The first draft of the next version of the General Public License should be released for public comments in early 2006, according to a key player in the effort to modernize the foundation of the free and open-source programming movements.
Post a Comment
Member since:
---
Member since:---
The GPL is designed to be upgradeable--your patches could be distributed under GPL v3 by anyone who would rather use them that way (however you could continue to use v2 for your project if you prefer).
But why are you defending Google's practice? If Google were selling search software, they would have to abide by the rules of the GPL. As it stands now they avoid this requirement by allowing customers to use their software without actually possesing it which brings us back to square one--the user having no rights.
I'm not sure what the best way to cope with this grey area would be but I am glad that it is being addressed by the FSF.
Member since:2005-07-06
But why are you defending Google's practice? If Google were selling search software, they would have to abide by the rules of the GPL. As it stands now they avoid this requirement by allowing customers to use their software without actually possesing it which brings us back to square one--the user having no rights.
Just one small question here. Google sells their search appliance to businesses as a stand alone product. Wouldn't this same unit be using Linux? And if so, would they have to disclose the source?
Member since:2005-07-24
They would be required to disclose to anyone that they distribute the product to, upon reqest, any modifications to the Linux kernel source which they have made for that product. The buyer of the product could then distribute the modified source code, or not, depending upon their own goals and inclinations.
Member since:2005-06-30
Member since:---
that it would require backend users like Google to reveal their sources even though they don't distribute binaries. This would be a terrible blow to open source. I am going to only release my Linux kernel patches under GPLv2 thank you very much.
Highly unlikely, though this applies to all companies not just Google. Let's start out with the current GPL that has the 'or later' clause;
"This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version."
1. The new preview revision of the GPL has not been released; it's not even ready for that stage yet.
2. Many projects including the Linux kernel use a specific revision of the GPL and do not include the clause that says 'this revision or later'. Thus, the new revision would not apply to that software.
3. Projects that do use the GPL with the clause that the current revision or later may be used may decide to remove that clause for new releases.
4. As mentioned in the current GPL, you have an option to use the newer version as a function of distribution. If you do not distribute your changes, you are not required to use the new version.
5. If Google has made custom revisions of current GPL code, releasing those changes may not be a big hardship.
Member since:---
Member since:2005-07-06
that it would require backend users like Google to reveal their sources even though they don't distribute binaries.
That would only be the case if the code $COMPANY were using was explicitly licensed under GPL v3 (or later) and that can only happen with new releases of the codebase. Anything $COMPANY is currently using is still covered under the license they acquired it under.
Member since:
2005-07-04
Anonymous (IP: 142.161.67.---): The kernel is already released under GPL v2 only. There is a specific note in the licensing section from Linus Torvalds saying the kernel is v2 only. As a kernel contributor, you should already know this. And also, you are not accessing kernel resources over the network, so the new GPL v3 rules wouldn't apply to the kernel anyways. So when you contribute, you CAN specify GPL v2 and later, but the entire kernel will still be GPL v2.
Anonymous (IP: 69.22.66.---): Yes, the GPL is upgradeable, if you specify it to be. If you specify GPL v2 only, then that is the way it is. No one but the copyright holder can change that. Not only would a basic understanding of copyright law and licensing confirm this, but reading the relevant section of the GPL where it tells you how to apply the license to your software verifies it. I do suggest you actually read the GPL if you insist on pretending you know what you are talking about.
Could the people around here at least try to verify what they say before saying it. It would really avoid a lot of rumours. Thank you. I'm off to work.
RE: Would you people not speak unless you know...
Member since:---
I have read the GPL. It also says that the GPL may not be changed:
"Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed."
That means one cannot cherry-pick from the GPL. Any projects under the GPL license must accept and abide by all the terms.
Then, on the subject of GPL versioning:
"Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation."
So yes, the Linux project uses GPL v2. However, if somebody wants to fork Linux, as far as I can see they are free to use GPL v3 or GPL v4, etc. However, once source code has been elevated to a particlar license, that cannot be reversed. For example, Linux could never be released under GPL v1.
Member since:---
That means one cannot cherry-pick from the GPL. Any projects under the GPL license must accept and abide by all the terms.
* As copyright holder, you can use any licence at any time for your copyrighted works.
* You may not retroactively assert a new licence on already provided goods. (Well, without new laws being passed.)
* As such, you as copyright holder can indeed cherry pick any part of the GPL or any other licence.
That is what they did for the Linux kernel; the kernel is only licenced under a specific revision of the GPL and no future or past revisions.
