whatever they want with GPL software on their own systems (that is, if they do not distribute the modified software), there is no violation even when the user loads the proprietary kernel module into their GPL:ed kernel.
Actually, the GPLv3 lets them use DRM for content to their hearts' content, just not use DRM to prevent people from modifying the software on the device. One solution would be to allow modification of the (GPL) software, but keep the DVR software proprietary. Their servers could refuse service to anyone not using their proprietary DVR software, while still letting users modify other software on the device.
Because it's a less deceptive use of the word "free".
Is the FSF use of the word free really deceptive? I don't think so. Many if not most people would consider our western democracies "free countries", where you are allowed to do whatever you want except harming people. These restrictions are analogous to the restrictions placed on software licensed under the GPL. Thus, I would hardly call the use deceptive.
If you want your standard consistently implemented, why would you choose a license where vendors can close their deviations from the standard implementation. embrace, extend and all that.
I see what you mean, but if we want proprietary software companies to be able to use it in their products, the GPL is a no-no. Fortunately, there is a license in between: The LGPL. The library would be protected against EEE by the LGPL, but still allow proprietary software to link with it.
who doesn't hate them- even MS has said that they don't really like them but get them because they must.
Their recent actions (patent threats, that is) speak for themselves w.r.t. "we only get them because we have to". A little farther back they aggressively lobbied for software patents in the EU, arguing that they would be a necessity for the software industry to continue to flourish. Microsoft is against software patents where they harm them, but strongly in favor when they can use them to harm others.
Did you write the article? In this case, I have a question. From the article:
Unlike a mere GPL violation, this misrepresentation is a crime, and carries
criminal penalties.
Wouldn't a GPL violation mean that any rights to the software are terminated, and that the violator is thus infringing copyright? AFAIK, copyright infringement is a crime.
Also worth mentioning is the fact that closed-source software can build on GPL'd software if the owner releases it separately under a paid-for commercial licence (such as MySQL). So derivatives aren't necessarily free
This is only the case because software developers that want to submit improvements to MySQL (the company) have to agree to give MySQL the right to do this (since the contributors hold copyright over their improvements). If they didn't have this requirement, they could only dual-license code developed in-house.
Forcing people to use the GPL because they want to use your library seems silly to me.
The argument goes like this: LGPL is good for libraries that have proprietary (or at least non-GPL) equivalents, since that removes the necessity to have two essentially equivalent libraries installed at the same time (one for GPL software and one for other software). An example is the C library. By allowing non-GPL software to link with it, the LGPL C library can be the only C library on the system. If the C library would be licensed under the GPL, non-GPL software would have to use a parallel non-GPL C library, even though both libraries provide essentially the same functionality.
If the library doesn't have a proprietary (or non-GPL) equivalent, selecting the GPL for the library gives an advantage to software licensed under the GPL compared to software licensed under other licenses. The benefit of this approach to the free software community should be quite obvious.
3) You may not change this software in any way, unless you use this license for the resulting software.
I don't really know which license this describes. I guess that you are trying to claim that this is an accurate description of the GPL, but that is just plain wrong. A more accurate description would be:
You may use (run), study and change this software in any way you wish, but if you want to distribute the derived work to other parties, your derived work must use this license.
Internally in one organization, GPL software can be used just like if it was public domain software. It is the act of distribution to external parties that subjects derivative works to the restrictions spelled out in the GPL.
As I said before, you could call use of the GPL promoting open source, or anti-corporate, or whatever the ideology du jour is. But it's a perversion of the term "free" to use it in this context.
I guess that means that you also consider countries with laws imposing restrictions, such as the ban on murder, robbery, rape, burglary, etc, to not be free countries. In my opinion, freedom for society at large is increased with those laws, even if it imposes minor restrictions on individuals. After all, it isn't a major restriction not not be allowed to harm other people. My freedom is increased by not being killed/robbed/raped/etc by other people.
They have a right to refuse service to anyone, and they choose to do so for anyone that tries to connect with a detectably altered box. Sure, you have the right to modify the box, but they can then refuse you service.
