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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
GPL Revision Coming Soon
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
Thus spake the master programmer: "After three days without programming, life becomes meaningless." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"
Is this really necessary? (Score:2, Insightful)
The open source community is going to have to deal with patents at some point, since patent abuse will soon be the #1 defense commercial software has (Mr. McNealy of Sun has been making some fascinating comments lately) now that they can't compete on merit or any other fair method. However I hope they are very careful with exactly how they introduce this into GPL3. Patents are already nicely covered in the GPL by requiring that you cannot distribute a GPL program if there are patent restrictions on it. But if a line gets in like "by releasing this program, you grant a universal license to open source software to use all applicable patents" it could hinder uptake of GPLed software by companies fearing that by distributing GPL3'd code they would be at risk of accidentally licensing patents without realizing it.
Last updated 13 years ago (Score:5, Insightful)
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:New Terms (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Draft Copy? (Score:5, Insightful)
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
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.
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
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: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
Re:Draft Copy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Finally (Score:2, Insightful)
The GPL does not talk about linking.
The GPL does not talk about web servers.
The GPL talks about what you can do with the code. Derivative works have to be available under the GPL. If you give somebody a copy of the program to run then you have to give them the source. That is all.
If you have an application that links to a GPLed library, your application is ***PROBABLY*** a derivative work of the library, because that's the way in which we normally use libraries. No transformations on the method of linking, however creative, will alter this; the work is a derivative because it is a derivative, not because of the manner in which you load the library.
If you give the program to somebody, you have to give them the source. If you run the program for them, and give them the output, you do not have to give them the source. This does not change just because a web server is involved.
Re:Draft Copy? (Score:2, Insightful)
The reason why people continue to use Slashdot is the same: even with flaws, it's still better than the alternatives (at least for my goal of wasting time at work...).
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 same rights as you?
I used to be amazed at how many people got upset that they can't take someone else's work, and profit from it any way they see fit. Now I know that's just some peoples definition of business.
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.
Re:Draft Copy? (Score:3, Insightful)
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
EULA is supposed to be a contract (Score:2, Insightful)
Firstly, the EULA is not made visible when, and where, you buy the software - that is, you really should be able to read it when it is time for money to change hands. It's one thing for you to say that an informed buyer can read the EULA on the web before buying, but it's another thing entirely to ignore that a large proportion of buyers are not that informed.
Secondly, if you buy the software from a retail store, you have a pretty poor chance of getting a decent return/refund policy. There aren't many stores near me that have a good return/refund policy for computer software, so even if you decide not to use it, you can't get your money back.
Thirdly, if you buy the software from an OEM, you often don't see the agreement at all - the distributor agrees to include the manufacturer's product - and yet, you are a party to that contract, since you are buying and using the software. In that scenario, at least, the user cannot be a party to the EULA, rendering the agreement worthless.
I know I haven't provided a solid legal basis for claiming that EULAs are dodgy at best, but I can't be bothered looking it up in more detail. The point is that if you don't have a chance to agree or disagree to a contract, on whatever grounds, that contract simply cannot legally oblige you in any way.