Member since:---
Member since:2005-07-04
Even if the GPL allows people to use the software under a later license, the copyright notice is more important. If the copyright notice and the license conflict, you assume the copyright notice is right. So if Linus puts only version 2 in the copyright license (and he does, he specifically states it in the kernel tarball) then that takes precedence over what the GPL says.
According to the GPL, you cannot link a non-GPL'd program to a GPL'd one. If, however, you write a GPL'd program and you put this in the copyright notice,
Program Foo can statically link to this GPL'd package without having to change its license to the GPL.
Then program Foo can link to your program without being restricted by the GPL. Even though the GPL states it is not allowed, what is put in the copyright notice takes precedence over what the license says. It works the same with Linus and using only version 2 of the kernel.
Member since:---
Member since:---
So yes, the Linux project uses GPL v2. However, if somebody wants to fork Linux, as far as I can see they are free to use GPL v3 or GPL v4, etc. However, once source code has been elevated to a particlar license, that cannot be reversed. For example, Linux could never be released under GPL v1.
Only the copyright holder can change the terms of the copy and distribution rights. That's the whole point of copyright.
So, unless you are the copyright holder for the entire Linux kernel -- or can get all copyright holders to agree with you -- you may not unilaterally change the terms that the Linux kernel is distributed under. The same goes for any other software program -- GPLed or not -- with the exception of public domain. PD effectively does not have a license.
If you are the copyright holder, you can indeed use an earlier version of the same licence or change the licence in any way you see fit as long as it does not violate local laws.
Member since:2005-07-04
No, you are wrong. Since you apparently continue to disagree with everyone without verifying your statements, I suggest going to kernel.org and downloading the latest kernel, and then reading the licensing and copying files, specifically the section from Linus Torvalds stating that the kernel is released only under version 2.
You misread what the GPL has said. It says you have the option of saying v2 or later. You don't have to however.
MySQL is licensed the same way, and I think QT is too.
Where were you when all those discussions occured about how the kernel will most likely never move to GPL v3 because the kernel devs would have to get written permission from all copyright holders and it would take years? Sleeping?
All contributions to the kernel to date are licensed under GPL v2 only. The GPL says exactly:
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
Software Foundation.
In other words, if the words GPL v2 or later are there, you can choose which license. If no version is there, you can choose any version of the license. If a specific version number is mentioned (such as 2 in the case of the kernel) then you have to follow the terms of that version of the license.
Member since:---
Could the people around here at least try to verify what they say before saying it. It would really avoid a lot of rumours. Thank you. I'm off to work.
I feel your frustration and agree with it.
The issues are fairly simple, and you're spot on, yet folks take a stance as if they are right and do not research it at all.
Thanks for your sane comments. Don't let the trolls pull you in too much.
RE: They should just follow the MIT/BSD license
RE[2]: They should just follow the MIT/BSD license
RE[3]: They should just follow the MIT/BSD license
RE: They should just follow the MIT/BSD license
RE[2]: They should just follow the MIT/BSD license
RE[2]: They should just follow the MIT/BSD license
RE[3]: They should just follow the MIT/BSD license
RE[4]: They should just follow the MIT/BSD license
RE[5]: They should just follow the MIT/BSD license
Member since:2005-07-24
In general, I'm a fan of GPL licensing. It generally fits with my philosophy. However, even one person can have different views on what license is appropriate for different works.
For example, when Xiph (the Ogg Vorbis guys) made their reference implementation for Vorbis available under a BSD license, even RMS publically aggreed with their reasons for not using GPL. The intent was to take a format that nobody had ever heard of and get the widest possible market penetration. GPL'ing the reference implementation would have restricted the market.
In the same vein, I take issue with MySQL AB's use of the GPL for the MySQL libraries. LGPL would be more appropriate. The use of GPL is good for MySQL AB. But it is not the best thing for MySQL and MySQL's market penetration. Which, as a big PostgreSQL fan, doesn't bother me too much.
Some of you are probably thinking: Aha! MySQL with its GPL license is more popular than PostgreSQL with its BSD license! To which I say that sometimes having a marketing department outweighs differences in the license... and even the fact that the competitor's product is better than yours.
But for the most part, I think that an appropriate blend of GPL(v2)/LGPL serves the community's needs best.
GPL v3 is looking *too* restritive. And, in general, I think of the BSD as the "rape me" license.
