Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 16th Jan 2006 19:52 UTC, submitted by anonymous
GNU, GPL, Open Source The Free Software Foundation has published the first draft of the GPL v3, the successor to the most popular open source license. The rationale behind some of the changes are here, while comments are here. Danese Cooper of OSI has posted her comments too. Update: Stallman: "We've partly removed the inconveniences of preventing a user from combining code from various free software packages." More here.
Order by: Score:
I was hoping for more...
by Archite on Mon 16th Jan 2006 21:20 UTC
Archite
Member since:
2006-01-14

I was hoping that the new version of the GPL would include a more BSD-like philosophy in order to help get more open source apps into the business world. Many of my clients are leary of the open source because of the GPL. Don't get me wrong, I love the GPL as well as all apps which are licensed as such but I just wish it were far less restrictive as to what the end user can do. I guess mostly free is good enough ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE: I was hoping for more...
by sappyvcv on Mon 16th Jan 2006 21:37 UTC in reply to "I was hoping for more..."
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Bring on the GPF proponents..

They have a very strict definition of Free. Kind of funny, isn't it?

I like the BSD license as well. It's free for all. You don't have to release the changes you made, because the original source that you modified is of course still available. THAT is freedom. Maybe not the freedom people like, but it is certainly freedom, to the developer. Freedom to do with your product what you wish, since you create it. It is your sweat and blood.

More on topic, will this let you link something that is GPL (like a shared library) without having to GPL your own software?

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: I was hoping for more...
by Archite on Mon 16th Jan 2006 21:44 UTC in reply to "RE: I was hoping for more..."
Archite Member since:
2006-01-14

It actually clarifies that both in the draft and the review...

And yes, I guess I too have a developer's view on free and not and end user's.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: I was hoping for more...
by Morty on Tue 17th Jan 2006 00:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I was hoping for more..."
Morty Member since:
2005-07-06

I guess I too have a developer's view on free and not and end user's.

And that's where the misunderstanding lie with the GPL, the GPL is about freedom for the end user. It's a license for end users. It all boils down to empowering the end user and giving him/her rights to the software. It's guarantied to give the end user the rights to redistribute or make modifications to the software. If the end user also are a developer, he/she can do the modifications, or get it done by paying someone to make it. But those rights can't be taken away.

While a BSD license on the other hand are a developer license, giving the developer rights to do what he/she sees fit with the code. Even closing it up.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: I was hoping for more...
by oxygene on Mon 16th Jan 2006 21:59 UTC in reply to "RE: I was hoping for more..."
oxygene Member since:
2005-07-07

"Freedom to do with your product what you wish, since you create it. It is your sweat and blood." - eg. to apply a different license than the GPL to it.

the only case where you're forced to use the GPL is if you include other people's GPL'd code - in which case it's not "your product", "your sweat and blood" anymore, at least not exclusively.

it really is that simple.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: I was hoping for more...
by sappyvcv on Mon 16th Jan 2006 23:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I was hoping for more..."
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

I know that. Did I say any different? My beef is with the license itself requiring you to make available any modifications OR your own source if you use any GPL code in yours. Even if its one small part. So yes, it CAN be your sweat and blood.

With BSD, you still have to give credit to whoever wrote the source you used, just don't have to make the source available. That's fair.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: I was hoping for more...
by thebluesgnr on Mon 16th Jan 2006 23:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I was hoping for more..."
thebluesgnr Member since:
2005-11-14

"I know that. Did I say any different? My beef is with the license itself requiring you to make available any modifications OR your own source if you use any GPL code in yours. Even if its one small part. So yes, it CAN be your sweat and blood. "

If you're using someone elses "sweat and blood" you have to respect the license. If it's *only* your own work then you don't have to care about the GPL.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: I was hoping for more...
by Deletomn on Mon 16th Jan 2006 23:54 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I was hoping for more..."
Deletomn Member since:
2005-07-06

(Added this quote from the previous post.)
thebluesgnr: If you're using someone elses "sweat and blood" you have to respect the license. If it's *only* your own work then you don't have to care about the GPL.

I think he's talking about a situation where say 99.9% of the code was developed by someone who doesn't want to make their software "free". And that the last say 0.1% was taken from a project that falls under the GPL.

If the two pieces of code are linked together in the manner specified in the GPL, then the whole falls under the GPL, despite the fact that the VAST majority was written by someone who does not want to make their software "free".

This is what he has a problem with. I understand this myself, however, all I can say is that the developers of said program, should at that point attempt to find another option rather than using that GPL'd code. Another possibility is to offer the author some money in exchange for a different license. (This is in fact possible.)

Since it is only a small percentage of the code I would like to think that the developers have the ability to resolve this issue.

Edited 2006-01-17 00:07

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: I was hoping for more...
by manmist on Tue 17th Jan 2006 00:06 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: I was hoping for more..."
manmist Member since:
2005-12-18

"I think he's talking about a situation where say 99.9% of the code was developed by someone who doesn't want to make their software "free". And that the last say 0.1% was taken from a project that falls under the GPL.
"


Why not rewrite that tiny weeny 1% GPL code if you want to keep your product proprietary?. This complaint seem very very weak to me.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: I was hoping for more...
by Deletomn on Tue 17th Jan 2006 00:14 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: I was hoping for more..."
Deletomn Member since:
2005-07-06

manmist: Why not rewrite that tiny weeny 1% GPL code if you want to keep your product proprietary?. This complaint seem very very weak to me.

Yes, you can possibly do that. The problem is that it may be a piece of software that the developers of the larger program may be completely unfamiliar with other than how to use it.

An example of this would be some assembly code for say an operating system. The makers of the new operating system may know how to do everything but what that piece of assembly does. They also may not know assembly for that particular processor and they may not have access to the documentation for the assembly language for that processor. Etc... As a result they may be at this time pretty well stuck.

Of course... As I said before... I would think if they got that far they could find a way to resolve it. I mean really... If you have everything but that... And you know what the problem is (and they should know that) then given a little bit of time, yes, I would think they could find a solution. For example, acquire the documentation for the assembly language for that processor and teach yourself how to do it, then replace that code.

Reply Score: 1

RE[8]: I was hoping for more...
by sappyvcv on Tue 17th Jan 2006 00:36 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: I was hoping for more..."
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Because it's usually better to reuse existing code ;)

The only problem I really have with the GPL is the whole linking thing making you have to GPL your code too. That, in my opinion, really hurts it.

