Toward a Better Open Source License 113
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:
- The originator may combine distributed derived works produced by others and released under TGPL with the originator's proprietary code and redistribute the result.
- 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.
very sweet, (Score:1)
C.
Problems with "originator" (Score:2)
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.
Nice idea, if I understand it (Score:1)
That would solve a big problem I have. I'm releasing some code I wrote under GPL. However, I already have other obligations to people to give them the code under another license. So if someone contributes a GPL change back to me, I don't know how I'm going to manage incorporating it. I don't want to have to maintain two source trees, one GPL, one that I can distribute with my other special license.
I don't understand why the second clause needs to be there - why would anyone choose to distribute something under GPL, if TGPL is available to them?
But why would any derived works use the TGPL (Score:3)
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? (Score:4)
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?
woohoo, me likey! (Score:1)
ive always wondered about what how the GPL would play into a case of 2 open source programmers fighting with each other for using each others stuff. i never thought it would be too big of a deal since most programmers seem to be nice guys. but its good to clear that up for future reference! hopefully this is approved, imho
tyler
Isn't this just the GPL? (Score:1)
I'm thinking that the whole idea of companies trying to release code that they wrote to take advantage of a bazzar while still trying to create a proprietary product is a bad idea. I personally think that one of the most important principles of the bazzar idea is that no one person or company has any special rights vs the others involved. Otherwise, the development will be done by those who have the most to gain, while others will tend to stand aside and let them do it.
Does this really change anything? (Score:2)
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 ??? (Score:3)
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
The Stupidity Tax (Score:5)
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.
Its getting confusing... (Score:1)
Its true that companies are getting into the 'open source' area but allmost everyone passes the GPL and uses some licence of its own. IMO simply due to the fact they want to protect their business. I don't think this new licence will make a difference, if I got it right and your idea is to let companies use this license when they are 'publishing' their software. Not one company is the same and all companies have different priorities. Things that one company wishes to protect in a licence means nothing for another.
Re:very sweet, (Score:1)
What's the payoff? (Score:5)
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:
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 (Score:4)
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.
Why another licence? (Score:1)
If you feel like helping every single one of your fellow humans (including Bill Gates and Steve Jobs), please use a BSD-style licence. No strings attached whatsoever -- only the simple requirement that people mention your name as the original developer and don't sue you if the darn thing does not work. The worst that can happen is that someone may have to fork the source tree if Big Greedy Corporation Inc. has decided to steal your work and make $$money$$ out of it.
If you feel like you need to protect your software forever and make sure it's never used by big greedy corporations to rip an unsuspecting public, use the FSF GPL. This way, you contribute to a growing pool of free(-speech) software that is usable by everyone for little or no charge. What is even better is that future versions will *have* to be free as well.
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. Just say no to that type of licence. Just say no to proprietary software and to half-closed licences.
A TGPL is redundant and (in my book) a rehashing of ideas that have been better expressed and better thought-out before.
This opinion is, of course, worth exactly what you paid to read it.... =)
Thoughts on Free Speech and RMS (Score:1)
For a project to be effectively GPL'd, it needs to have a single person to own the code.
Think about it. Linus owns Linux (I'm using Linus as an example because Linux is the project I'm most familiar with). All changes are made at his sole discrestion(sp). There can be no possibility of a fork, because of the amount of support that he, and he alone, has for Linux.
Look at Mozilla. A wonderful idea, but owned by a company. A collective of persons(drones. Think Borg). Because the program is owned by a nebulous entity, changes are approved with an eye towards shareholders, as opposed to code usability and spirit of Free Software.
This can never work fully, IMHO.
Unless you have one person who is responsible for the entirety of the codebase, the codebase will be only as strong as the most conservative person in that group. The individual may have to answer to the shareholders, but that puts the individual in the position of power.
Untill something like Java or Solaris is owned by a single person responsible for the well-being of the code, corporate OS attempts will fail.