Hmmm, is there anyone left here that I have neglected to offend? :-)
Member since:---
RE[4]: They should just follow the MIT/BSD license
RE[4]: They should just follow the MIT/BSD license
Member since:
---
It's a political license - read the FAQ
Oh, and if *someone* doesn't like the way the discussion is going then they shouldn't post this stuff. I advice everybody to browse at -5 to see the real discussion.
Any attempt to extend the viralness of the GPL will result in utter failure.
Member since:2005-06-30
I think the moderation has been rather fair. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by the endless flamefest that ensues every philisophical discussion of the superiority of licenses. If the discussion doesn't pertain to the topic at hand and instead simply serves to rehash the same nonsense that wastes unfathomable amounts of space collectively across the Internet, then perhaps we can all do everyone else the favor of not having it here. I say this fully willing to accept the -5 I deserve from even participating as much as I have.
Member since:---
> It's a political license - read the FAQ
It's the "politics" of the GPL to ensure perpetual freedom for all future users. For this noble goal, it is necessary to eliminate the possibilities of someone denying users this freedom.
So how much ever you breath fire and brimstona at the GPL, it in the end will be responsible for more free software than any other licence, or "politics".
> Any attempt to extend the viralness of the GPL will result in utter failure.
Bullshit. Keep your cheap propaganda wording (viralness) for you. The strong case for code freedom and the rigidity at which this freedom has been defended over the years, made the GPL you wish to utterly fail, more popular among freedom loving developers than all other more liberal licences together.
GPLs undeniable gigantic success speaks for its quality and popularity.
RE: BSD is true freedom
Member since:
2005-07-06
Hopefully it is clear to enough people that the GPL is destroying more economic opportunities for the working class than it is creating.
In fact, the GPL works just like socialism: We see an increase in giant corporations using the GPL and the bulk of the profits for all GPL companies is made by these giant companies.
There is no economic opportunity for the small shop or individual developer except to produce crappy code that needs a lot of "services".
The GPL is braindead and unless V3 makes significant changes, the GPL is just about done.
Any license which so marginalizes the economic value of intelligent expression (code) is not something coming from a good place.
The only place the GPL fits is for taxpayer funded software. As the taxpayer paid for this code it should be released under a public license. If taxpayers as a whole improve on this code, it should remain in the public domain. So here is a good place for the GPL, not private enterprise.
Member since:---
Hopefully it is clear to enough people that the GPL is destroying more economic opportunities for the working class than it is creating.
No, it is not clear at all. What GPL in its current form does is shifting these opportunities away from shrink-wrap software industry only. In return, it provides enormous opportunities and cost-cutting options for in-house software development as well as all industries that involve using software, not producing it.
GPL may hurt in some cases, but it does not when we see the big picture.
Member since:
---
The copyright holder can change the license at any time as long as he stays GPL if he used anyone elses GPL source. For instance if someone produces a really good product with an exceptional algorithm for doing something like database access in a personal movie tracking database. I use that app and like the way it does those things and I would like to use those routines (And improve them and release them back to the open source comminity) - but i can't because the GPL requires that my program be opensource. It could be argued that the original author should have released the routines as LGPL, but unless he does then I can't use his source. I may be writing a comercial POS program and could benifit the comminity by applying my considerable programming staff to improving the open source portion.
My work not only would not harm the original author but may infact benifit him by giving him back an improved algolrithm. But because of the GPL we both loose, I have to develop my own database routines and the open souce community has less people working on the project.
The GPL talks about freedom, but it is only talk. You are not free to use the source as you see fit. It is about free software as in not having to pay for it. Sure you can sell it, but you also have to make it available for free - thus guaranteeing that you will not sell it. Others have called it politics and that seems fair as like the communistic ideals that it seems to be based in, it speaks at great lenghts of the freedom of the people, but does nothing but restrict those freedoms. That is why it should be replaced with a less dogmatic, BSD like approach that really encourages freedom.
Some people will abuse that freedom, but the community as a whole will benifit.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Hi ,
Those who dont know history are bound to repeat it.
First let me remind the Liar and thief and idiot here that Unix ( 1960 ) and BSD ( 1970 ) existed before Apple ( 1976 ) and Microsoft ( 1975 ) got created. Unix whas proprietary and so does BSD at that time , BSD only recently got aproved as Open Source licensing , Let me state that it whas more politicaly motivated then based on actual feature and actual reality of what happen to bsd code.
One problem with BSD certification as free Software and Open Source is that four clause bsd and three clause BSD which are not Free Software and not really Open Source got certified as well.
Open Source is a noble goal but the traitor license ( namely MIT and BSD ( even LGPL to an extent ) , let Microsoft and Apple take the code made by Open Source developper and Free software developper and include it in there software and close there added improvment to all others. Thats why Today Microsoft and Apple are so dominant.
