GPL Revision Coming Soon 469
ebresie writes "E-Week makes mention that GPL Version 3 is coming soon which will revise the GPL for the first time in a while."
The means-and-ends moralists, or non-doers, always end up on their ends without any means. -- Saul Alinsky
GPL vs MS EULA's (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:GPL vs MS EULA's (Score:2)
Re:GPL vs MS EULA's (Score:2)
Re:GPL vs MS EULA's (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, that was me living in my fantasy world where the courts are doing their job with fair minded justice and honesty. I now return you to reality, in which EULAs are both proprietary secret documents and enforcable documents.
Re:GPL vs MS EULA's (Score:5, Informative)
they [b]must[/b] be publicly visible
Have you ever looked? Here let me help
Windows XP Home here [microsoft.com]
Windows 98 Downloads here [microsoft.com]
A whole bunch more [clendons.co.nz]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:GPL vs MS EULA's (Score:2)
But you could return it saying you didn't agree with the EULA
New Terms (Score:5, Funny)
Re:New Terms (Score:5, Funny)
Re:New Terms (Score:3, Funny)
Re:New Terms (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:New Terms (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:New Terms (Score:2)
Re:New Terms (Score:3, Informative)
No, it doesn't. The recommended language for using the GPL suggests that you allow that, but the license itself doesn't require it.
A number of prominent authors (I believe Alan Cox is one) release only under v2 for precisely this reason.
Note, too, that the standard copyright disclaimer you sign if you're releasing software to the FSF has language in it that terminates those rights if they distribute under a non-free
Re:New Terms (Score:3, Informative)
Linux Torvalds, however, distributes the Linux kernel under that license.
See This post (and thread) [iu.edu] on the linux-kernel list.
Re:New Terms (Score:3, Informative)
As I said in the post you were replying to, GPLv2 says no such thing--that was, indeed, the point of my post.
There is a recommended way of releasing your software under the GPL which includes the statement
Re:New Terms (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, it's not -- it's between the Gates and Dreyfoos Towers, but "officially" on the Dreyfoos side. See? [mit.edu]
Interesting to note the new terms (Score:3, Funny)
I have the beta (Score:2, Funny)
Patents and compatiability? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Patents and compatiability? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Patents and compatiability? (Score:5, Informative)
The GPL is pushing a political agenda: "preserve, protect and promote the freedom to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute computer software." (from front page of gnu.org)
That restriction is the #1 thing that does support that agenda - if people find GPLed code useful enough that they want to use it, they will need to let others do likewise when they distribute their code.
I find it's not always what I want to do with my code (my agenda is often more in line with BSD), but it strikes me as genius in this means to achieve its end.
Citation Please? (Score:3, Informative)
GPL 3 Now Contains Flouride! (Score:5, Funny)
They're trying to drain our precious bodily fluids...
I, for one, welcome our Free Software overlords. (Score:2, Interesting)
"28 days... 6 hours... 42 minutes... 12 seconds... The copyright on the UNIX source will expire."
"You only THINK you've won! While your back was turned, I switched licenses!"
(I did the best I could.)
Re:GPL 3 Now Contains Flouride! (Score:2)
I think you had too much to drink..
Good :) (Score:2, Funny)
Hopefully, they'll include the clause to allow companies to tahe GPL'd software, rip the copyrights out, and incorporate it into their own products and claim ownership.
This would solve the "problems" with the GPL all the "analysts" keep huffing and puffing about, and would allow our good friends at MS to use GPL code in their products and file suits against the authors who wrote it for "copyright violations."
FLAME ON!!! >:)
Only one change in v3.0 (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Only one change in v3.0 (Score:2)
Re:Only one change in v3.0 (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Only one change in v3.0 (Score:2)
Actually, it's already called the GNU GPL so it would be renamed to the GNU GNU/GPL.