Reply Score: 2

glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

And that the last say 0.1% was taken from a project that falls under the GPL.

And you would jump through how many and what kind of hoops in order to keep from having to implement that 0.1% of the code base yourself (or hire someone to do it) rather than license the resulting product under the GPL? Are GPL coders so advanced that being unable to match their accomplishments becomes a stopping point? Or are they just regular coders like most anyone else?

I suspect you may be a better coder than you give yourself credit for. Even if not you still have other options.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: I was hoping for more...
by seguso on Tue 17th Jan 2006 14:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I was hoping for more..."
seguso Member since:
2005-06-29

My beef is with the license itself requiring you to make available any modifications OR your own source if you use any GPL code in yours. Even if its one small part.

If you want to use the small piece of GPL code, and you don't want to comply with the GPL, you could buy another license from the author.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: I was hoping for more...
by trevor on Wed 18th Jan 2006 19:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I was hoping for more..."
trevor Member since:
2005-07-06

My beef is with the license itself requiring you to make available any modifications OR your own source if you use any GPL code in yours. Even if its one small part.

That is actually very wrong. You only have to distribute your changes if you distribute the binaries with the changes you made. You are free to make all the changes you want and never give them to anybody.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: I was hoping for more...
by Celerate on Mon 16th Jan 2006 22:34 UTC in reply to "RE: I was hoping for more..."
Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

"You don't have to release the changes you made..."

"Freedom to do with your product what you wish, since you create it. It is your sweat and blood. "

Wikipedia states something very similar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_and_GPL_licensing
"it does not expressly require that users who extend BSD-licensed software must openly release their modifications"

The BSD license raises some concerns. I would much rather have my "blood and sweat" be worthwhile by avoiding putting my software under such a license that someone could take my code, tweak it and make minor improvements to make it more attractive, keep all changes to himself and rake in a profit while I get nothing. If I put in the majority of the work, the actions of the other guy in my hypothetical example would amount to nothing less than theft in my eyes, whether I was planning to make a profit off my work or not. With the GPL I have a better chance of keeping my benevolent work from becomming some thief's source of income, and with a proprietary license I can keep my source code where only I can get to it.

That's not to say that the BSD license doesn't have a place, I'm sure it's very usefull if you want your code to be commercially viable as part of closed source software. I just don't think I could be persuaded to use it. My code is either GPL or proprietary, nothing in the middle.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: I was hoping for more...
by bytecoder on Mon 16th Jan 2006 22:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I was hoping for more..."
bytecoder Member since:
2005-11-27


The BSD license raises some concerns. I would much rather have my "blood and sweat" be worthwhile by avoiding putting my software under such a license that someone could take my code, tweak it and make minor improvements to make it more attractive, keep all changes to himself and rake in a profit while I get nothing. If I put in the majority of the work, the actions of the other guy in my hypothetical example would amount to nothing less than theft in my eyes, whether I was planning to make a profit off my work or not. With the GPL I have a better chance of keeping my benevolent work from becomming some thief's source of income, and with a proprietary license I can keep my source code where only I can get to it.

See, this seems somewhat selfish to me. So what if someone else makes money off of your work? If the whole point of releasing your code as open source is to help the community, then that shouldn't matter. If the person that used your code made money off of it, it's likely because they added something above the free version, which helps the community. People still have the option to go back to the open source version if someone decides not to open source a derivative, anyway. Of course, this is just my opinion.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: I was hoping for more...
by Almindor on Mon 16th Jan 2006 23:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I was hoping for more..."
Almindor Member since:
2006-01-16

No actualy your view is narrowminded (don't take it personaly).

Let me make an example.

You make an OS. It's a great OS technologicly. It's the next best thing after sliced bread, technologicly. It's something IBM would pay billions for(or MS). You opensource it naivly under a BSD license. However your OS is not polished. Actualy it's user interface sucks. But technologicly it's grand. Then comes in MS or some other nifty "want it all" company. They make your OS better.. in a way. They "close" their new parts. Add parts which make it restricted and most importantly they make it polished and stupid-proof. (if you like.. user-friendly)

They sell this OS.

What happens? What's wrong with that?

Let's forget the personal injustice part. MS never says who made it originaly (they didn't with DOS either) but that's not the problem from community POV.

The problem is that you are going to get frustrated and forgotten. People won't care for your OS anymore, they can buy this new cool stuff which "surely one simple person cannot make" for xx$. Sure, you might stay opena dn active. But more probably you will die and your software will get lost.

This is what GPL protects from. It protects the community from it's own stupidity.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: I was hoping for more...
by Get a Life on Mon 16th Jan 2006 23:46 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I was hoping for more..."
Get a Life Member since:
2006-01-01

That sounds a little similar to the Mach project at CMU, and the poaching of code from FreeBSD and NetBSD for Darwin. I doubt Avie Tevanian or Richard Rashid spend their days lamenting the licensing of Mach. Perhaps Jordan Hubbard frets over the mistakes of FreeBSD's licensing, and he simply hides it deep within an exterior image of enjoying working for Apple. If I could read your comment I might be able to respond more sensibly, but I really don't understand what you're saying.

People shouldn't expect those that want to use the GPL to use a hypothetical GPL that is more like a MIT/BSD license. If they wanted to release their code like that, they could do so already. The FSF and that group of people have a clear idea of what they want to sprout from their sort of free software. However the GPL doesn't protect the "community" from its own stupidity. It simply promotes its own ideology.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: I was hoping for more...
by Deletomn on Tue 17th Jan 2006 00:04 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I was hoping for more..."
Deletomn Member since:
2005-07-06

Almindor: You make an OS. It's a great OS technologicly. It's the next best thing after sliced bread, technologicly. It's something IBM would pay billions for(or MS). You opensource it naivly under a BSD license.

Not everything is about MS and similar companies.

If you opensource a program under the GPL a company could modify the software and use it inhouse to produce loads money. In fact, the whole company could be essentially built on your software (and whatever "small" thing they add) and yet, you'd never see a dime nor the modifications (if there are any). Is that any better?


Almindor: But technologicly it's grand. Then comes in MS or some other nifty "want it all" company. They make your OS better.. in a way. They "close" their new parts. Add parts which make it restricted and most importantly they make it polished and stupid-proof. (if you like.. user-friendly)

The old stuff is still there. Period.