If that was the only thing they did, there would probably be no dispute. What they do, that the GPLv3 is aiming to prevent, is to brick (in other words, refuses to operate) your TiVo if you load it with software that isn't signed by TiVo.
This is what the dispute is all about. They take code that is supposed to be free (in the sense of the four freedoms granted by the GPL) for every recipient, and then remove one of the freedoms granted by the GPL (the freedom to modify the software and run the modified software) using a DRM system that checks that the software is signed by TiVO (i.e. that it is an "official" version) before starting the TiVo. If the software does not pass the signature test, the TiVo refuses to start.
Stop confusing your unfettered ability to take apart your toys with freedom. You can say the GPL is the best license for whatever reason. But you cannot say it promotes freedom.
I disagree. You seem to look at BSD or public domain as your comparison baseline. I look at copyright law as the baseline. Compared to the default restrictions provided by copyright law, the GPL certainly promotes freedom. That the BSD gives you some freedoms the GPL doesn't does not make the GPL a restrictive license. In my opinion, restrictive licenses are licenses that try to add restrictions beyond those given by copyright law.
While distributions like Ubuntu are more popular with end-users, I'm concerned that an exploit across such a popular (but security weak) distribution will paint all of Linux with an unfavorable brush.
I agree. If they want to be the poster child for Linux, they sure have to put their act together.
Longterm, just as an interested bystander, I'd suspect Xen to disappear from Fedora once KVM gets stable enough to totally replace it for the non-enterprise workloads Fedora is aimed at.
Except that Fedora is what Red Hat uses as a foundation to build RHEL on. Thus, it is very unlikely that Xen would be removed from Fedora. With Fedora, they get a lot of free testing that they use to make RHEL as rock-solid as it is, so it would be unwise to diverge Fedora from enterprise requirements. In addition, Fedora is often used in the enterprise for less-than-critical systems, but still using many of the enterprise capabilities included.
There are countless other FOSS projects which got started when someone said "I wish we had an open source version of X" because they didn't want to pay the original developer for having developed some useful capability.
There are several reasons to develop an open source clone of a proprietary product, not just the free-as-in-beer reason.
I think Microsoft has every right to protect their inventions from such "predatory open-sourcing".
You call writing a clone product "predatory open-sourcing"? I'll tell you what would amount to predatory open-sourcing: Disassembling your binary and posting the resulting code under the GPL. I strongly disagree that merely implementing your own clone of a product amounts to any predation.
Slashdot Mirror
That depends on which community you mean. Using the GPL for libraries certainly helps the free software community. It may not help the community of proprietary software companies, but then I guess that this is not the goal.
Then I guess you must use a custom license, as the BSD license does not have any such provision.
Did you just crawl out from under some rock? Nobody criticizes the interoperability and virtualization agreements, it is the patent agreement that is criticized, and it is just this part of the Novell-Microsoft agreement that the GPLv3 targets.
Here's why the GPL3 is bad for business: it has shown itself for what it is: an ideologically-driven legal document. And those *always* make for bad business, because you cannot predict where it will go next. If you're laughing at Novell now, what happens if/when in a few years *you* are on the FSF's shitlist and the GPLvNext comes out?This is pure FUD. The GPL has been very clear since time immemorial that it is all about protecting the four freedoms outlined by the GPL. That is all it intends to do. The companies targeted by the GPLv3 have all used creative ways to sidestep the requirements of the GPLv2 while still technically complied with the license. It could come as no surprise that the FSF intends to close such loopholes.
Only companies that use loopholes and creative sidestepping need to worry about new versions of the GPL. Companies that do not do such things have nothing to worry about.
Freedom my ass. If the bill of rights were written based on current expediencies like the GPL is, we'd be living in a ideological gulag reminiscent of the Soviet Union's less-than-stellar days.Ahh, a not so subtle variant of the age-old "GPL is communism" FUD.