Is this really necessary? (Score:2, Insightful)
The open source community is going to have to deal with
Re:Is this really necessary? (Score:2)
That seems very sensible. In fact, it amazes me that (AFAIK) none of the megacorps has yet tried to assimilate AnyGPL'd code on the basis that the licence under which it was distributed was GPL version 19,754, as defined by MegaCorp, Inc., and they therefore have full rights (and no-one else has any). The idea of licensing softwa
Re:Is this really necessary? (Score:3, Interesting)
I think you are missing the fact that the GPL itself is covered by copyright. You cannot distribute a work (i.e. license) derived from the GPL without the permission of the copyright holder (the FSF).
Re:Is this really necessary? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not technically distributing the software, I'm letting people use it, so I'm not required to distribute my changes to my customers or whoever asks for the source. At least, that's how some see it.
A revision to the GPL could eliminate the confusion, and state
This has been under consideration for over 2 years (Score:3, Interesting)
The FSF has been working with Affero to address this issue. Check out the list of GPL-incompatible free software licenses [gnu.org] under the section called "Affero General Public License" which says:
Not as simple as previously stated. (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, private derivatives are allowed. Having the freedom to make derivatives one does not share with others in any form is required by the definition of free software [gnu.org]:
Also, use of a program (that is, merely executing the program) is not a power regulated by US copyright law. And the GPLv2 specifically states that it does not control this activity:
So, no, "if you alter GPLed code you have to let everyone use your alterations as GPLed code as well" is untrue.
Also, you have (perhaps inadvertantly) repeated one of the most misleading parts of the article (and the editorial linked to the article): Associating the GPL with the open source movement profound miscredits who did what and what goals the GPL was written to achieve.
This latest revision of the GPL has almost nothing to do with "OSS" development. The open source movement (which doesn't like to talk about software freedom [gnu.org]) did not exist when the current version of the GPL (version 2) was written. The free software movement (which is based on software freedom) predates the open source movement by over a decade. This upcoming version (version 3) of the GPL will be the first version of the GPL written since the open source movement started. As far as I know, nobody from the open source movement is writing the next revision of the GPL; it is still written by the people at the FSF (most notably, RMS and Eben Moglen, both of whom make it quite clear in their speeches that they are doing work to promote software freedom). So, the open source movement is receiving a great deal of credit for work it did not do and the danger of tying the GPL with the open source movement is that the open source movement's philosophy, which doesn't object to proprietary software, will be conflated with a license built to create and maintain a commons where software freedom is the rule.
Wonderful (Score:2, Funny)
Changes to the GPL (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Changes to the GPL (Score:2)
This raises an interesting question. Let's say I have a program for a niche market and there are commercial competitors. I provide the binaries online but distribute the source via a CD.
Buried in my code is a statement, perhaps in a function, is a statement like:
static const char[] xid = "alk24lCAmql4==";
which I might claim is a source
Re:Changes to the GPL (Score:2)
Then again, most companies stupid enough to infringe GPL software at all are also too stupid to remove all the
Re:Changes to the GPL (Score:2)
If you do what you seem to be implying then Yes, it would.
You must make the source code available essentially by the same means as you made the binary available. So if you only distributed the binary on CD, you dont need to make source code available online. But if your binary is online, then you must make the source available online by essentially the same means.
You must also distribute and licence via the GPL the actual code used, not merely a functionally equivalent piece
Re:Changes to the GPL (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Changes to the GPL (Score:4, Interesting)
The GPL FAQ has no legal weight, other than seeing what the FSF might sue you over and what they might not.
Definition of recipient (Score:2)
BTW, Forcing people to "give back" to those they got code from is a bad thing and is not how it's written today. That disallow
Re:Changes to the GPL (Score:4, Informative)
Finally (Score:5, Informative)
Now, did anybody follow all that? And I'm not even sure I got it all right. The next version will be long overdue.
Re:Finally (Score:2)
It's really wierd, but the GPL was written in far simpler times...
Re:Finally (Score:3, Interesting)
That's why we have the LGPL.