It isn't going to vanish off the face of the earth. The people who developed it aren't going to vanish either. If the project is still active it has a very strong chance for survival. It only needs to worry if the community isn't doing well, in which case, the company has probably done them a favor by reviving the project, it may not be in the same spirit as it was before... But it is revived in some ways and the code goes on.

Also... Some people don't like non-free software (be it cost or freedom we are talking about. It doesn't matter in this context, either way there are those who don't like it) these people will be your users if nothing else. And with the additional attention brought by the company, you might actually get more contributors. This might happen even if they don't mention you simply because some people will attempt to track it down and once one has tracked it down, he/she will mention it to others who are interested.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: I was hoping for more...
by Almindor on Tue 17th Jan 2006 10:04 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: I was hoping for more..."
Almindor Member since:
2006-01-16

"Not everything is about MS and similar companies."

Please. I was making an example.


"If you opensource a program under the GPL a company could modify the software and use it inhouse to produce loads money. In fact, the whole company could be essentially built on your software (and whatever "small" thing they add) and yet, you'd never see a dime nor the modifications (if there are any). Is that any better?"

Ofcourse it is. You don't KNOW it. That's the personal part. Another thing why it doesn't matter if they do that is because it's inhouse, it can't ruin your userbase (get them over to their version by making it polished).

"The old stuff is still there. Period."

Wrong. It's going to vanish because everyone will use the grand new commercial OS which is "so much better" from the masses POV.

Would you be active if something like that happened to you? I seriously doubt that. And yes even source can vanish, except if it's on sourceforge (which is like a cemetery of failure hehe) but even that can fail eventualy.

I've seen some opensource projects die AND vanish.

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: I was hoping for more...
by Deletomn on Tue 17th Jan 2006 16:43 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: I was hoping for more..."
Deletomn Member since:
2005-07-06

Almindor: Would you be active if something like that happened to you?

If I was still active to start with and I felt we were still making progress, yes.

This is the key thing you don't seem to understand, it is not the closed-source company that will kill it. It's the community.

If what you said was actually true, then many free software projects would not be where they are today, because there were/are better closed source projects available for sale.

People work on these projects for a number reasons. Maybe they don't have the money for the closed source program, maybe they believe it costs too much for other people, maybe they are interested in the free software definition of "freedom", maybe they simply wanted to make that program for no other reasons whatsoever, maybe the prepackaged versions don't do things exactly as they would like, and so on...

Most of these reasons will (generally) remain unaffected. But there is one reason that will almost always remain unaffected, which I did not list yet... Because it is your project and to let it be beaten by another would be unthinkable.

Are there dead projects? Of course. But the dead projects from what I recall have all sorts of different licenses. That includes the GPL. If that is the case, then what you said still isn't true, because the GPL license was no defense.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: I was hoping for more...
by Brad on Tue 17th Jan 2006 03:59 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I was hoping for more..."
Brad Member since:
2005-07-06

There is nothing wrong with that at all.

First, they have to acknowledge the use of your code if you used a BSD type license.

But in the end, they did just what people would dream could happen. Its not a bad thing, it's an extremely good outcome.

Now if it was GPL'd, companies wouldn't touch it, and your work would never go anywhere.

Having some company take your work, embrace it and extend it is one of the most gratifying thing that could happen.

You sound like you have some massive ego complex if you don't think your described outcome is good. No one will ever know of your work if no company embraces it. It will just sit on source-forge and no one cares. Also, its not like many people know who created any project. Not many people know of linux (talking about the mass populous here, not geekdom) And even if someone knows of linux, they probably won't know of Linus. (believe me, I know people this is the case). So what has the GPL solved there?

Freedom is putting something out there and letting it go to be able to be used where ever. The GPL is in no way freedom. Freedom doesn't come with a massive documents of "catches"

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: I was hoping for more...
by Almindor on Tue 17th Jan 2006 10:13 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: I was hoping for more..."
Almindor Member since:
2006-01-16

Freedom is the ability to do whatever you chose as long as you don't impede other persons freedom.

You are right to an extent but I was not showing you the "good kind of company".

There IS NO GOOD COMPANY. All companies are inheritedly evil. Like it or not all they want is profit and they will go to whatever ends possible to achieve that goal.
No loyalty, no gratitude, no solidarity.

There are many non-embraced FSF and OSS projects out there which can dwarf commercial software in their league.

My point was showing you how a smart move on an otherwise high-quality piece of software can kill the opensource original and basicly "close" it under the guise of polish and "support".

The evil here is that the product becomes closed source and in the end noone will even remember it was open.

Think Darwin/OSX. Look at errno.h in /usr/include. They slabbed their (Apple) copyright on an empty file which subsequently includes the BSD errno.h (which has all the work in it). It's all ok, nothing against the law or any license. On the other hand.. everyone thinks apple made it now.

That's the analogy

Edited 2006-01-17 10:15

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: I was hoping for more...
by Archite on Tue 17th Jan 2006 06:04 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I was hoping for more..."
Archite Member since:
2006-01-14

Yes, I guess that this is the case with OpenSSH? Or maybe it's the case with Mozilla? The idea between these licenses is that one wants to make them completely free in the sense that the end use can do anything they want with them. This is a far superior model, I believe.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: I was hoping for more...
by Lobotomik on Tue 17th Jan 2006 11:35 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I was hoping for more..."
Lobotomik Member since:
2006-01-03

> They "close" their new parts. Add parts which make it
> restricted and most importantly they make it polished
> and stupid-proof.

And, as it is happening today, they add slight changes to some formats and silently obtain a patent on these changes; then they use their market clout to impose the new format. When the new format is everywhere, they enforce the patent and thus permanently hijack the work of others.

Meanwhile, they whine about piracy.

Edited 2006-01-17 11:37

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: I was hoping for more...
by thebluesgnr on Mon 16th Jan 2006 23:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I was hoping for more..."
thebluesgnr Member since:
2005-11-14

The point of releasing code as free software, according to the FSF, is that software should be free. That's why the GPL exists.