--Wishing
Re:Would this work? (Score:2)
Difference between the LGPL and the TGPL (Score:5)
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
Simplicity in Licenses (Score:1)
We're all talking about licenses, ostensibly primarily as hackers, not as businesspeople. That may be a bit naive of me, since I don't know what percentage of
I personally despise working with the low-level details of how I can prevent myself from being ruthlessly exploited by consciousless corporations, and I don't enjoy reading, writing, or dealing with legalese, which licenses pretty much are by default. Of course, licenses are a necessary evil, but I'd prefer to avoid wading through legalese if given the chance.
The GPL, as licenses go, is rather simple. It has a conceptual framework of freedom, which it fleshes out with specific clauses in the dreaded legalese. (i.e. This work of text, hereafter referred to as "The Post", and so on) One of the problems that I see with complicated commercial licenses, whether they're technically open source, free software, or fuware, is that the more business interest a company has to protect, the more complicated and opaque the licenses get.
I like to think of myself as a hacker, and I like to worry about hackish things rather than legal things, which I frankly find rather boring. I look at the GPL, I see it, I know it guarantees me my freedom, I know it works, and I know it has the support of the FSF. Some may think RMS is crazy, but if push comes to shove, you can be damn sure that the FSF will fight like rabid wolves to protect the freedom of a package.
David Allen
This needs to be said (Score:4)
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.
--
Tap dancing. (Score:2)
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.
GPL TGPL LGPL (Score:1)
GPL < TGPL < LGPL (Score:1)
Re:This needs to be said (Score:3)
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:Thoughts on Free Speech and RMS (Score:1)
"For a project to be effectively GPL'd, it needs to have a single person to own the code.
Think about it. Linus owns Linux"
False, Linus own the Linux trademark but he don't own the copyrights rights on the patches you send him (if these atches are more than 10 lines long). So Linus own only a small part of Linux (the one he write) so Linux have a LOT of owners.
The FSF is the single owner of their code because they ask you to give them your copyrights rights (so they can be more efficient in a case of a suit).
"There can be no possibility of a fork".
False, you can take the kernel source and produce your own derivative, nobody will forbid you to do so but anyone can take your change back to the main tree if Linus accept the patch (because of the GPL) and you probably will have no/few support because everybody is confident in Linus and see no need to fork. So, technically you can fork (there is a possibility), but the uselessness of it make it improbable (but not impossible).
"Look at Mozilla [...] This can never work fully, IMHO."
Well, Mozilla seems to work quite well now IMNSHO.
Ugh.. (Score:5)
Hmm.. Be gentle.. or not.. I'm delirious today.. ;)
At this point I'd like to extend a big thank you to ESR and OSI.. real swift going, guys.
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..
"Opensource-compatible " License (Score:1)
"if you want to redistribute the software, it must be under one of the open-source licenses as approved in opensource.org"
This way, we can create a bunch of licenses thru an open license creation effort, in the "family" of opensource licenses. Developers can then choose one that makes the best sense to them and redistribute the code.
TGLP, LPGL, GPL... who cares? (Score:2)
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."
GPL anyhow. (Score:1)
Sorry..but you are terribly wrong (Score:1)
Linux. He owns the brand name "linux", sure,
but not the actual code or programs.
GPL is excactly the opposite of what you are
trying to say. NOBODY(or everyone) owns GPLed code, that's the whole point.
However people tend to respect the views of
Linus Torvalds, and thus makes him in control.
I could however just take the linuxcode, put
my own name on it..call it "Gautux" and develop
it in a totally different direction than linux.
It would most assurably suck, but that's another
story.
Have you watched the development of Mozilla lately? No?
If things produced by big companies never had
any quality, then this world would look quite
different, I assure you.
Re:What's the payoff? (Score:1)
Anyway, why does the company in your hypothetical situation bother to release the source code after three years? Why not just keep it closed?
Hamish
Business Friendly Licence ? (Score:1)
It's goal : promote some open sourceness without forcing companies to open everything in a given product.
Imagine you want to provide (sell) a product with some parts based upon a (L)GPL source. From what I understand of (L)GPL you cannot, unless you open everything.
But some might want to improve the based source. Some improvements may be ok for everyone, but some others might be very valuable competitive assets. Therefore you might not want to give away these.