Good. Most of the local modifications to GPL'd web-apps would only be needed by people building a website competeing with the author's. Any that are not only of interest to the author should be shared with the community, and that's how the existing system works.
Last updated 13 years ago (Score:5, Insightful)
SUE GPL! (Score:5, Funny)
Additional clause added... (Score:5, Funny)
Authored by... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's all fine and everything, since the current GPL got to us that way.
I will be shocked and dismayed if they don't open up the process, though. The GPL is more fundamental to FOSS than any other document, and I'd hate to see it developed in a cathedral.
They'll surely do it as an open collaboration.
Re:Authored by... (Score:2)
Re:Authored by... (Score:4, Interesting)
If you read the second page of TFA:
GPL Server Hole (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:GPL Server Hole (Score:2)
Server Hole versus LAMP? (Score:3, Informative)
By the way, to my untrained eye the Affero GPL [affero.org] (an alt
Here A Slide From The FSF About GPLv3 (Score:2, Informative)
Trust networks (Score:2)
if the FSF uses its leverage correctly, it could affect what kinds of trust are recognized in the network.
"But if we don't use our leverage correctly, we could wind up in a world where free software is injured very badly, where you can modify code but you cannot do anything with that modified code because the hardware will not run that code because it cannot be signed 'Microsoft or IBM,'" he said. "If that happens, free software will be excluded from hardware, and th
Prototype (Score:4, Informative)
Rumored text of GPL revision (Score:5, Funny)
Thou Shalt Smite Thy Microsoftie
Thou Shalt Bow To Thy Benovolent Leader RMS Thy God And Have Ye No Other God Before Him
That Shalt Not Take the Name of GNU/Linux In Vain
Thou Shalt Mod Down the unholy SlashDot Troll, For He is an Abomination unto Thee
Thou Shalt Not Click on false Gmail Links
Thou Shalt Not Fall to the Evil Seductress BSD, for She is an Unrighteous Whore Unto Thee
Thou Shalt Close Thine Ears Upon Hearing the False Testimony of the SCO, the Lies of TCO, and the injustices of the CMDRTCO.
Thou Shalt Moderate this Post to the Heavens, That All The Earth May Know of the Great And Fearful GPL.
Screw Up ? (Score:3, Insightful)
"9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
of the General Public License from time to time. "
Lots of work ships with the "any later version" clause
Man, this brings a tear to my eye. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Those who create and wish to share are the Good Guys, while the Bad Guys are vile lawyers and manipulative billionaires. This corner of reality is like living in the pages of a four-color comic book.
-FL
Re:Man, this brings a tear to my eye. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
What about the Guy Who Wants to Make a Few Bucks Writing Useful Software So He Can Pay His Rent? He wants to create and share, but would like to earn a living wage doing it. Is he a Bad Guy, too?
What about the vile lawyers who work for the FSF?
Why aren't there any shades of gray?*
*I know. I must be new here.
Let me clarify. . . (Score:4, Insightful)
People need energy to live and produce. To create, one must consume. The trick is living in balance. --In making as clear and uncluttered a conduit of power out of yourself as possible. The level of clarity is determined by your Intent.
The Bad Guys are the ones who have knots tied in their systems; they are more interested in one-way transactions of energy, or coming as close to achieving one-way transactions as they can manage. Accumulating power for themselves is more important than in feeding the overall system of which they are a part.
When people join with the ethic of feeding easily to those who need, (but only to those who share the same ethic, otherwise the system is bled), as well as taking from the system when they themselves are in need, then the whole grows out of proportion to the sum of its parts. I don't think it is possible to create energy from nothing, but I think that these types of systems appear to do so because they have a way of grooving themselves to more easily accept and polarize the ambient energy of the world around.
--For example. . . When several people are working on an exciting and worthy project, others who are not even associated with that group feel compelled to help out or offer resources. I see this happen all the time.