The GPL is not a good license to use if you don't think all software should be free, that is, if you believe some software should restrict what people can do with them. If you believe that then GPL licensed software is not for you, and it never will be.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: I was hoping for more...
by Celerate on Tue 17th Jan 2006 00:52 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I was hoping for more..."
Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

If you don't care about income then the BSD license is fine. But if you're writing software to genrate income and you license it under the BSD license you run the risk of some greedy people comming across your work, taking the source code, improving it just enough to get a marketing edge, and then underselling you because the cost of production for them was much cheaper.

What about people modifying your software, revamping the icons and other asthetics, and then releasing it full of spyware and adware. This happens to GPLed software too, but at least there you have legal grounds to sue if the changes aren't released under the GPL license and you really care enough to pay for a lawyer. For that matter the malware would be a lot easier to remove it if was GPLed.

If you think people wouldn't do stuff like this you need to get in touch with reality again.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: I was hoping for more...
by bytecoder on Tue 17th Jan 2006 02:06 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I was hoping for more..."
bytecoder Member since:
2005-11-27


If you don't care about income then the BSD license is fine. But if you're writing software to genrate income and you license it under the BSD license you run the risk of some greedy people comming across your work, taking the source code, improving it just enough to get a marketing edge, and then underselling you because the cost of production for them was much cheaper.

Well, I don't know about you, but it sounds like if you want to make money selling software, any open source license is probably unsuitable.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: I was hoping for more...
by manmist on Tue 17th Jan 2006 02:46 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: I was hoping for more..."
manmist Member since:
2005-12-18

"
Well, I don't know about you, but it sounds like if you want to make money selling software, any open source license is probably unsuitable."

Just tell Red Hat or even IBM and Sun that. They combine together make billions of dollars every year.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: I was hoping for more...
by Deletomn on Tue 17th Jan 2006 03:13 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: I was hoping for more..."
Deletomn Member since:
2005-07-06

bytecoder: Well, I don't know about you, but it sounds like if you want to make money selling software, any open source license is probably unsuitable.

manmist: Just tell Red Hat or even IBM and Sun that. They combine together make billions of dollars every year.

Well... It depends on the "whole business strategy", but generally... Selling software does not work for open source licenses.

What you sell instead is something to go with the software. Books, training, hardware, support, a different license from the GPL for your software, etc... Meanwhile, the software is given away in order to get your name out, to allow people to try out your software and see if they like it, try to build a community around your software and so on... Then you sell the other stuff to them that they will (hopefully) need.

In short... I would describe open sourcing your software as advertising on steroids for your business. Like all advertising it costs you, but if you do it PROPERLY it should make you money. And like all things, it may not be appropriate for your business.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: I was hoping for more...
by Brad on Tue 17th Jan 2006 04:06 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: I was hoping for more..."
Brad Member since:
2005-07-06

IBM make money from the hardware linux is on, not on linux, and they would sell it just the same without linux.

Redhat makes it on service helping people try to figure out the software. And I doubt they make as much money as IBM.

Find a company that makes money (stays profitable) straight up from Linux, no hardware, no support fees, just pure selling Linux installs.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: I was hoping for more...
by Celerate on Tue 17th Jan 2006 04:09 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: I was hoping for more..."
Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

"Well, I don't know about you, but it sounds like if you want to make money selling software, any open source license is probably unsuitable."

I can't argue with that, you may need to emphasize the "selling software" part for those who misunderstood though :-) .

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: I was hoping for more...
by ma_d on Tue 17th Jan 2006 00:43 UTC in reply to "RE: I was hoping for more..."
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

The US Copyright system already provides freedom for the developer.
And, the idea of public domain provides absolute freedom in this manner.

I don't know why one would think that RMS or anyone who works for him would turn the GPL into a BSD knock-off license. He didn't want to deal with BSD software when he wrote GNU because of its "dealings" with commercial software; specifically commercial interests claiming that some things shouldn't have been givin' away.

I suppose RMS has a more complex ideal of freedom than most people seem to agree can be called freedom.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: I was hoping for more...
by sappyvcv on Tue 17th Jan 2006 01:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I was hoping for more..."
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't think the GPL should be turned into a BSD knock-off, but at least make that one clause with linking more lax. That's all.

My problem is also with the GPL proponents who say BSD isn't free. Or is it "Free"?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: I was hoping for more...
by Wrawrat on Tue 17th Jan 2006 16:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I was hoping for more..."
Wrawrat Member since:
2005-06-30

Isn't what the LGPL is doing? It is mainly used for libraries, but you can use it for your software.

Personally, I believe it's fair to release any modifications you have made to an open-source file with such restrictions. However, it's a bit demanding to change your licence because of this.

Reply Score: 1

RE: I was hoping for more...
by pinky on Mon 16th Jan 2006 22:09 UTC in reply to "I was hoping for more..."
pinky Member since:
2005-07-15

>I was hoping that the new version of the GPL would include a more BSD-like philosophy

sorry, but i think mostly everyone could have tell you that you don't have to dream and wait. That will never happen.

The FSF philosophy is freedmom for everyone and not freedmom for a few. I'm happy that the FSF and Free Software licenses with Copyleft effect exists.

For me the GPLv3 looks really good. Maybe some parts can get a little bit "polished" during the discussion phase. But at the end it's the result of the great work which i used to from the worldwide network of the Free Software Foundations.

Edited 2006-01-16 22:11

Reply Score: 1

RE: I was hoping for more...
by dagw on Mon 16th Jan 2006 22:38 UTC in reply to "I was hoping for more..."
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

There are a number of licenses which are BSD-like. If that's what you want use one of those. I personally think the GPL should stay GPL-like for those time when you actually want those features. Sometimes a project calls for a BSD license, somtimes for a GPL. They both serve a purpose and making one more like the other would destory this purpose.

Reply Score: 3

RE: I was hoping for more...
by unoengborg on Mon 16th Jan 2006 23:03 UTC in reply to "I was hoping for more..."
unoengborg Member since:
2005-07-06

I presume that you by business friendly, mean freindly to companies that want to include free software into closed source product without paying or in other way recognize the developers that made it.

It is only that this type of business is a minority in the software development field. Only about 1/3 of the money spent on software is spent on this type of software The majority of the money in the market is spent on in house, development and consulting services.

To the latter groups GPL is not really a problem, as their business model is not about selling a secret but to provide a service.

What about the busines friendlyness to busineses that provide other things than software. By using free building blocks to streamlines their busines processes it makes it easier for them to stay competitive.

