Drafting GPL3 389
johns writes "In an article released yesterday, Eben Moglen and Richard Stallman outline four purposes of
the GPL, to explain the guideposts they will use in
drafting GPL3: the GPL is a worldwide copyright license, the code of
conduct for free software distributors, the constitution of the free
software movement, and the literary work of RMS. They also make this
commitment: 'The Foundation will, before it emits a first discussion
draft, publicize the process by which it intends to gather opinions
and suggestions.'"
the code of conduct for free software distributors (Score:5, Insightful)
*THE* code of conduct? Not *A* code of conduct? I bet the BSD folks would have something to say about that.
Re:the code of conduct for free software distribut (Score:2, Informative)
Free software is a GNU thing.
Re:the code of conduct for free software distribut (Score:2)
Re:the code of conduct for free software distribut (Score:5, Insightful)
I refer you to a very old post I wrote (Score:3, Interesting)
GPL is not freedom for anyone. It is freedom for the software.
Re:I refer you to a very old post I wrote (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I refer you to a very old post I wrote (Score:2)
Re:I refer you to a very old post I wrote (Score:3, Interesting)
While you're at it, why not arrange for my chair to be free to choose whatever office it wants to be in? And my car should be free to have premium gas whenever it wants.
Are GPL users so strange that they actually think that inanimate objects should have "freedom?" That viewpoint makes PETA look sane!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:the code of conduct for free software distribut (Score:2)
You seem to be under the impression that there can be only one license. I'm a developer so I care about *my* rights. I'm a user, so I care about *my* rights. I don't expect all developers to agree with the GPL or even align with it. I don't expect all users to agree with the BSD or even
Re:the code of conduct for free software distribut (Score:4, Insightful)
If you *don't* like the license your software is available under, write your own software and write your own license. That's exactly what Richard Stallman and the FSF started doing back in the 1980s. And their GPL'd software has been a phenomenal success.
BSD licensed software has also been a phenomenal success.
The fact that people whine about BSD or GPL so much is merely a reflection of their great success. Not only are the licenses widely employed, but the software thereby licensed is enormously popular too.
Re:the code of conduct for free software distribut (Score:2)
It's the same value as having an automobile or appliance that can be serviced by any mechanic instead of one approved by the manufacturer, and that can replacement parts made by third parties. It's the value of having a printer whose consumables don't have to come from the manufacturer of the printer. It's freedom. It means that when you have the software,
Re:the code of conduct for free software distribut (Score:3, Insightful)
Me.
"If fact GPL (and similar) leverages users to the developer's level"
The GPL will not make someone a developer who is not. Compared to BSD, it will prevent some developers from being more than users.
Re:the code of conduct for free software distribut (Score:4, Insightful)
Why work to shut down discussion? (Score:3, Interesting)
The GNU GPL is the most popular free software license, hence any changes to it wil
Don't let two decades of history pass you by. (Score:3, Informative)
The GNU GPL version 3 will be the first revision of the GPL anyone involved in the open source movement will have had anything to do with. It's ahistorical to call the GPL anything to do with "open source" except that the OSI set their terms for license approval widely enough to allow the GPL to get the OSI's stamp of approval. Nobody at the OSI wrote the GPL and that organization (and the movement it started) didn't exist when
Re:the code of conduct for free software distribut (Score:3, Informative)
The BSD folks usually quickly point out that their license is not a code of conduct for distributors, in contrast to the GPL. It certainly grants more freedom to distributors (and indirectly, less to the end users).
Re:the code of conduct for free software distribut (Score:5, Insightful)
To have the freedom to do whatever you want with the code? Isn't that the ultimate freedom?
Re:the code of conduct for free software distribut (Score:2)
Re:the code of conduct for free software distribut (Score:2, Insightful)
Your analogy would be like I used FreeBSD code in my Closed Source OS then in turn I had legal rights to Sue FreeBSD for using my code that was theirs.
There is no freedome loss no one is loosing any freedom by using OSS code in my Closed Source Program.
Re:the code of conduct for free software distribut (Score:4, Interesting)
There is no freedom to own slaves, because owning a slave is a restriction on the slave. Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose, because once it connects with my nose you are restricting me.
