Comment Re:GPLv3 is about granting freedom to end-users. (Score 1) 237
I'm still highly dumbfounded by this whole remote access thing. I can't imagine anything worse for Web apps. I can't imagine a more restrictive license that takes away all of my freedoms for a Web app licensed under gplv3. Let me give an example.
A client of mine wanted a shopping cart that could take an uploaded CVS and charge people by how ever many data lines were in the file. I took Zen-Cart and made some plugins for it to handle the file upload. But I couldn't override the price functionality. There was no proper plugin for changing that behavior. So I modified some of the function calls to check for prices and had them examine the size of the file. Done and done. I installed the site on the client's server and charged him for the services of code modification.
Now, let's examine what would happen if Zen Cart were licensed under the GPLv3. I have made modifications to the system *and* I am now "redistributing" the code by allowing people on the Internet to see it. I must allow them to obtain my changes. I've effectively forked the project and now I must maintain my changes and supply them to the world. Should I absorb this non-trivial support cost to publicize my private work for a client to the rest of the world, or should I pass it on to the client? How about a line item fee for open source publicity? Anything over $50 and the client would have demanded that I just go with x-cart to start with.
Well, too bad for me, you say? Let's now contrast this with a non-Web application. Assume that the client wanted me to update /usr/bin/yes and add a command line flag for specific functionality. I make the changes, compile the program, give the client the code and the program and charge them for my time. They do not have to give the source code to anyone else, either under the GPLv2 or v3.
v3 singles out Web applications and provides extra restrictions that will harm the open source community by excluding small to mid-sized businesses, consulting firms, and freelance developers. There will be massive breaking of this license and most people will turn a blind eye to it, I already see it happening with GPLv2 a lot and I always tell my clients that *I* believe they are violating the terms of the agreement if they do X,Y, or Z with the modified product but they should check with a lawyer. Now I can see that violations will be so frequent and blatant that it will diminish the integrity of the spirit of the license and it will lose respect over the long haul. I just hope that make great Web apps and want to share them the way they have been don't blindly choose GPL v3 because they think it's just better. Well, actually I do hope that. Their active user base will probably plummet and maybe those people will all come to my projects :)
I agree with the second hole that you mentioned, but I'm on the fence about the first one. I think that a company should have the option to create a complete product out of open source technology and encrypt the final binary files. They *are* releasing the source code, they are not hindering my ability to study, learn, profit from their changes, they are only hindering me from tinkering with their product *as*a*whole*. That clause seems like a jab from tivo purchasers who feel angry because they can't rip out their TV shows even though they know linux command line and should be able to just scp the files somewhere. People who did not buy a Tivo are only benefitting from the work that tivo has done and given back. Seems like sour grapes.
A client of mine wanted a shopping cart that could take an uploaded CVS and charge people by how ever many data lines were in the file. I took Zen-Cart and made some plugins for it to handle the file upload. But I couldn't override the price functionality. There was no proper plugin for changing that behavior. So I modified some of the function calls to check for prices and had them examine the size of the file. Done and done. I installed the site on the client's server and charged him for the services of code modification.
Now, let's examine what would happen if Zen Cart were licensed under the GPLv3. I have made modifications to the system *and* I am now "redistributing" the code by allowing people on the Internet to see it. I must allow them to obtain my changes. I've effectively forked the project and now I must maintain my changes and supply them to the world. Should I absorb this non-trivial support cost to publicize my private work for a client to the rest of the world, or should I pass it on to the client? How about a line item fee for open source publicity? Anything over $50 and the client would have demanded that I just go with x-cart to start with.
Well, too bad for me, you say? Let's now contrast this with a non-Web application. Assume that the client wanted me to update
v3 singles out Web applications and provides extra restrictions that will harm the open source community by excluding small to mid-sized businesses, consulting firms, and freelance developers. There will be massive breaking of this license and most people will turn a blind eye to it, I already see it happening with GPLv2 a lot and I always tell my clients that *I* believe they are violating the terms of the agreement if they do X,Y, or Z with the modified product but they should check with a lawyer. Now I can see that violations will be so frequent and blatant that it will diminish the integrity of the spirit of the license and it will lose respect over the long haul. I just hope that make great Web apps and want to share them the way they have been don't blindly choose GPL v3 because they think it's just better. Well, actually I do hope that. Their active user base will probably plummet and maybe those people will all come to my projects
I agree with the second hole that you mentioned, but I'm on the fence about the first one. I think that a company should have the option to create a complete product out of open source technology and encrypt the final binary files. They *are* releasing the source code, they are not hindering my ability to study, learn, profit from their changes, they are only hindering me from tinkering with their product *as*a*whole*. That clause seems like a jab from tivo purchasers who feel angry because they can't rip out their TV shows even though they know linux command line and should be able to just scp the files somewhere. People who did not buy a Tivo are only benefitting from the work that tivo has done and given back. Seems like sour grapes.