The result is you cannot use the source and the community will never gain anything.
The solution is a licence that gives you the possibility to tie your closed code with open sourced code at the very condition that you give back something to improve the open sourced code.
Of course the community will not gain as much as if the company give everything, but on the other way the the company uses its own stuff (not the open sourced) the community will not gain anything either.
The second advantage is to establish really opened protocol/formats/packages.
The 3rd advantage follows the 2nd one : products differenciate on services and new features (not on unslaved formats/markets).
You could object that one corporation could tie its own closed format. But my answer is since its competitors will use the same basement, they will give the community the code to that format, just in order to break the advantage of the first. So that we will not be tied up by a closed format.
your comments...
Oh? (Score:1)
That's hogwash. I concider the GPL free, and BSD liscence is also good. If you want to pick at straws, the only free liscence is no liscence at all.
By the way, what compiler do you use on your BSD box?
>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.
This is also bunk.
Explain how my liscencing something under the GPL gives Richard Stallman any real power.
>Any other discussion smacks disgustingly of >lawyers and pinhead-dancing angels.
Well, thank you very much.
From your point of view, I'm sure it does.
Re:Ambiguous (Score:1)
Still, I think that it would become more palatable to companies if the TGPL were to allow companies to impose a, say, up to a 1% royalty charge on all copies that were sold or redistributed. I.e., if it's free, it's free. If you charge someone $10 service and handling, then I get $.10 of that.
I think that percentage based royalties (rather than particular monetary amounts) combined with open source would be quite reasonable.
Output of GPLed programs (Score:2)
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 [berlin-consortium.org]
Not a matter of relative freeness (Score:1)
X-style license, LGPL, MPL, etc. are all just as free as the GPL, even according to RMS. These licenses vary along other dimensions than freeness.
On the other hand there are indeed "confusion licenses" such as Sun's Community Source License.
It is a widespread misconception that RMS or anyone else considers non-GPL free licenses "less free." They just consider them "less good at promoting free software."
May seem like a nitpick, but you have to understand this conceptual issue to understand free software licensing. It is important to know that non-GPL licenses are still part of RMS's "GNU system" or the Debian distribution or any other 100%-free system.
You DON'T need to take it back to the main tree... (Score:1)
_can_ take it back to the main tree or any other
tree if they want to.
I can do whatever I want with the linuxsource,
as long as I publish it under a different _name_
after I fix it. I can't call it linux unless
Linus approves of it, but I sure can take it
and make my very own unix-clone: "gautux".
Re:Ugh.. (Score:1)
How about it I pay you %1 of everthing I charge to redistribute it? (You say %2, OK, but fewer folk will play!)
The thing is, under this license I can give it away whenever I want to. I can make changes and share them around. It's only if I start selling it that I end up paying royalties. If the company decides to include my changes into it's official release, it gets to do so. But it's only advantage is that it doesn't have to pay the 1% tax. Better put some reasonable limit on what percentage can be charged, or a rule saying that you can't raise the percentage later. Otherwise (i.e., in areas that I didn't discuss) follow the GPL rules.
Perhaps these could also be extended into a version based around the LGPL. I'm less sure of that.
Disagree (Score:1)
What makes you think that? This has not happened with any of the major BSD/X/Apache-style licensed programs (has it?), and those licenses are much less protective of your contributions than TGPL.
If Netscape had had the courage to put something like TGPL on Mozilla, I sincerely doubt that any serious GPL-only fork would have occurred. There's no real incentive to do so unless you have some grudge against the originator. The TGPL gives the world practically every benefit of the GPL, and developers would shun a GPL-only fork as an act of meanness against a company that has done a good thing.
Don't be too cynical. :-)
So use the GPL, then (Score:1)
If you want your contributions to be incorporated into our source-tree, please include one of the following statements into your submission:
I hereby assign all rights of the submitted material to [originator], provided that he will release this submission under the GPL; all other rights of [originator] esp. the right to make additional licence agreements shall be unaffected.
The submitted material is (c) by [contributor] and may be distributed according to the terms of the GPL. I addition to that, I hereby grant [originator] the exclusive permission to additionally licence this submission under arbitrary terms.