There is no need to limit (restrict) freedom in order to promote freedom. Those who claim otherwise are either confused, or mistaking their privileges for freedoms. Being able to restrict how your software can be distributed is a *privilege* provided by the state via copyright, not a freedom.
While the GPL does remove a heck of a lot of restrictions from the software, its restrictions are designed to protect the exclusive *privileges* of the author. The GPL author wants the license terms to apply to third parties, so he ensures this through privilege. He does this by removing freedom.
It's sort of like after the slaves were freed in the US. Several laws were passed to retain a tiny bit of the former privilege, to ensure that former slaves didn't get to uppity and behave in ways the "liberators" didn't want them to behave. It's why we had a civil rights movement a century later. The slaves should have been freed 100% back then, just as software should be 100% free today.
Re:the code of conduct for free software distribut (Score:2, Informative)
1. "PearPC".
2. Not-so-hypothetical situation. I write software. It's pretty good. I decide to relax a certain level of control for it so that others can play with it, and we all get better software as a result. Two years later I get a call from a dickwad in Kentucky who has taken my code and used it in a patent application that was granted.
Re:the code of conduct for free software distribut (Score:2, Insightful)
That, good sir, is called freedom.
GPL protects the freedom of the software, while the BSD license gives you the freedom to what you want with the code.
Both serve a purpose, but it's daft to say say GPL is more free than the BSD license. (And it's useless to start a flame war about it the other way round.)
Re:the code of conduct for free software distribut (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong. BSD is a fine license all right, but nothing special compared to the protected freedom of GPL.
While I prefer the GPL over BSD (and similar licences) -- the GPL does not work well in all situations. For example, anything that requires a reference design that you want to be widely adopted. The Ogg codecs (Vorbis, Theora, ...) for example.
Re:the code of conduct for free software distribut (Score:2)
Re:the code of conduct for free software distribut (Score:2)
This of course doesn't mean that the GPL or BSD licenses are bad... it only means that the whole = free is just rethorics.
Re:the code of conduct for free software distribut (Score:2)
The license is what frees you (to varying extents) from these copyright restrictions.
Re:the code of conduct for free software distribut (Score:2)
But OTOH it's hard to argue that for a license to actually be considered a way to ensure absolute freedom it should basically place no restrictions whatsoever... One that overrides even copyright laws.
Basically a license that says "do whatever you want with this".
So public domain software/Code (Score:2)
Remember air isn't truly free, because someone could turn it into a non-free product.
Re:So public domain software/Code (Score:2)
Re:the code of conduct for free software distribut (Score:2)
"Well, quite frankly, BSD licensed software is not truly free -- what's the point in free software if you can turn it into a non-free product?"
The BSD license is not truely free because it doesn't contain enough restrictions? I could always counter that the restrictions of the GPL make it not truely free. It's a dead horse but bares repeating, the BSD and GPL exist because of difrerent views about what constitutes freedom. That's life.
Here is my own take on it. The GPL seeks to preserve the freedo
Re:the code of conduct for free software distribut (Score:2, Interesting)
I guess some people are delusional enough to think that if they lie enough it'll become fact.
Sorry, nobody is buying that drivel except GNU fundies.
Does anyone else find it mildly strange.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Not to pick a fight, or demean said person, but it just seems a little.... Yeah. Anyone else get what I'm trying to say?
Re:Does anyone else find it mildly strange.... (Score:2)
Re:Does anyone else find it mildly strange.... (Score:2)
Almost every time he writes something, I cringe. He's seen as (one of) the father(s) of the open-source movement, but his views are often far beyond even the mainstream OSS community, let alone the software community as a whole. RMS is to the OSS community like Ralph Nader is to Democrats, or Pat Buchanan is to Republicans: they sort of agree to some core tenets in concept, and don't want to be seen really disagreeing with him. However, they find themselves saying, "Well, yeah, but..." a lot o
Re:Does anyone else find it mildly strange.... (Score:2, Informative)
Almost every time he writes something, I cringe.