Another thing, the most significant property of closed source software is that it can be installed in many places without much customization. This means that it can be manefactuered anywhere in the world, and we can expect that development of this type of software will move to low cost countries.

Services on the other hand, is much harder to move. So, unless you like a future in India, licences that encurrages cooperation in building a low cost infrastructure is a good thing.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: I was hoping for more...
by sappyvcv on Mon 16th Jan 2006 23:06 UTC in reply to "RE: I was hoping for more..."
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Without recognizing? Last time I checked, using any source under aBSD license requires you to acknowledge the original author in your software.

Reply Score: 1

RE: I was hoping for more...
by zerblat on Tue 17th Jan 2006 12:37 UTC in reply to "I was hoping for more..."
zerblat Member since:
2005-07-06

I just wish it were far less restrictive as to what the end user can do.

The GPL doesn't impose any restrictions on end users at all. It only restricts distribution.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: I was hoping for more...
by Archite on Tue 17th Jan 2006 13:31 UTC in reply to "RE: I was hoping for more..."
Archite Member since:
2006-01-14

I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. What I meant to say was what someone can do with the code. Basically, if the code is free, I should be able to do anything that I like with it without restrictions. The GPL precludes that. The GPL's restrictions ensure that any modifications can be brought back into the code base. Although this approach is great for many projects out there, it is not always the best solution for business.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: I was hoping for more...
by Ookaze on Tue 17th Jan 2006 14:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I was hoping for more..."
Ookaze Member since:
2005-11-14

Basically, if the code is free, I should be able to do anything that I like with it without restrictions. The GPL precludes that

Wrong, the GPL does not preclude that. You can do anything you like with the code without restrictions as long as it remains free. RESTRICTION is the key here. You cannot put restrictions on the code if you want to distribute it with your modifications. Making the code closed is one such restriction.

The GPL's restrictions ensure that any modifications can be brought back into the code base

What is this BS about restrictions in the GPL ? GPL does not put restrictions on you, it gives you rights. Copyright is what put restrictions on you. GPL gives you right if you follow the contract.

Although this approach is great for many projects out there, it is not always the best solution for business

Try talking about the same thing in the same sentence : projects is not equal to business.
And nobody says GPL is always great for business, that still is not a valid reason to :
- transform GPL into BSD license
- say that GPL is not free
- not use the GPL, especially when you are not a business

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: I was hoping for more...
by Archite on Tue 17th Jan 2006 16:15 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I was hoping for more..."
Archite Member since:
2006-01-14

GPL is free in use and code, of course, but it does preclude me from doing anything that I want with it. Bascially, if something is free, I should be able to do whatever I would like.

Also, I would like to say thank your for re-affirming my previous statement. I say that GPL is free with restricitons and you respond "GPL give you right if you follow the contract."

Please do not misunderstand me, I do believe the GPL has it's place and I have great respect for all GPL'd software but for developing free software as well as for the needs of my clients, we use BSD/MIT style software whenever posssible.

I'm sorry if I have offended you in some way. Obvioulsy there are GPL zealots out there, just as there are BSD/MIT zealots. It's a matter of perspective and philosophy. If want wants to guarantee that a program's source remains free, then license it under GPL; if one wishes for the code to be used freely for any use, even commercial, one licences it BSD/MIT like.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: I was hoping for more...
by seguso on Tue 17th Jan 2006 16:24 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I was hoping for more..."
seguso Member since:
2005-06-29

Basically, if something is free, I should be able to do whatever I would like.

C'mon... just because a beer is free, it doesn't mean you can crash it on the head of the bartender.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: I was hoping for more...
by Archite on Tue 17th Jan 2006 16:29 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: I was hoping for more..."
Archite Member since:
2006-01-14

True, but the bartender doesn't hand you the beer and say that you can't drink it, only give it away as he just did...

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: I was hoping for more...
by Deletomn on Tue 17th Jan 2006 17:12 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: I was hoping for more..."
Deletomn Member since:
2005-07-06

seguso: C'mon... just because a beer is free, it doesn't mean you can crash it on the head of the bartender.

Archite: True, but the bartender doesn't hand you the beer and say that you can't drink it, only give it away as he just did...

The GPL doesn't do either of these things (if it was applied to beer). It would require the bartender to supply the recipe to the buyer and then require the buyer to supply the recipe to his/her buyer along with all modifications, should he/she choose to give/sell it to someone else. In addition, the buyer (no matter where he/she is in the chain) would have the right to drink (use) the beer, or to pour (copy) part of it out into another glass (or some other container).

The GPL does not require you to not charge for the software and in many ways it also doesn't care what you do with it. You could for, example, use Linux to run the OS on a tank and go wreck Linus' house.

Whether you wish to "sell" the beer or software is up to you and not the subject of the GPL. Should you use the software in a manner that causes death and destruction that is not the subject of the GPL either, that falls under your local laws and as a result does not need to be covered by the GPL.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: I was hoping for more...
by Ookaze on Tue 17th Jan 2006 17:38 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I was hoping for more..."
Ookaze Member since:
2005-11-14

The basic problem with what you say, is precisely this : "free" == "I should be able to do whatever I would like".

If you believe this and all your complaint about the GPL is if it's free or not, so be it. No problem about that.
Just don't come and annoy people saying philosophic things like "GPL is not free". Well, we don't care then, what's important is that it protects our code exactly like we intended it to.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: I was hoping for more...
by Archite on Wed 18th Jan 2006 02:50 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: I was hoping for more..."
Archite Member since:
2006-01-14

My intent was not to bash the GPL. I actually just made a comment based on where I believed that the GPL was going to go. People tend to get somewhat anal-retentive when one slights something they believe in. That was not my intent.

Reply Score: 1

Ant-GPL Hypocrites!
by bornagainenguin on Tue 17th Jan 2006 00:53 UTC
bornagainenguin
Member since:
2005-08-07

I've always found it odd that the people who sling mud at the GPL always praise or offer the BSDL as an alternative more in tune with what they want, while claiming the GPL users are selfish, hurting businesses\stealing programmers' jobs ect....

Hello?

The GPL has always been about ensuring the programmer can improve his or her programs and others can continue to do so long after the original programmer has lost interest. The only requirement is that you must share and share alike. No one gets to use a GPL'd bit of code to make something nice and run off without sharing back what he did so the original programmer can learn from it and add their own twist to thing s creating a cycle of constantly improving programs.