A simple script at the submission-account can check incoming mail for these notes and reject submissions that don't comply. In the end, you get the same effect as the proposed TGPL without having to deal with yet another open source licence.
Re:Technocrats (Score:1)
Percentage based royalties (Score:1)
Red Hat sold the CD to their distributor for $50, I bought it for $75
How much money does Jim, who wrote "Slightly Better FTP", included on the CD, get for his 1.0%
Does he get $0.50? $0.75? $0.01?
Actually, he'll get nothing, because no-one's going to pay $000s to figure out how much to pay Jim for his tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of an almost free product.
Trying to make money by charging everyone a penny just makes accountants and lawyers richer.
Totally unnecessary (Score:1)
Fact is, for any major free software project, copyright assignment is necessary to cover everyone's behind against stupid lawsuits. That's why the FSF insists that copyright for GNU software is assigned to the FSF - you can make your own version, but the changes won't be merged in unless you sign legal papers. Cygnus does the same. I know that Linus doesn't insist on copyright assignment to him personally for everything, but nonetheless he has to be careful that none of the copyright holders will launch frivolous lawsuits, which means restricting copyright holders to a small number of trusted people.
So, given that copyright assignment is legally necessary for any large project, you can do everything that the TGPL does using just the GPL - no need for another licence.
That is:
The 'GPL-with-copyright-assignment' is the same as the GPL, with two important exceptions:
The originator may combine distributed derived works produced by others and *where copyright has been assigned to the originator* with the originator's proprietary code and redistribute the result.
The producer of a derived work may elect to assign copyright back to the originator, or to hold the copyright and distribute under GPL, at their discretion.
This is exactly what Cygnus does with Cygwin. It's released under GPL. If you make a modification, you have the option of either assigning copyright to Cygnus - allowing it to be included in the 'professional' edition - or just releasing it under GPL, in which case Cygnus can't release it under a proprietary licence.
(N.B. in this case, 'proprietary' means 'offer an option to paying customers to link their software with Cygwin without having to GPL their software', since Cygwin is a library. I expect that it will always be offered under GPL as well as the paid-for licence.)
If the community decided that they no longer wanted to let Cygnus use their contributions in this way, people could just refuse to assign copyright.
The same model could easily be used for any other project. There is no need to add Yet Another Licence to do this.
However.. (Score:2)
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:
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.
Re:Why another licence? (Score:1)
Stop spreading FUD about BSD licenses. Why are you trying to make others fearful of a "Big Greedy Corporation" making a copy of their code and profiting from it? Red Hat is doing just that. They might not be making a version under a different license, but they are still trying to profit from it. Are you collecting any money from the sale of Red Hat cdrom's?
In reply to your comment about "stealing my work", how can they steal it? I gave it out freely. Copying something is not stealing. Who ever heard of stealing free speech? That is absurd.
XFree86 would have continued on easily without the Open Group if X11R6.4 had stayed with the more restrictive license.
What is even better is that future versions will *have* to be free as well.
Having to be only one thing sounds more like a restriction.
A TGPL is redundant and (in my book) a rehashing of ideas that have been better expressed and better thought-out before.
For different reasons, I agree that this license will not succeed.
Re:Percentage based royalties (Score:1)
Rather, I think that what would happen is that Red Hat (or other less scrupulous vendors) would 'fork' "Slightly Better FTP" into a GPL version, and then put it on the CD. Then no-one has to pay any royalties to anyone.
Assuming we're still talking about a royalties-based version of the TGPL, of course.
Hamish
Re:Oh? (Score:1)
I don't. It is a matter of opinion.
By the way, what compiler do you use on your BSD box?
I have been running Linux. My next machine will have FreeBSD. I use a proprietary compiler called gcc (v2.95.1). I consider the code proprietary since the code may not be used in anything but a GPL'd product. It reminds me of Sun's license. Not exactly but they have similarities.
Explain how my liscencing something under the GPL gives Richard Stallman any real power.
The license does not give him power, but the followers do. Many would agree with most of what he has said. There is the power.