Me too. Because I know that a) he's going to get flamed for it, and b) that he'll probably be proven right in a couple of years.
Remember when he pointed out the problem with using BitKeeper for the Linux kernel? Lots of people flamed him for that, until McVoy got his feelings hurt.
Remember the GNU policy of requiring everybody to certify that their work was their own and to explicitly transfer copyright? Lots of people called him a nitpicker for t
Re:Does anyone else find it mildly strange.... (Score:2)
W
Re:Does anyone else find it mildly strange.... (Score:2)
If he's under the GPL, let him judge himself, not others, according to his own idea of what is moral.
Re:Does anyone else find it mildly strange.... (Score:2)
RMS Lives in his little world and it is incompatible to anyone who needs to work for a living.
When you start statements like Closed Source Software is wrong and if you write Closed Source Software then you are a Nazi. There is not much room for reasionable talk.
Re:Does anyone else find it mildly strange.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that is a problem with you rather than RMS. You don't think sharing, co-operation, and working for the common good are moral values?
Re:Does anyone else find it mildly strange.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Finally, not everyone has choice in the matter. A vast majority of developers in this world, not RMS's, write code for corporations, and a vast majority of those corporations write closed-source software. A corporation is at no obligation to provide the source to software it's developed. Furthermore, if time and money was invested by the corporation into the development of the software, the corporation may have moral & ethical obligations to its employees and shareholds, therefore they must protect trade secrets and proprietary algorithms found in the said code.
It's not as black-and-white as RMS would have us all believe. Rather, there are equal, if not greater, moral questions on the reverse side: is it ethical forcing everyong to conform to a single license? Is it ethical condemning others who choose not to conform to the said license?
Re:Does anyone else find it mildly strange.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't dispute it. The interesting question is: Could your company benefit hunanity more by going the Free Software route, while still remaining profitable? I don't know the answer, but don't rule it out.
open sourcing our product ... could also hurt us as competitors (including Microsoft) would have complete access to our algorithms, trade secrets, an
What is wrong with GPL v2 (Score:4, Interesting)
Unless there is some sort of benefit, why would anyone use it?
Background on the GPL (Score:5, Informative)
Patent non Problem (Score:2)
1. The patent holder does not grant a licence to use and distribute it. The GPL software can not be distributed.
2. The patent holder does grant a license to use and distribute. The software can be redistributed and used.
What is the problem?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Patent non Problem (Score:2)
Yes
Such a license would only apply to the program in question and direct derivations though that continue to use the same code.
Yes
So if someone rewrites the code that the patent covers, writing new code that infringes the patent, the situation is legally ambigious.
Yes again, however the granter of the patent license has given permission to modify and redistribute the
Re:What is wrong with GPL v2 (Score:4, Insightful)
This has been tackled by the AGPL [affero.org] which will be upwards compatible with GPL v3 - in other words, GPL v3 will have a clause that requires release of the source code as soon as a program is used outside an organisation, not just when the program itself is distributed.
It will, I think, still be possible for an organisation to make changes to software that remains internal without releasing the changes. In other words, the distribution takes effect as soon as the program is made available for use to an outside party.
Feature not a bug (Score:3, Insightful)
A key idea behind free software is "use for any purpose". Usage restrictions of any type are a bad idea.
Re:What is wrong with GPL v2 (Score:3, Insightful)
There are laws in place to prevent unauthorized copying of a work, but there are no laws in place to prevent unauthorized use of a work when the work is given away freely.
The GPL's foundation is on Copyright, and that's where it needs to stay. The GPL should _ONLY_ cover copying, and not use. Consider that the recipient and user of a GPL'd work is not required to agree to the terms of the GPL, since they did not sign any document indicating agr
Re:What is wrong with GPL v2 (Score:2)
Re:What is wrong with GPL v2 (Score:2)
Thus if some law that applies to you does not allow you to fufil your requirements under the GPL, you can't use it.
The only arguement about dynamic linking of GPL code is on what constitutes a derivative work under copyright law. A new licence can NOT solve this as the library is an independant work.
Older versions? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Older versions? (Score:2)
If v3 removes a restriction on v2, or adds a further restriction, it would be incompatible.