-FL
Re:Man, this brings a tear to my eye. . . (Score:3, Interesting)
You know, this is getting repetitive, but if you don't like GPL rules, don't play the GPL game. Oh? You want to play with GPL code but you don't like it's rules? Tough. Find some code under some other licence. Nothing is stopping you from making a few bucks - look at Bram Cohen. Vilifying FSF's lawyers is cheap.
If your idea of grey is this black and white, you're not just new here. You're working for The Other Side.
Notable changes (Score:3, Funny)
Not sure if this will be possible... (Score:2)
I'm not sure if this will be possible. Defending against someone infringing on your copyright is easily done with a license (as the GPL currently does), but someone with a patent need not agree to anything before trying to sue to pants off of you.
Perhaps they plan to put a stipulation in the GPL that prevents you from suing others for software patent infringement if you use GPL software? If they do
Will GPL 2 and GPL 3 be compatible? (Score:4, Insightful)
For this type of software, will we be able to use it in software that's under GPL 3? GPL 2 won't allow for additional restrictions, nor will it allow being mixed with other software that isn't under GPL 2.
As far as I can see, the only way that GPL 3 can allow compatibility if you are able to 'downgrade' to GPL 2. If that option is available, that may make it difficult if not impossible to achieve the goals that the FSF has in mind.
Another possibility is to try to get the original authors to rerelease their software under the new licence. This may be possible in cases where a central authority has the redistribution rights to do this (such as the FSF has with much of their software), but a lot of GPL'd software isn't quite so careful. Many patches may have been included into a piece of software not by giving full redistribution rights but instead under licence of GPL 2, in which case those authors technically need to be contacted to allow for their use in GPL 3 software.
Another possibility is that it could split the set of GPL software in two: one under GPL 2, and another under GPL 3. I have a feeling this won't happen, but it wouldn't be great. People of like minds who want to share their software would not be able to simply because of licensing issues that may be too hard to resolve at this point.
Anyway, I'm sure Moglen and RMS are taking this into account while they work on the licence. I hope it's put together in an open manner, so that all these kinds of issues are addressed.
Re:Will GPL 2 and GPL 3 be compatible? (Score:3, Informative)
While we won't know yet, a big issue with all this is how compatible the licences will be with each other. While there is a fair amount of software that says it's compatible with GPL 2 or greater, much is specifically locked to a specific version.
The last sentence of the article:
GPL Unconstitutional? (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1581586,00
My question is:
Has SCO ever indicated which part of the Constitution the GPL violates? Or is it just a general statement without any backing?
Can someone provide the section of the Constitution that the GPL specifically violates, that other licesnes (such as the ones SCO uses) wouldn't?
Forum to discuss new GPL, defensive patents, etc? (Score:5, Interesting)
I have significant code I have been working on for some time. I have placed GPL language at the top, etc. in anticipation that I would publish it as soon as I felt I and it were ready.
One thing stopping me is that the code has lots of quite new ideas in it that I feel could become quickly widespread in use, in some cases as an alternative to existing, increasingly encumbered and controlled, standards.
I feel that it may be good to take out lots of patent claims, not that I feel that offensive patent use is ever justified, but that I see Microsoft patent around such things as XML.
I would like to stop them or anyone else to the extent from patenting use of the technology for X or Y (as Microsoft does with XML, for example), when it is obvious to anyone that it is a technology that is general purpose in nature and should be open to all uses.
I need to discuss this sort of thing, preferrably on a forum with someone actively pursuing FSF agendas to talk about the pitfalls and what might be possible in this respect. I would be perfectly happy signing patent rights to a third party as long as they could be used defensively by myself and others to the widest extent possible.
(Let me make it clear that it would not be my intent to use such to control or enforce a particular usage in any way, as Sun or Microsoft, for example, often try to do when making a "public" grant).
Re:Forum to discuss new GPL, defensive patents, et (Score:3, Informative)
Patents are very expensive to file, and if you want more than just a US patent you need to
Re:Draft Copy? (Score:5, Informative)
The changes planned for the next release, Version 3, a draft of which is due next year,...