BSDL means that anyone can take whatever they want with or without changes and call it theirs, closing it off for the purpose of selling it and no one-- not even the original developer-- gets a say in anything or a dime for their work.

And they say the GPL is selfish? The GPL is what steals programmers' jobs? The nerve of these people! We should switch to the BSDL because the GPL hurts businesses? Utter hogwash! Complete bullshit!

Here's the clue...

GPL = businesses have to share what programmers freely develop.

BSDL = business do NOT have to share what programers freely develop.

Both cases have programmers sharing freely what they freely created but only in one case must the businesses give back.

Think about it.

--bornagainpenguin

Edited 2006-01-17 00:55

Reply Score: 1

RE: Ant-GPL Hypocrites!
by Deletomn on Tue 17th Jan 2006 03:05 UTC in reply to "Ant-GPL Hypocrites!"
Deletomn Member since:
2005-07-06

bornagainenguin: GPL = businesses have to share what programmers freely develop.

You are actually wrong about the GPL license.

It does NOT require people to share what they wrote. In fact, this is precisely why SOME people love it.

It requires companies like Microsoft (for example) to share, but companies that use the software entirely inhouse (for example) do not have to share. (There are some others that would have to share, as well as some others that don't.)

In fact, this is one of the reasons that some OTHER people don't like it. They believe it puts an unfair emphasis on software companies like Microsoft (for example), while other people can do whatever they jolly well please with it.

To some people... It appears as if supporters of the GPL want the whole "retail software industry" to be punished (or even outright destroyed), along with a few others who do some similar things with software, because a few companies decided to do a number of things that are unpopular and managed to make a lot of money while doing it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Ant-GPL Hypocrites!
by bornagainenguin on Tue 17th Jan 2006 13:05 UTC in reply to "RE: Ant-GPL Hypocrites!"
bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

To some people... It appears as if supporters of the GPL want the whole "retail software industry" to be punished (or even outright destroyed), along with a few others who do some similar things with software, because a few companies decided to do a number of things that are unpopular and managed to make a lot of money while doing it.

I understand what you're saying and you're right in saying that the GPL doesn't care if the code is used internally, only if it is intended for commercial use. Yet you somehow manage to side step my entire point here. It is absolutely hypocritical for people to attack the GPL and then hold up the BSDL (or the MITL) as their preferred alternative as being somehow better or less selfish. It is absolutely the worst kind of hypocrisy to run around bemoaning that the GPL 'costs programmers' jobs!!1111' like we've seen posted on OSNews.com before. Especially when regardless of license you're talking about someone sitting down and using his or her talents to write code that will be given away to the community.

The only appreciable difference in each license's use is that at the end of the day the GPL user knows he'll be getting back feedback in the form of bugfixes and and improvements via patches. The BSDL user may get credit for writing the original code but there's no guarantee that he'll be informed that his code was used and there's no way for the BSDL user to know how much of their original code was used or added to or really if anything was changed at all before someone started to claim ownership of something he or she may have sweated long hours over. The GPL user knows where his code is (or should at any rate if people follow the license) the BSDL user doesn't have a clue where his code is.

Maybe a good way to say it is GPL users care more? ;P A joke! a joke I tell you! ^o~

Okay, let's try this: It's 9:00pm, do you know where your code is? ;P

--bornagainpenguin

Edited 2006-01-17 13:10

Reply Score: 0

DRM restrictions bad news
by jonsmirl on Tue 17th Jan 2006 00:55 UTC
jonsmirl
Member since:
2005-07-06

There goes 90% of the embedded market off to BSD and WinCE. Forcing the publishing of DRM keys will only cause embedded vendors to switch OS'es; it's not going to make them publish the keys. If something like MS WMA is involved they don't even have the keys to publish.

Extending the reach of the GPL is just going to cause more companies to switch OS'es. DRM is being pushed by forces that are more powerful than the GPL and the DRM people will win. Of course I'm not going to buy any DRM protected content so maybe that will send a message.

If they try the online use counts as a distribution tacit, what will Google do? 1) release all of their source 2) Stop accepting GPL3 updates to their software and build internal forks of everything on the GPL2 base 3) throw the entire GPL pile in the trash and switch to BSD.

Extending the reach changes the rules that a lot of current businesses are built on.

Reply Score: 3

RE: DRM restrictions bad news
by Wes Felter on Tue 17th Jan 2006 04:03 UTC in reply to "DRM restrictions bad news"
Wes Felter Member since:
2005-11-15

GPLv3 isn't intended to stop DRM completely, just to increase costs for companies that build DRM by denying them access to certain software. Presumably consumer electronics companies are using Linux today because it's the best fit for their needs; if those companies are forced to switch to BSD or WinCE their costs will increase.

Anyway, Linux won't be under GPLv3 and any GPL'ed software that exists today will continue to be available under GPLv2 terms forever.

Reply Score: 2

RE: DRM restrictions bad news
by dagw on Tue 17th Jan 2006 14:08 UTC in reply to "DRM restrictions bad news"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

Switch from what OS? There are no OS's under GPL3. I assume you are talking about Linux, but Linux is GPL2 and is going to stay that way.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: DRM restrictions bad news
by jonsmirl on Tue 17th Jan 2006 14:43 UTC in reply to "RE: DRM restrictions bad news"
jonsmirl Member since:
2005-07-06

Is everyone certain that Linux is going to stay GPL2? Of course the released versions will stay that way, but what's to stop all of the future changes being tagged GPL3, thus converting future releases of Linux to GPL3.

BTW, the part about Google refers to a proposed addition to the GPL3 which is not in the current draft. The proposed addition wants to consider online interaction with software as distribution therefore triggering the right to obtain source.

Reply Score: 1

BSD vs GPL
by Milo_Hoffman on Tue 17th Jan 2006 02:08 UTC
Milo_Hoffman
Member since:
2005-07-06

The fact is there is a reason why Linux is so more popular than the BSD's.

Its the license stupid. The simple fact is that more developers like the GPL and the way the GPL works compared to the BSD license for their work.

The GPL simply attracts more people to be willing to give their time,money and sweat to the community than the BSD, which many open source developers consider a "license-to-steal".

If the BSD was so great then it would attract more developer support than GPL projects, but it doesn't and as a open source developer I know exactly why because thats exactly how I feel about it.