That being said many people have licenced their code under "GPLv2 or any later version".
Re:Older versions? (Score:2)
Plaintiff: The license says the latest version, which is now V3.
Defendent: The latest version as of the date I received the code was GPL V2. The code released under the new license is different, since it has a different license file.
Personally, I've taken out the "or latest version" in code I've written because it makes my head hurt.
Re:Older versions? (Score:3, Informative)
Most GPLd software has the phrase "or, at your option, any later version". However, some state explicitly that only a specific version applies. For example, WARNING: hping2 is covered *ONLY* by GPL version 2, and *NOT* any others.
So it's really up to the author.
Re:Older versions? (Score:2)
To trust them in this matter would be unnecessary (what goal could it possibly serve?), so why do it? I would do the same myself, and I think all people should
What happens with deceased people's code? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What happens with deceased people's code? (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe the parent was being funny, but certainly not interesting.
Re:What happens with deceased people's code? (Score:3, Insightful)
But it was a valid question for the grand parent, and it was modded interesting because others had the same question.
Uh. What do you think happens to it? (Score:2, Informative)
The heir is then free to release the code under any copyright scheme he deems appropriate. However, he is bound by the original licensing of the code (GPL) which has already been granted. He may stop distributing it altogether, or he may stop licensing it under GPL, but the code that has already been distributed under the GPL remains that way.
Re:What happens with deceased people's code? (Score:2, Informative)
That is handled by the various rights and property laws (which include the laws of inheritence), without which there would be no need for a license in the first place.
The title to Granny's house and car don't address the issue of her death either. Granny was supposed to do that in her will.
KFG
Re:What happens with deceased people's code? (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, but you won't get the $10 mil until you debug it;-)
Re:What happens with deceased people's code? (Score:2)
AFAIK the rights get inherited just like anything else. And in principle, after some time the copyright expires and the code gets public domain (in reality, Dinsney & Co. will probably make sure that it doesn't). IANAL however.
Depends. What did granny write in her last will?
Well, whatever you do with your own code. Except if you have (inherited) any contract concerning that code, of cour
Membership (Score:4, Insightful)
I recently had a sudden rush of blood to the wallet & in a fit of altruism (or selfish desire for more freedom and cool software) I joined both the FSF and the EFF - both excellent causes and presumably close to the heart of many slashdotters.
When the "welcome" packages arrived from each I was rather surprised to see the EFF has of the order of ten times more members than the FSF! I'm FSF member #30xx, and the docs say there are 2,1xx active members. The EFF on the other hand has 24K something members.
Not sure what the moral is, except that I wish more people donated to the FSF. Why not send em $20 [fsf.org] and think of it as a small contribution towards the costs of glibc and gcc, two vital programs without which there'd be no Linux, no BSD and no Apple OS X.
Re:Membership (Score:2)
It is possible to donate money directly to particular projects, and I would consider doing that. However, GCC is not on the list [fsf.org] of projects that you can support by direct donation
Re:Membership (Score:2)
Re:Membership (Score:3)
If they had a fund where I could contribute JUST for GCC, that'd be fine... I do appreciate the software that I use almost every day. But I don't want my contribution seen as some political statement by the FSF.
(I can just imagine them releasing a press release like, "over $200,000 has been contributed towards the GCC project by users! Therefore, the GNU license is the Best Thing Ever and all Intellectual property should be free, Free, Gratis,
Re:Membership (Score:3, Informative)
Err, BSD doesn't use GNU libc (BSD has it's own C library), and the only reason why BSD uses gcc instead a BSD-license compiler is because when the original BSD developers decided to rewrite all of the AT&T code, GCC was already available, and I guess the BSD developers didn't feel like rewriting pcc (the compiler that shipped with AT&T Unix). I believe, looking at some old BSD source lists, that the BSD developers dropped pcc when the Net/2 release came out.
And with TenDRA [tendra.org] becoming better each ye
Same old GNU/God Complex (Score:2, Funny)
Authors rights (Score:2)
For F**ks sake, he wrote it, it's his, he can put his name on it.