The right to use a program object (executable, library, whatever) programmatically is a very limited right when divorced from the right to updates to that object. Most library vendors know this and provide lifecycle policies for this. Hell, even Microsoft -- notorious for slipstreaming license terms -- provides for _seven years_ of updates, even for people who _don't_ accept slipstreamed updates but did accept the original EULA. I still see nothing about a sunset period or grace period in the current GPL3 drafts.You don't have a "right to updates" with software that you received for free. You paid for Microsoft software, and thus it is sensible for them to provide updates to old versions for several years after a new version is available. But just like Microsoft, I would imagine Red Hat to provide updates for a long time without any change in the software licenses, and my guess is that Red Hat won't ever supply GPLv3 updates to RHEL5 since it was released when the GPLv3 was not yet finalized (I know, it still isn't finalized).
If you got the software for free off the web, you can still hire a software developer to implement security fixes into the current (GPLv2) version for as long as you wish.
Maybe you should suggest that they only apply the GPLv3 to any new version that includes new functionality, and keep a GPLv2 branch that only provides security updates. Oh wait, you can already do that yourself (which isn't possible with Microsoft products), so they don't need to keep such a branch.
In essence: Since the code is free software, you can fix any security flaws yourself (and even add functionality you would want to have). Any new (and thus GPLv3) version is analogous to a new version of Microsoft software with an amended EULA.
In addition, there is no right to updates with free software. You didn't pay a dime for it, so you cannot demand that they provide any updates for you. That they'll do it anyway, albeit with an updated license, is another story.
If IBM were going to fork the GPLv2 software anyway, why would they voice their concerns over the DRM clauses of the GPLv3 to the FSF? According to several sources, IBM's concerns are pretty much the reason why the DRM restrictions now differ between consumer and business environments.
By the way, why would Ubuntu fork the GPLv2 packages? What do they have to lose with the GPLv3? I think that you are just tad too quick in assuming that "everyone" will just fork the last GPLv2 release of the GNU packages.
Ahh, that must be why they try to FUD the GPL as a very risky license on their GPL vs SOx "article".
You'd like that, wouldn't you?
however if they can't put DRM on there then they have no way to protect the content that you download.They can use DRM to their hearts' content, just not to prevent modification of software covered by the GPLv3. The GPLv3 does not say anything about DRM for content (i.e. movie, music, etc), only about using DRM to prevent modification of software covered by the GPLv3. In my opinion, it would probably work fine to run proprietary DVR software on a free software operating system.
The problem for TiVo is that they would like to be able to update their software, which is impossible if you use a ROM.
Where is the violation? The driver isn't licensed under the GPL. The combination, when loaded into memory, would probably be in violation if distributed, but distribution of the combination never happens. It could also be argued that distributing the kernel with a proprietary driver module (even as a separate file on disk) would be in violation of the GPL, and that is probably why most Linux distributors do not include those, but rather let users download these drivers separately from trird-party repositories.
Since users are allowed to do whatever they want with GPL software on their own systems (that is, if they do not distribute the modified software), there is no violation even when the user loads the proprietary kernel module into their GPL:ed kernel.
Actually, the GPLv3 lets them use DRM for content to their hearts' content, just not use DRM to prevent people from modifying the software on the device. One solution would be to allow modification of the (GPL) software, but keep the DVR software proprietary. Their servers could refuse service to anyone not using their proprietary DVR software, while still letting users modify other software on the device.
Is the FSF use of the word free really deceptive? I don't think so. Many if not most people would consider our western democracies "free countries", where you are allowed to do whatever you want except harming people. These restrictions are analogous to the restrictions placed on software licensed under the GPL. Thus, I would hardly call the use deceptive.
I see what you mean, but if we want proprietary software companies to be able to use it in their products, the GPL is a no-no. Fortunately, there is a license in between: The LGPL. The library would be protected against EEE by the LGPL, but still allow proprietary software to link with it.
Their recent actions (patent threats, that is) speak for themselves w.r.t. "we only get them because we have to". A little farther back they aggressively lobbied for software patents in the EU, arguing that they would be a necessity for the software industry to continue to flourish. Microsoft is against software patents where they harm them, but strongly in favor when they can use them to harm others.