The proof is in the numbers, some people (who want to make money off of others work) may not like it but they are going to have to get over it or hit the road and go write their own software.

Linux is so popluar and has such a large community BECAUSE of the GPL, without it then SOooo many things would have never been implemented or contributed by other people and companies and it would never have had as large a community as it does today. BSD licenses are more attractive to lazy commerical programmers, but much less attractive to actual open source programmers.

It really IS as simple as that.

Edited 2006-01-17 02:15

Reply Score: 4

RE: BSD vs GPL
by bornagainenguin on Tue 17th Jan 2006 02:28 UTC in reply to "BSD vs GPL"
bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

I'm glad that someone else can see it too!

That said I'm not saying the BSDL is 'bad' just that the BSDL does not protect the freedom to share; it protects the freedom to take. The GPL is what protects the freedom to share.

--bornagainpenguin

Reply Score: 1

RE: BSD vs GPL
by CodeMonkey on Sat 21st Jan 2006 22:20 UTC in reply to "BSD vs GPL"
CodeMonkey Member since:
2005-09-22

I would venture to say that Linux's overwhelming popularity over BSD has much less to do with the GPL and much more to do with AT&T. Around Linux's birth in the early 90's, Berkeley released Net/2, an almost entirely complete BSD operating system. Immediately after which AT&T entered into a lawsuit over copyright and IP infringement. Since Net/2 was the basis for 386BSD, an open BSD based OS for the 386 platform, this project was put on hold until the descrepencies had been settled. Since this situation coincided with the early beginnings of Linux, would-be BSD supporters steered clear of the legal issues and put their support behing Linux instead. After the dispute was settled and BSD on the 386 platformed resumed development and distribution, BSD had already lost important ground to Linux and have been fighting an uphill battle ever since.

This I believe is the primary reason of Linux's success compared to that of BSD.

Reply Score: 1

RE[9]: I was hoping for more...
by archiesteel on Tue 17th Jan 2006 03:18 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

The only problem I really have with the GPL is the whole linking thing making you have to GPL your code too. That, in my opinion, really hurts it.

That's why libraries are almost invariably LGPL or BSD.

It's not "one license above all", you know. Use what you want for your projects, respect the choice of others. If the GPL was bad, no one would use it...and yet it's one of the most popular licenses!

Saying that the GLP should become more BSD-like doesn't make sense. There is already the BSD license, why would you make another one?

The more I read about it, the more I find that the anti-GPL position is not based on rational arguments. It's about choice, people!

Reply Score: 1

RE[10]: I was hoping for more...
by sappyvcv on Tue 17th Jan 2006 03:29 UTC in reply to "RE[9]: I was hoping for more..."
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Because then it wouldn't have that whole "stays open-source" thing going for it ;)

There are still libraries that use GPL, and I think it's a shame that the ones out there that use GPL choose to do so.

Reply Score: 0

RE: DRM restrictions bad news
by archiesteel on Tue 17th Jan 2006 03:27 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

Extending the reach of the GPL is just going to cause more companies to switch OS'es.

Why? Linux is released under GPLv2 and it is unlikely that it will switch licenses.

If they try the online use counts as a distribution tacit, what will Google do? 1) release all of their source 2) Stop accepting GPL3 updates to their software and build internal forks of everything on the GPL2 base 3) throw the entire GPL pile in the trash and switch to BSD.

I don't think you understand the new provisions of the GPLv3. It would not force Google to do anything - in any case, the GPL software they already use is unlikely to get relicensed.

As for 3), well, that just doesn't make any sense. It'd be easier to just fork GPL2 apps and libs than try to find BSD equivalents.

Seems to me that most critics here should learn more about how licenses work...

Reply Score: 1

RE[11]: I was hoping for more...
by archiesteel on Tue 17th Jan 2006 04:03 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

There are still libraries that use GPL, and I think it's a shame that the ones out there that use GPL choose to do so.

Well, then don't use them if you don't want your apps to be GPLed.

Let the market decide - if no one wants to use these libs they'll fall by the wayside.

It seems to me that most opposition to the GPL remains largely theoretical. Is there a specific example of a library that you'd like to use as a developer for a project that you have, but won't because it's GPLed (and you don't want to GPL your app)?

Really, I wonder if there are any developers here that are affected by this, or if most anti-GPL posters here are simply not engaging in spreading FUD. Seriously, I have a hard time believing that all anti-GPL opinions are made by developers that are adversely affected by it!

Reply Score: 1

RE[12]: I was hoping for more...
by sappyvcv on Tue 17th Jan 2006 04:31 UTC in reply to "RE[11]: I was hoping for more..."
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually, there was a GPL'ed library we wanted to use on a project I was on last year ;) It was an encryption/security library (Unfortunately, my very poor memory stops me from remembering the name), and a VERY VERY small part of the whole project. Not only that, other imlementations were widely available, but this one was in our opinion the easiest to use and most nicely done. However, GPL stopped us from using it. We couldn't have made our project GPL even if we wanted to anyway.

Reply Score: 0

RE[12]: I was hoping for more...
by Deletomn on Tue 17th Jan 2006 04:39 UTC in reply to "RE[11]: I was hoping for more..."
Deletomn Member since:
2005-07-06

archiesteel: It seems to me that most opposition to the GPL remains largely theoretical. Is there a specific example of a library that you'd like to use as a developer for a project that you have, but won't because it's GPLed (and you don't want to GPL your app)?

Well... I've never had this problem. But companies (like Trolltech) make money off of selling non-GPL licenses for their software. If they're making money off of it, then there must be some demand. So I'd imagine, that some of their users would not use their software if this dual licensing was not available.

Reply Score: 1

CodeMonkey Member since:
2005-09-22

I think the GSL (GNU Scientific Library) is a good example of a highly desireable library which is painfully locked in the GPL. Several research projects I have been involved with have been bogged down with "re-inventing the wheel" because this was protected by the GPL.

Reply Score: 1

Surprised By Para 6.b.
by Pelly on Tue 17th Jan 2006 04:23 UTC
Pelly
Member since:
2005-07-07

Paragraph 6.b. Distribute the Object Code in a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give any third party, for a price no more than ten times your cost of physically performing source distribution, a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange

I was always under the impression that people were NOT supposed to profit from from Source Distribution under the terms of the GPL; at least that's how it is with the current Version 2.