You can use it, copy it, distribute it, make fun of it, complain about it, print it out and feed it to gerbils.
Having the author put his name on it isn't some sort of ego trip, most already do this.
Re:Same old GNU/God Complex (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Same old GNU/God Complex (Score:2)
My guess is that the draft will enter amidst controversy, and that controversial elements will remain even after heated debate and revision. Stallman has the unenviable task of deciding when to shoot the engineers.
Hardware & software (Score:2)
It's not so different... writing in verilog, compared to writing in 'C' with lots of concurrent threads, and the thrill of getting a working piece of hardware is far more than coding up a cool algorithm, IMHO of course
GPL V3 Addition: Section 13 (Score:3, Funny)
When four corners is too much (Score:4, Insightful)
1) GPL is a worldwide copyright license, 2) the code of conduct for free software distributors, 3)the constitution of the free software movement, 4) and the literary work of RMS
The problem is that (1) has always been limited by the FSF's unwillingness to translate the GPL into any other language. How they plan to make it an international license without actually translating it ought to be interesting.
(2) is already pretty much taken care of. You use GPL code in your code and then distribute it, you have to open up your code under GPL conditions. I can't imagine what will change.
I'm not sure what they plan to get out of (3). The GPL is the General Public License. It may be drafted by the FSF, but it is intended for broad usage by many different people. If they want to have a constitution, they ought to make one, for their organization. Trying to pretend like their organization represents the entire movement is silly and pure hubris.
As for (4), who cares except for RMS what literary works he's published? More hubris.
It seems that like the Perl camp, the FSF can't leave good enough alone and is slowly imploding under the pressure of their own navel gazing.
GPL 2.0 is fine and clear. GPL 3 looks to be an FSF circle jerk in honor of RMS. Count me out.
Re:When four corners is too much (Score:2)
Now that's what I call iteration.
Re:When four corners is too much (Score:2)
The GPL is for source code, not documentation. The license is more documentation than source code, even though it is present within the source code.
With this in mind, a more appropriate license would be the FDL. Since it is also authored by the FSF, I think it is reasonable to make the assumption that should the FSF make the GPL available under an F/OSS license, it would choose the FDL.
What would be particularly ironic about this is that the Debian project has
Re:When four corners is too much (Score:2)
Re:When four corners is too much (Score:2)
Re:When four corners is too much (Score:2)
You seem to be forgetting that RMS is the free software movement. He is its Lord and Savior, its High Regent, its Most Exalted One, its Glorious Heav
Re:When four corners is too much (Score:3)
GPL 2.0 is fine and clear. GPL 3 looks to be an FSF circle jerk in honor of RMS.
Did you miss the fact that GPLv2 is the *GNU* General Public License? The GPL was written by and for RMS and the FSF, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that GPLv3 will be the same.
Of course, lots of other people decided that RMS' license was a really nice one, and decided to use it. The FSF clearly expects that the same will likely happen with GPLv3, and they think that's a good thing, so they plan to solicit input. Neve
Re:When four corners is too much (Score:2)
Re:When four corners is too much (Score:3, Insightful)
And he was wrong. There was a thriving Public Domain community - but it didn't have the need for control which characterises both Stallman and Gates.
RTFA, you big freaking slashdot lemming (Score:3, Insightful)
First of all, this isn't about literary works that he's published. If you read the article, you would know that he is simply making the statement, "As the original concept creator and GPL author, and the largest reason it is around today, I am concerned about its future and want to make sure its meaning is intact".
Second of all, millions of people care about this one literary work that he's published, which is the GPL.
Re:When four corners is too much (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice troll! But of course the FSF is a perfect, 100%, 1:1 representation of the community... the community of FSF members. The FSF has published a
New for version 3 (Score:5, Funny)
My Suggestion (Score:5, Insightful)
Make sure that GPL3 is human-readable, as version 2 was. I absolutely hate reading legalese. It really bothers me that so many important things in my life (such as student loans, credit cards, computer software) assume that I am capable of understanding, and hold me accountable to understand the contents of legal documents. I appreciate the simplicity of the GNU GPL, and consider it an essential feature of the license. The BSD license is even simpler.