Also, if you don't remove the part in the GPL about allowing users to "upgrade" to a newer license if they so choose, he has the ability to change the license to anything he wants regardless of the author. If you use the GPL, make sure to remove that clause.
P.S. I am not the original poster although I do understand some aspects of what he said.
Re:Does this really change anything? (Score:1)
Hamish
Licenses and IPOs Will Tear the Community Apart (Score:1)
The needs of business and the wants of GNU pioneers cannot coexist. There is an uneasy truce, now that one company, Microsoft, lords over all elements of computing and dictates the future of business all around them. Mozilla was the last gasp effort of a failing company to spit into the eye of the aggressor. IBM couldn't make a dime in the PC software business and doesn't need to. Sun has only released under a peek-a-boo license: look but don't touch.
What do you want from a license? If you want free software, get together with a few like-minded people and write it. Release it under whatever license you desire. Profit or charity, either is fine.
Do not, however, believe that these sorts of idle machinations on better and fairer licenses can convince businesses who rely on selling software, or locking you into a specific platform to 'free' code they have invested time and money in developing. Why do you want them to do this? So you can make the code better. Hah! A few very smart people might want that and be able to do so, but the majority of people who would be the beneficiaries only want 'free beer.'
Missing the point... (Score:3)
Not again!! (Score:1)
Simple Public License (Score:1)
Simple Public License:
I have been working out an alternative to the LGPL with the primary goal of being shorter and easier to read; and secondary goals of cleaning up some housekeeping issues that always bugged me with the LGPL and GPL.
Follow the link above, and mail me [mailto] any comments you have.
The housekeeping issues dealt with: ensure that the original author receives changes (LGPL does not); prevent creating a non-free library or application builder to wrap the functionality of the code in a proprietary shell; move jurisdiction to the author's state or province, in case of a legal battle; and ensure that copyright credits actually appear in the primary documentation, rather than buried in the code somewhere.
Again, the primary goal is simplicity, the rest of it is just nice to have. The SPL is two pages as opposed to the LGPL's eleven.
The SPL has been reworked several times in response to comments, and the current version is about to be reviewed by a lawyer--though there is still lots of time to change.
The one thing I'd like to do is extend it so it works just as well for scripts as for compiled code.
http://vsdl.com/SPL.html [vsdl.com]
TGPL Originator (Score:3)
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
It gives some extra rights to the original author. (Score:1)
I think that the same effect can be achieved by offering the code under two different licenses, like the GPL plus something more restrictive. This would eliminate the complication in the TGPL in that it explicitly has to give a choice between itself and the GPL.
Thus the TGPL would simply by the GPL with a clause saying that the author can take back the modifications and use them. And the author would offer the code either under TGPL or GPL, with your choice as to which one you choose to agree to and use for subsequent redistribution.
Re:Fork the source - TGPL vs GPL ??? (Score:2)
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
Re:Simple Public License (Score:1)
Requiring people to submit their changes goes against their right to privacy. This was one of the two problems with the ASPL (the other was the termination clause).
For practical reasons, sometimes it's nice to be able to distribute binaries without source code. The primary issue is that the source code is available.
Simplicity isn't as much of an issue for older licenses like the GPL, simply because they're old and we trust them. However, it seems like it is an important selling point for a new license (because it's new, so we don't trust it).
Also, is the SPL compatible with the GPL?
Free Software Matrix (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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.
Moderators: moderate the above post up please (Score:1)
After a second sought that is true that there is no problem if the originator keep his rights even if he do nothing to the source code any more. After all, if he do nothing the other people still have the same rights as with the GPL.
But I think that there must be a way to give your originator's rights (or, why not, sell them).
If you don't contribute to a codebase you may not be forced legally to give your rights but you may want to do it "morally" because you think that the new maintener deserve the rights you had over this code.
Re:You DON'T need to take it back to the main tree (Score:1)
I never said anything else (but I may have expressed myself badly, since English isn't my natural language).
"or any other tree if they want to."
As long as the tree is under the GPL.