I read your sig link:
When GPL Violations are Sarbanes-Oxley Violations.Did you write the article? In this case, I have a question. From the article:
Unlike a mere GPL violation, this misrepresentation is a crime, and carries criminal penalties.Wouldn't a GPL violation mean that any rights to the software are terminated, and that the violator is thus infringing copyright? AFAIK, copyright infringement is a crime.
This is only the case because software developers that want to submit improvements to MySQL (the company) have to agree to give MySQL the right to do this (since the contributors hold copyright over their improvements). If they didn't have this requirement, they could only dual-license code developed in-house.
The argument goes like this: LGPL is good for libraries that have proprietary (or at least non-GPL) equivalents, since that removes the necessity to have two essentially equivalent libraries installed at the same time (one for GPL software and one for other software). An example is the C library. By allowing non-GPL software to link with it, the LGPL C library can be the only C library on the system. If the C library would be licensed under the GPL, non-GPL software would have to use a parallel non-GPL C library, even though both libraries provide essentially the same functionality.
If the library doesn't have a proprietary (or non-GPL) equivalent, selecting the GPL for the library gives an advantage to software licensed under the GPL compared to software licensed under other licenses. The benefit of this approach to the free software community should be quite obvious.
I don't really know which license this describes. I guess that you are trying to claim that this is an accurate description of the GPL, but that is just plain wrong. A more accurate description would be:
You may use (run), study and change this software in any way you wish, but if you want to distribute the derived work to other parties, your derived work must use this license.
Internally in one organization, GPL software can be used just like if it was public domain software. It is the act of distribution to external parties that subjects derivative works to the restrictions spelled out in the GPL.
I guess that means that you also consider countries with laws imposing restrictions, such as the ban on murder, robbery, rape, burglary, etc, to not be free countries. In my opinion, freedom for society at large is increased with those laws, even if it imposes minor restrictions on individuals. After all, it isn't a major restriction not not be allowed to harm other people. My freedom is increased by not being killed/robbed/raped/etc by other people.
If that was the only thing they did, there would probably be no dispute. What they do, that the GPLv3 is aiming to prevent, is to brick (in other words, refuses to operate) your TiVo if you load it with software that isn't signed by TiVo.
This is what the dispute is all about. They take code that is supposed to be free (in the sense of the four freedoms granted by the GPL) for every recipient, and then remove one of the freedoms granted by the GPL (the freedom to modify the software and run the modified software) using a DRM system that checks that the software is signed by TiVO (i.e. that it is an "official" version) before starting the TiVo. If the software does not pass the signature test, the TiVo refuses to start.
I disagree. You seem to look at BSD or public domain as your comparison baseline. I look at copyright law as the baseline. Compared to the default restrictions provided by copyright law, the GPL certainly promotes freedom. That the BSD gives you some freedoms the GPL doesn't does not make the GPL a restrictive license. In my opinion, restrictive licenses are licenses that try to add restrictions beyond those given by copyright law.
It is lucky that there are other countries than the United States.
I agree. If they want to be the poster child for Linux, they sure have to put their act together.
Except that Fedora is what Red Hat uses as a foundation to build RHEL on. Thus, it is very unlikely that Xen would be removed from Fedora. With Fedora, they get a lot of free testing that they use to make RHEL as rock-solid as it is, so it would be unwise to diverge Fedora from enterprise requirements. In addition, Fedora is often used in the enterprise for less-than-critical systems, but still using many of the enterprise capabilities included.
There are several reasons to develop an open source clone of a proprietary product, not just the free-as-in-beer reason.
I think Microsoft has every right to protect their inventions from such "predatory open-sourcing".You call writing a clone product "predatory open-sourcing"? I'll tell you what would amount to predatory open-sourcing: Disassembling your binary and posting the resulting code under the GPL. I strongly disagree that merely implementing your own clone of a product amounts to any predation.
IBM supplied (SUSE) Linux for the I/O nodes in our Blue Gene. That makes them a distributor.