Now this would seem to allow Source Code to be distributed for much more than the cost of creating the media (CD/DVD), packaging it and mailing it.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but this sounds people would almost be able to 'sell' source code for a hefty profit under V3 of the GPL.

Wouldn't this, by definition, lock people out of viewing source code and turn it into (somewhat) closed-source? Who could afford to pay for the source code?

Here's an example of how I'm seeing this: Say it truly costs a dev-team $10 (USD) to burn, package & mail a couple of source code CDs. Under the Version 3 Draft, they would be able to charge up to $100 (USD) for the same actions and have a nice $90 (USD) profit.

This wouldn't be right.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Surprised By Para 6.b.
by karl on Tue 17th Jan 2006 09:43 UTC in reply to "Surprised By Para 6.b."
karl Member since:
2005-07-06

But there is nothing preventing some third-party making the source code avaialable on a public web server....

In reality this provision only applies to software developed with absolutely no community- free accessibility of code is a major part of what makes communities thrive, although it itself is no guarantee. If the authors of the software in question want their program to be widely used and widely distributed they won't charge a ridiculous fee for access. However a company, or individual, who makes a niche program, with only a select audience of possible users, is capable of earning money by charging for access to the source code.

But if one of those persons/companies who purchased the program choose to place the source on a public web server there is nothing in the GPLv3 which would prevent this. By offering the source for free you are inviting others to dig into the source and contribute to it's development-charging for source access discourages community development/participation.

There are ample examples of companies producing GPL'ed software which do not have a development community beyond that which is in-house-some of these companies do not want input from their user-base in terms of code contributions- remember the developers of the code still have the right to reject contributions. If enough people are determined enough to render the code according to their needs they can take that code and fork it.

It is not hard for me to imagine a piece of software being developed by developers who wish to retain total control over the software(ie. discouraging contributions from third-parties) but who licensce their software under the GPL so that it can be linked against other GPL'ed software. If this software is also commercial, ie. one must purchase it, or only really usefull with the commerical support offfered for the program, then it is highly unlikely that someone who had purchased the program and/or service would then make the source code freely avaialable on a public server. In such a scenario the authors of the program could capitalize on relative demand on the part of the users to modify the source code according to their needs.

ps. I don't rpetend to have completely grokked all of the implications of the draft of GPLv3. So I maybe wrong here.....Section 6b

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Surprised By Para 6.b.
by Pelly on Tue 17th Jan 2006 14:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Surprised By Para 6.b."
Pelly Member since:
2005-07-07

It is not hard for me to imagine a piece of software being developed by developers who wish to retain total control over the software(ie. discouraging contributions from third-parties) but who licensce their software under the GPL so that it can be linked against other GPL'ed software.

It's one aspect to make money on a finished product (Linspire, Xandros, etc.) as many companies base their OS on Open Source Code (GPL'd) and then develop additional sw/apps that are not released under the GPL. As an example, I haven't seen any Source Code for Linspire's CNR. CNR is a proprietary app and the code is closed.

I have absolutely no problem with this practice. If someone distributes commercial-grade work under a non-GPL user license, it's probably considered proprietary code.

I see a problem with allowing Source Code licensed under the GPL to be, in effect, "sold" for up to ten times to cost of distribution. While there's no problem with making money on a finished product, Para 6.b. would also allow money to be made on the Source Code as well as the finished product.

Para 6.b. may additionally end up preventing very talented developers from contributing to Open Source simply because they could be priced-out of obtaining the source released under the GPLv3.

Reply Score: 1

GPL
by CrazyDude0 on Tue 17th Jan 2006 06:50 UTC
CrazyDude0
Member since:
2005-07-10

The cheap mentality that celerate describe is what GPL promotes. If I write software, I would make sure that no one can make money of it.

GPL breaks the whole ecosystem. Earlier university researchers used to release source under BSD, companies used to take the code, polish it, add value to it and commercialize it. Companies would then donate some money to university which was used for further research. However gpl is killing the ecosystem. If GPL continues, students won't join software due to lack of lucrative career and overall growth of software industry will suffer.

Browser: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows CE; Sprint:PPC-6700; PPC; 240x320)

Reply Score: 2

RE: GPL
by zerblat on Tue 17th Jan 2006 12:40 UTC in reply to "GPL"
zerblat Member since:
2005-07-06

Earlier university researchers used to release source under BSD, companies used to take the code, polish it, add value to it and commercialize it. Companies would then donate some money to university which was used for further research.

There's nothing in the GPL that prevents or forbids polishing, value-adding or commercialization.

Reply Score: 0

BSD/GPL
by Matzon on Tue 17th Jan 2006 07:20 UTC
Matzon
Member since:
2005-07-06

BSD = Optimist
GPL = Pessimist

'nuff said

Reply Score: 2

RE: BSD/GPL
by Brad on Tue 17th Jan 2006 07:38 UTC in reply to "BSD/GPL"
Brad Member since:
2005-07-06

Closed Source = Capitalist

Reply Score: 1

Compatibility
by dmytro on Tue 17th Jan 2006 18:55 UTC
dmytro
Member since:
2005-07-09

The most important change is compatibility with other free software licenses. Initially, most free software will remain under GPL v2 and higher, and so will not get the additional protections of GPL v3, but will still get the compatibility benefits.

Reply Score: 1

RE[13]: I was hoping for more...
by archiesteel on Wed 18th Jan 2006 00:26 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

That's a good example, and there was an inconvenience to you, because you had to pick another library. However, this illustrates how a diverse selection of licenses is a good thing - you weren't prevented from making your project, but you could have saved a bit of money if you had been able to GPL your program (I assume that if you weren't able to GPL it, you probably weren't able to license it under the BSDL either). However, since your project was commercial, you had to spend a bit more. It's only natural - after all. Doesn't one of the founding principles of doing business go "there's no such thing as a free lunch"?

Reply Score: 1

RE[14]: I was hoping for more...
by sappyvcv on Wed 18th Jan 2006 22:56 UTC in reply to "RE[13]: I was hoping for more..."
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Spending money on other code was not an option unfortunately. I just didn't understand why if it was made open-source, GPL was chosen for that type of code. It was one of many implementations of something very commonly used. It wasn't a large project or anything unique. It wasn't stand-alone. I believe it was a very poor choice of license.

Reply Score: 0