Re:Problems with "originator" (Score:1)
Re:Why another licence? (Score:1)
Towards better use of existing licenses (Score:1)
Specifically, I'm releasing the code under GPL, but I'm also holding onto the copyright so I can license it to proprietary customers. I ask people to assign copyright over to me if they want their work to go in my relase. This creates a nice balance of powers, and gives me incentive to be a "nice guy." If I stop doing my job of maintaining libart well, then anyone who wants to is perfectly free to continue development under the GPL. Similarly, people are also free to fork if they feel that what I'm doing is unfair. It's in my interest to avoid a fork, so I better play nice.
Actually, while libart as a whole is released under GPL, large chunks (basically, everything used by gnome-libs, including gnome-print and the Gnome Canvas) are released under LGPL, to make it even more friendly towards people with alternate licensing arrangements. This may increase the fraction of proprietary users who can just use it for free and not pay me any license, but that's ok. It still gets libart out there and used, which is no doubt good for business.
This model is pretty simliar to what Sleepycat [sleepycat.com] is doing for their Berkeley DB code. The main difference is that they have YAOSL, which imho is not quite as friendly as using the existing LGPL and GPL licenses. In particular, they had to grant Gnome a special one-off license to use DB safely in the Gnome libraries, which is obviously not needed for LGPL stuff.
I'm not advocating this model for everybody, but I'm expecting it to work well for libart. I think everyone benefits: I get funded, which means that I can eat and afford to put a lot of work into making libart great, and the free software community gets a well-polished graphics library without encumberance.
Isn't this supposed to be an important aspect of the programming art, to make best use of existing tools rather than trying to create a new set of tools for every possible use? In any case, I cringe every time I see yet another goddamn open source license.
Re:Free Software Matrix (Score:1)
Try this:
http://vsdl.org/SPL.html
Re:Simple Public License (Score:1)
What right to privacy? Without a grant of copyright from the author (ie: a license) they have no right to modify the software in the first place. You can't have a right to privacy with respect to something you have no right to do.
My main motive, though, for including this requirement is that in the future I believe application servers will be very important. A lot of software will never be "distributed" then, it will only be "displayed" and "performed" on an application server--which winds up being a loophole through the GPL/LGPL.
distribute binaries without source code
The SPL allows you to distribute your derived binaries without source, but not the licensed software itself. I guess I could loosen it up so that you are only required to make the source available.. have to think about that one. It could be a critical issue in an "applet" where the compiled original gets "distributed" as a binary to the users web browser--good point.
Simplicity unimportant for GPL
Simplicity is definately important. There are a huge number of people out there who have never used or seen the GPL before, I know because I receive questions from them all the time, since they can't understand the license my software is under (namely the GPL). Maybe this is because I write Java software, and many users of it aren't using Unix. At any rate, the effort required to create a new license is less than the effort required to explain the GPL.
GPL compatible
Yes, it has a specific clause allowing use under the GPL. Like the LGPL, it wouldn't be GPL compatible without that clause.
Proposition: a (c)GPL, an Open-$ource li (Score:1)
For the success of a new license two key conditions must be fulfilled:
- full compatible with GPL (for acceptance by Open-Source community, RMS and for
... some GPL fundamentalists) - profitable for the company (they are not interested in the success (survive) of their software in brutal OS and MS world without having a single penny profit
.
So the proposition of a new (c)GPL license: basicly it is a GPL with an exception from restriction of using it in non-GPL or non-(c)GPL code; this exception apply only for the copyright holder:- copyright holder is allowed to incorporate the (c)GPL software in a proprietary version (which i.e. can be sold for use with non-GPL or closed-source software) as long as it is distributed also in (c)GPL version (so the modification author is guaranteed that it will be available for the public not only his contribution, but also the full featured version of the software to which he is contributing to)
- if the third party author do not wish to allow the copyright holder to incorporate his changes in the proprietary version, he have(when distributed to public) to separe his GPL modification from the main code (i.e. patches, separate files...). This should prevent the mixture of different-licensed codes.