<tangent>One thing that bothers me is when GPL software requires that you agree to the license during the install procedure. The GPL is not an end-user license; it is a distribution license. You must accept and comply with the terms of the license if you wish to redistribute GPL'ed works. End users are not required to agree to anything in order to simply use it, or even to modify it for their own use.</tangent>
Re:My Suggestion (Score:2)
Re:My Suggestion (Score:2)
Rubbish. Why should a "valid and binding" legal agreement have to use obtuse language? Did the human-readability of GPL2 make it somehow less binding or valid? Is it okay to violate the BSD license because it's only a few sentences long, and doesn't even have a DEFINITIONS section?
You're wrong. Part of the strength of the Free Software movement is the simplicity and elegance of the GPL. Any developer who wants to use the license can easily
Re:My Suggestion (Score:3)
Because that's how the legal system works. It's been crafted in a formalized way over the course of centuries. If you don't like it, you have to change the system of law. Besides, contracts are not written in Latin or anything like that. They do have to be understandable to a certain extent, and I've yet to find a contract at the consumer level that couldn't be easily understood just by reading it. They look scary but aren'
Re: (Score:2)
Re:My Suggestion (Score:2)
Make sure that GPL3 is human-readable, as version 2 was. I absolutely hate reading legalese.
I think it will be human-readable. Even if Moglen etc. didn't have readability as a goal (and I've read that RMS is adamant that it be both readable and brief), the fact that they want it to be an international license pretty much requires that it not be written in legalese, because legalese varies from one legal system to another.
In order to make it enforceable in courts around the world, the best thing they
Holier Than Thou (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not about free sotware, it's all about Stallman.
Flamewar of the decade (Score:2)
Sneak Preview of one of the clauses (Score:2, Funny)
This may cause disquiet among developers who used the "either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version." clause.
Re:Sneak Preview of one of the clauses (Score:2)
I would like to see a "More L than LGPL" license (Score:5, Interesting)
This license serves two purposes: first it makes your library much more popular. And it should be very good for algorithims like OGG that want to be used by closed programs, by eliminating the risk of an incompatable and secret fork.
Searching around I have seen many dozens of "exceptions to the GPL" to accomplish this, indicating that there are a lot of developers that want this. A standardized version would be very useful, with a name as recognizable as "LGPL" and "BSD".
Attached is my version, which is based on wxWindows. Paragraph 2 is changed to make it clear that you must release changes to the library itself.
Comments, anybody? What are the chances of an official version of this? As far as I can tell, the desire for this is the main force behind license proliferation.
1. As a special exception, the copyright holders of this library give
permission for additional uses of the text contained in this release of the
library as licenced under the FLTK Library Licence, applying either version 2
of the Licence, or (at your option) any later version of the Licence as
published by the copyright holders of version 2 of the Licence document.
2. The exception is that you may use, copy, link, modify and distribute, under terms of your own choice, any works based on the library (including static linking), provided that the creation of this work does not require the modification of any of the source code of the library.
3. Modifications to the source code of the library do not fall under this
exception. However you may distribute the modified library under the normal
terms of this license and then distribute a work using this modified library
using this exception.
4. If you copy code from files distributed under the terms of the GNU General
Public Licence or the GNU Library General Public Licence into a copy of this
library, as this licence permits, the exception does not apply to the code
that you add in this way. To avoid misleading anyone as to the status of such
modified files, you must delete this exception notice from such code and/or
adjust the licensing conditions notice accordingly.
5. If you write modifications of your own for this library, it is your choice
whether to permit this exception to apply to your modifications. If you do
not wish that, you must delete the exception notice from such code and/or
adjust the licensing conditions notice accordingly.
Stallman = Socialist (Score:3, Insightful)
"Guys, turns out we can just give everything away! Those protein mass spectrometers we just paid $90,000 apiece for -- yeah, we'll just get those for free from now on. Someone will donate them, or something."
Turns out that by trying to make money off our discoveries, we were acting unethically! Who woulda thunk it?
Re:translating GPL (Score:3, Funny)