This is why the thief speak of the original still beeing Open Source and Free Software because the current definition of both Free software and Open Source by those group do not demand that it be "at all time". An example I like to make is when its raining your not an European anymore ( replace European by your citizenship or continent like American ) and are stripped of your rights and freedom because in the creation of those constitution raining is not mentionned and everyone knows and agree that it is at all time. Only because its software is not agreed and marked at all time , this is why many Open Source license certified by the OSI are not real Open Source as you can switch them to closed source and thats why Free Software as certified license which pass the freedom requirement stated by the Free Software definition.
The reality is without the GPL , Open Source would be extinct by now , because there are not that many BSD software that have not been switched to closed source , where not talking about two or three software we are talking about millions if not billions of software who have been switched to closed source. You just have to look at how many company use BSD type software and are not contributing back ( Look at the finance of the BSD projects and who contribute the most code it aint the company making the most profit from it).
The GPL whas not created as an after tought or just another license , it whas created because at a time when the Open Source whas dominating the computer scene there whas already some problem with some license ( the GPL whas created because of the refusal of a MIT/BSD license owner to let someone improve is code to work with newer hardware).
Freedom is when everyone is equal and everyone as the same right , its not having the possibility to take other code add to it and close it to only a select few and remove everyone else rights to use and improve it. The liar say that GPL take software , they offer no example of such a case the GPL software all have been made from scratch and those are the software that they wish to be able to close and be the only one making money from it and remove the right of others to sue it and improve on it as they wish.
Finnaly most of the company working on GNU/Linux and most of the developper come from BSD/MIT , they got screwed and are now working on protecting everyone freedom.
Also which is better ? Having to ask someone to sue there code ? and face a refusal almost everytime ? or having the rights enforced and freedom enforced that once you acquired it ( not even buy it ) that you can use the code as you see fit as long as your giving the same right and freedom you yourself got in the first place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bsd
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bsd_license
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_and_GPL_licensing
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_computer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft
Why are the thief and liar making so much noise ? Thats because we are winning in a big way , it cant be bought and it cant be changed , because its an idea who's time as come.
@+
- Moulinneuf
Member since:
2005-07-18
Member since:2005-07-06
"GPL is communist"
The GPL is Internationnal everyone everywhere use it and are legally able to use it regardles of there politics and income.
"BSD/MIT/X11 are freedom-loving licenses."
Apple , Microsft , ATI , Nvidia , etc , would agree with you. ( its a bad thing but you cant understand why, and no its not because they make money. )
"That's why you have all the socialist fascists"
I guess you dont know the meaning of the words your using :
Communist :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
Fascists :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Nazis :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism
Hate :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate
For me its an Honor to have my name cited in the same group as R.M.S. , I am undeserving of such an honor because of his creation and of his duty and support of free software , unlike me he agree that BSD/MIT are Free Software and I dont , because they can be turned into something else. I know from history that the problem Open Source had where because of the traitor license and I for one dont agree with there certification due to the missing word in the FSF definition "at all time" so that for eternity a software that which is Free software always stay Free software.
If you whant to put me in a catgory do so rightly :
I am A UN citizen , I am an American , I am a Canadian , I am a Quebecer , I speak and write in Both English and French and understand Germans , japanese , Spanish and any other language that have translators at my disposal because everyone as some people who have something of value to say in my eyes.
Have fun calling me names you have no idea of there signification and meanings and continue making personnal attacks with the support of the entire moderator of OSnews who are biased in this discussion anyway.
- Moulinneuf
Member since:
2005-07-18
Wikipedia doesn't mean shit you fascist terrorist. In your fascist head, communism isn't a bad thing and that's why you try and distance yourself from fascism. All communist regimes and communists are fascists. You are sick and twisted. You should do the freedom loving world a favor and kill yourself or move to North Korea.
Member since:2005-07-06
Wikipedia is a reference for people who know Freedom , I aint a fascist , so I dont try to distance myself from it , to say such a stupid comment :
"All communist regimes and communists are fascists."
Ist clearly an example that you obviously dont know what your talking about at all.
"You are sick and twisted. "
Neither , but its fun of you to include them in your description of me , it really show the level at wich all BSD user are willing to stoop in there lies.
"You should do the freedom loving world a favor and kill yourself or move to North Korea."
You are not a represntative or part of the Freedom loving people , your using and defending BSD ...
- Moulinneuf