Hopefully such a license would- allow to use, link (both statically and dynamically if it is a library) with (c)GPL, GPL and GPL-like code
- modify the code as (c)GPL; this should prevent fragmentation of the code (only the (c)GPL-ed modifications will be accepted for the main branch, so modifier will rather obey (c)GPL if he wants to include his contribution in the future versions)
- still allow to make stand-alone "pure" GPL extensions if they are significant enough to be kept in separate files or packages
- make a company profit by selling the software to companies (or persons) which cannot accept (c)GPL license.
The (c)GPL version probably should be directly connected with corresponding GPL version.Roman
Re:Why another licence? (Score:2)
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?
SOPL- Source Only Public License (Score:1)
TGPL == Public Domain + Licence Conflicts (Score:1)
Public domain source can be re-released under any licence (including GPL; from there subsequent mods of the GPL version are GPL, but you could make the same mods to the public domain source if you wanted to and re-release under GPL to put the mod in the public domain) or used in any proprietary projects.
TGPL, OTOH, can only co-exist with GPL, among the open-source licences, because you can't release your source under another licence, even though you could hide it away in a binary.
RMS would hate TGPL because the only reason he created GPL is to prevent FSF code from being used in proprietary software. It does nothing but force all modifications and uses of GPL code to be openly released under GPL. 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). Heaven forbid somebody should want to make a buck off his own work!
Re:Why another licence? (Score:1)
> ryungi (noryungi@yahoo.com) wrote:
>
> > The worst that can happen is that someone may
> > have to fork the source tree if Big Greedy
> > Corporation Inc. has decided to steal your work
> > and make $$money$$ out of it.
>
> Stop spreading FUD about BSD licenses. Why are
> you trying to make others fearful of a "Big Greedy
> Corporation" making a copy of their code and
> profiting from it? Red Hat is doing just that.
Ryungi is *possibly* being a little
sloppy in refering to this as
"stealing" (just as RMS is perhaps
being a little creative in his use
of the word "free"), but this
doesn't deserve to be dismissed as
FUD. This is a real drawback of
BSD-style licenses, in that they
lend themselves to proprietary
forks, and hence encourage
fragmentation.
Anyway, it strikes me that inventing
a new license like this "TGPL" might
be a good idea if only because it
doesn't have any one company's name
in the title. Part of the trouble
with the NPL and the APL is that now
everyone is going to want their own
vanity license with their name on
it.
Re:TGPL == Public Domain + Licence Conflicts (Score:2)
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!
Re:TGLP, LPGL, GPL... who cares? (Score:1)
> 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
There is a class of human that refuses to
believe that anyone could sincerely
be motivated by idealism. They should take
it easy on voicing this thesis, though,
because:
(1) they have no direct knowledge of someone
else's motivations
(2) motivations matter much less that actions
and results
(3) this attitude says more about them than it
does about anyone else.
> BSD projects, notably *BSD OS's, seem to
> get along just fine without the accretive
> GPL.
I need to brush up on my history of Unix
some time, but it seems to me that there
were some nasty problems with Unix
fragmenting into multiple commercial
versions. Just as a thought experiment,
imagine a world where Berkeley's Unix had
been released under the GPL.
This doesn't 'get' the purpose of the GPL (Score:3)
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.
NPL-like license for first 2 years, then GPL (Score:1)
their source code under a license that would be
NPL-like in the first 2 years (for example), but
that would also garantee that the license would
change to the GPL after that period.
This way, the company can benefit from the
open development and has time to develop new
products and services.
The original source code and all submitted
modifications to it would be covered by the
GPL after the 2 year period.
The hacker community would thus improve the
company's code while knowing that eventually
all these improvements will be made available
to the public for ever.
Amen! (Score:1)
Bravo. (Score:1)
Re:free-market alternative to patent law (Score:1)
I can see it now mining companies actually cleaning up rivers instead of dumping cyanide in them, timber companies actually planting and caring for the trees, food processing companies spending millions to make sure no bacterial contamination occurs. All we have to do achieve this paradise is to disassemble the
TGPL restricts code sharing (Score:1)
The TGPL restricts you from reusing existing GPL code. If you redistribute your work under GPL, then you can reuse existing GPL code but you also lose any benifits provided by the TGPL.