Re:Draft Copy? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: the definition of 'soon' (Score:3, Informative)
Well, we have only ~6 weeks to go in 2004. If the draft came out in early January I imagine we could call that 'soon', particularly since v2 has been in place for a while.
I was going to make a snarky comment about (defining soon) == (the Clinton defense) but decided to behave.
Re:Draft Copy? (Score:2)
Re:Draft Copy? (Score:5, Funny)
I think "soon" for Slashdot means "by the time we fix all the various problems with Slashcode, implement basic spellchecking for the editors, and train ourselves to look for dupes before publishing them to the front page."
Re:Draft Copy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Draft Copy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Draft Copy? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Draft Copy? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Draft Copy? (Score:3, Funny)
I'm actually an RMS fanboy, but I've seen glaciers that move faster than some of the GNU projects.
Re:Draft Copy? (Score:2)
There is also a great deal of work to be done to allow the large number of stakeholders who have grown up around the GPL to have an opportunity to express Opinions and to have their thoughts taken into account in trying to frame the best possible license, Moglen said.
Perhaps they have been dragging their feet about getting the whole process actually moving (maybe now they are actually going to start, as opposed to just postulate about it.)
Re:Draft Copy? (Score:2)
Re:Draft Copy? (Score:2)
The draft isn't due until next year.
Wait, what am I thinking... This is Slashdot, of course you didn't read the article....
Re:Draft Copy? (Score:2)
There is a reason why Linux is licensed under the GPL v2 only.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Draft Copy? (Score:2, Funny)
If you patent anything you put into the software, you loose your rights to use/distribute the software unless the patents are transfered to the public domain.
Actually, knowing the high level of literacy open source freaks regularly show, that's probably EXACTLY what it will say.
Re:Draft Copy? (Score:2)
Yeah, I am quite sure that the lawyers from Stanford, Harvard, Yale, and Chicago that are helping are really goning to screw it up. uh, yep.
Re:Draft Copy? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Draft Copy? (Score:2)
Re:Draft Copy? (Score:2, Funny)
You forgot:
If your name is Bill Gates, Daryl McBride or Orrin Hatch you cannot use this software.
If this software is being used in a company whose name ends in AA (like in MPAA, RIAA), you cannot use this software.
If you are wondering where is the start button is, why you cannot install IE on it, or how come Kazaa doesn't work on it, type rm -rf and all your problems will be gone...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Draft Copy? (Score:2)
I would like to see them try. Think in terms of Linux.com. MS apparently offered top (as in well over the top) dollars for it. And yet, it was not sold to them.
And Pam just quit OSRM (or whatever their abbr. is) to avoid a conflict of interest.
I would be very surprised if Pam would allow MS/SCO/SUN/whoever to buy it.
Re:Yay, a later version! (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't always agree with RMS, but here is one place I do trust him. He showed a lot of foresight in the terms he put in the GPL. Also, unless I have totally misjudged him, he would literally kill himself before he would do something that betrays people's freedom.
Re:BSD and MIT licenses anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
As a developer I would rather release my stuff under the GPL, if I release under BSD/MIT type licence there is nothing to prevent someone else from taking my code and changing it and not giving it back to me. Now anyone can download my code and use it for what they like. But they can't sell it without returning the source.
Now with a BSD licence it is true the various people could fork closed versions of software, the question is, is this a good thing? Did having 25 different versions of Unix, none of which worked the same was as was the case 15 years ago good for unix? I would think not. The number of Unix like OS's is down to about 4 at this point (Linux,BSD including OS/X, Solaris and maybe AIX) at least those are the only 4 that matter.
In sort the bug you have pointed out is to most people really a feature
You don't quite get it. (Score:3, Insightful)
GPL doesn't restrict your right to modify software for your own use. In fact, it grants that right which would otherwise be illegal or questionable. GPL does impose some conditions on your redistribution of that derivative work (i.e. provide source code and GPL) which are there to ensure other people have the same rights you are granted. Or don't you think others deserve the sam
Re:GNU Icon (Score:3, Informative)