I do think the free software community needs a mechanism to help programmers get payed for what they're doing. It is clear that the free software community is not self supporting - free software programmers are either supported by paying jobs, or by parents who have paying jobs.
The TGPL is a good attempt at supporting free software developers but I think a better solution would support both of these goals:
1. to help free software programmers make well earned money
2. to allow code to be freely shared between different projects
It is no surprise that the TGPL overlooks the second goal - both goals are at opposite ends of human motivation. But a balance should be possible. Actually, SourceXChange, CoSource and the Free Software Bazaar are evidence that it is possible. Even though these already exist, it would be interesting to see something like TGPL that supports goal (2).
Re:This needs to be said (Score:2)
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 [ibm.com], 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.
Re:free-market alternative to patent law (Score:1)
You're also looking for a discussion of the private enforcement of contracts. I am not offering that here.
If government protection of intellectual property were to disappear, the position of free software would be _strengthened_, not weakened. Yes, MS would surely clone Linux, and they are probably thinking very hard about doing that today. But today, because of IP law, if Linux were public domain rather than GPL'd, MS could _remove_ it from the public domain and claim it as their own. Ridiculous, I know, but this is a feature of today's intellectual property law. The fact that public domain doesn't have teeth is the reason that the GPL needs to have them.
Re:TGLP, LPGL, GPL... who cares? (Score:2)
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.
GPL is evil (Score:1)
The point is that the originator that puts the work under GPL only did the original work, which he allows to be compiled and run freely, then he grabs everybody else's later work on it, no matter what they wanted for it.
The net effect is not that people with commercial interests in their software release the source, but that they keep their hands off GPL code entirely.
With open source, it is entirely possible for someone with a sufficient commercial interest to recreate any code under GPL (by reading the source and then duplicating the functionality exactly). Forcing them to do so is spiteful, it hurts them without benefiting you.
Anyway, I don't really see anything wrong with someone deciding to GPL their own work, when they make an informed decision to do so. Most people, though, talk about it as if GPL code is "more free" than public domain, which is dead flat wrong. People release their code under the GPL just on reflex, not because they really want the extra restrictions. I just don't think anyone considers public domain any more, when it is the best choice in many cases.
Re:Tap dancing. (Score:1)
Re:GPL is evil (Score:1)
Proprietary and commercial are one and the same for all intents and purposes. You can't sell non-proprietary software, you can only support it, and others have the exact same freedom to do so.
Proprietary software is not inherently inferior to free software. Most free software took enormously more resources to produce, and most of the good stuff has its roots in proprietary software (through cloning or whatever); just because nobody is summing up the paid time and overhead for all those hackers doesn't mean that those resources weren't used.
When I release free software, I release it into the public domain. I do so because I can't make money from it and I want other people to benefit from it, in whatever way they can. Why should I screw the people who do think they can make money by using part of it? It's a material world, and my fellow programmers have to eat too.
Re:Difference between the LGPL and the TGPL (Score:1)
"The author can accomplish what they seem to be looking for with a dual release license."
I have already thought about double licensing but this don't always work. If the project is well developped and only need a few small bugfixes then you can easily double license because you don't risk your IP but if their are a lot of contribution you can't easily double license it because you have to remove everyone else's code in the other version or ask them to allow you to use this code(The TGPL model is kind of GPL+you agree to let me use your code in my release so i don't have to ask you every time). There is a risk to have a forking occuring with the GPL version well ahead of the other.
How do you deal with that?
I find it particulary useful in the case of Libraries.
A few time ago RMS was talking about using more the GPL for libraries that give an advantage to Free Software over proprietary software.
If one day I do a revolutionary library (one can dream) I would want to release it under GPL so other people can use it, but I would like to be able to make money out of it by selling licenses to companies that want to use this library for a proprietary product. The problem arise when other people contribute to the code and have a copyright on it. I can't relicense their code unless they allow me to do so, which lead to a code forking sooner or later (or a hell of maintenance).
How would you do yourself in that case? And no, saying "I wouldn't allow proprietary vultures to use it" don't help, I love Free Software, their certainly are some way to make money one support and other models but they aren't the easiest way either.