The Free Software Foundation is just weeks away from announcing the roadmap and process that will govern the release of the first draft of the rewritten GNU General Public License.
GPL 3 a Step Closer
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
to the day I’ll be delivered the news about a forthcoming announcement related to the initiation of such process…
sheesh!
It’s a very important process.
I have nothing against the process but I was poking fun at the way the statement it was expressed.
“Is just weeks away from announcing the roadmap and process that will govern the release of the first draft of the rewritten GNU General Public License.”
Is this the document equivilent of a one-up on SkyOS’s v5 beta 8.6 alpha 2?
No, I think it’s legalese for “We’re being EXTREMELY careful about this one”.
Basically, they decided they needed the GPL 3, and now they think they’ve got an idea of how they’re going to do their revisions.
Heh, I had the same reaction. Maybe Microsoft will beat them out the door with Longhorn/Vista.
Paul G
> No, I think it’s legalese for “We’re being EXTREMELY careful about this one”.
Makes sense. A suggested GPL 3 clause requiring web services to reveal GPL source recieved a fair bit of negative comment on Slashdot a while back. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/30/0627234 (Web services do not need to reveal source under GPL 2, since they don’t distribute software.)
Regarding said clause, I think there are good arguments for and against (freedom vs. privacy).
I wonder if web services are the only potential route to lock-in though. Would leased (perhaps perpetual lease) PCs need GPL source revealed? DRM (e.g. X Box) and subscription software are kind of heading in this direction.
Perhaps though, it would be better to avoid privacy concerns by simply requiring an obvious message (where appropriate) “This computer is the property of [whoever].”. Hopefully this would encourage people to be careful about avoiding lock-in?
“I wonder if web services are the only potential route to lock-in though. Would leased (perhaps perpetual lease) PCs need GPL source revealed? DRM (e.g. X Box) and subscription software are kind of heading in this direction. ”
Well the Application Service Provider (ASP, aka, service bureaus for you old-timers) would be the industry that would have to worry.
That being a good thing or a bad thing depends on how one feels about “software as a service” instead of a product.
Makes sense. A suggested GPL 3 clause requiring web services to reveal GPL source recieved a fair bit of negative comment on Slashdot a while back. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/30/0627234 (Web services do not need to reveal source under GPL 2, since they don’t distribute software.)
This is basicly a non-issue for a number of reasons.
1. This wasn’t at all what was suggested. The suggestion was to make it license breach to disable a software function that makes it possible for a user of the software service to download the source. Which means that not only must the software be licensed under GPLv3 it must also implement said feature for it to be trouble for service providers.
2. Current software licensed under GPLv2 (or later at the licensees option) isn’t automaticly upgraded to GPLv3 only.
3. Sofware that IS availible under the GPLv3 and no other license is so at discression of the licenser. Meaning that the copyright holder has choosen to only allow people to use his/her software under those terms. IOW not because FSF sais so.
4. GPL is the license to promote free software. If vendors are not prepared to use free software under the terms of free software they are free to acquire a non-free license for said software from the copyrightholder or to license some other software.
To put 4 in context. I do not consider open source or public domain to be the same as free software. I use the term free software as it is defined by the FSF.
The article desperately tries to make GPL 3 relevant to the Linux kernel, even though there is significantly little chance that the license of the Linux kernel can or will change.
But Im still trying to understand why we need a GPL v3 in the first place!
I simply do not see why remote applications/web services need to release source code. If they aren’t redistributing, who cares? The whole point of free software is suposed to be user rights yes? Well what about the service providers? They are users too. Why consipire to take away their rights?
The current GPL is a masterpiece, I simply can’t see a way to improve it.
I simply do not see why remote applications/web services need to release source code. If they aren’t redistributing, who cares? The whole point of free software is suposed to be user rights yes? Well what about the service providers? They are users too. Why consipire to take away their rights?
From http://www.fsf.org/news/gplv3
The GPL builds upon the ethical and scientific principle of free, open and collaborative improvement of human knowledge, which was central to the rapid evolution of areas like mathematics, physics, or biology, and adapts it to the area of information technology.
Does that answer your question?
Edited 2005-10-30 07:56
That’s nice and all while GPL remains a copyright license. The moment is ceases to be such (as in: requiring to give away source code where binary distribution has NOT taken place), it becomes a EULA. It is my highly subective opinion that EULAs are contrary to the ideas of free software by their nature, however nice is motivation for their introduction.
Besides that, web services are NOT fundamentally different from any other services, be they performed by a human or a computer. Let’s say a company performs work for its customers using a GPL-licensed office suite that it has modified but is not distributing to the outside world. Do you think it would be fair to require that this company release the modifications it has done to the office suite? I don’t, therefore I oppose the planned new provisions of the license.
That’s nice and all while GPL remains a copyright license. The moment is ceases to be such (as in: requiring to give away source code where binary distribution has NOT taken place), it becomes a EULA. It is my highly subective opinion that EULAs are contrary to the ideas of free software by their nature, however nice is motivation for their introduction.
See my previous post (anon because I forgot to login) about how that is a non-issue.
To clarify even more. It would not, by yor definition, be an EULA because the the clause would only limit the space of allowed derivative works, not how a derivative work could be used.
Besides that, web services are NOT fundamentally different from any other services, be they performed by a human or a computer. Let’s say a company performs work for its customers using a GPL-licensed office suite that it has modified but is not distributing to the outside world. Do you think it would be fair to require that this company release the modifications it has done to the office suite? I don’t, therefore I oppose the planned new provisions of the license.
With the rationales behind GPL beeing whay they are: Yes that would be fair to require. Why it isn’t I actually don’t know.
I simply do not see why remote applications/web services need to release source code. If they aren’t redistributing, who cares? The whole point of free software is suposed to be user rights yes? Well what about the service providers? They are users too. Why consipire to take away their rights?
People using services are software users too, even though they’re not covered under the GPL 2. If there is a sea-change to software as a service, this could potentially lead to serious lock-in. The GPL can also be seen as providing rights to authors — the right not to have their work misappropriated. Whenever a person is granted a right, another person necessarily has a right taken away (i.e. the right to violate the first person’s right). There is no conspiracy, it is an open process. However I agree it is a problematic issue.
This is basicly a non-issue for a number of reasons.
It is not a non-issue because any GPL 2 software could be modified by a third party and re-licenced as GPL 3 (whatever form it may take). The GPL 3 fork could then compete with the original program for users/developers. This is a potential issue for users and developers who don’t want to change.
The article desperately tries to make GPL 3 relevant to the Linux kernel, even though there is significantly little chance that the license of the Linux kernel can or will change.
In theory it could, or at least a fork of it could, as mentioned above. (But I think the bit about the kernel was just intended as humour.)
That’s nice and all while GPL remains a copyright license. The moment is ceases to be such (as in: requiring to give away source code where binary distribution has NOT taken place), it becomes a EULA.
Aren’t EULA copyright licences? Isn’t the GPL an EULA already? (I’m confused about what you’re saying.)
Besides that, web services are NOT fundamentally different from any other services, be they performed by a human or a computer.
Nor are web services fundamentally different from locally run programs, at least from the user’s point of view. Software’s an odd thing.
It is not a non-issue because any GPL 2 software could be modified by a third party and re-licenced as GPL 3 (whatever form it may take). The GPL 3 fork could then compete with the original program for users/developers. This is a potential issue for users and developers who don’t want to change.
IANAL but I don’t think you can simply re-license a work if you are not the copyright owner.
IANAL but I don’t think you can simply re-license a work if you are not the copyright owner.
9. … 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 …
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
Whoops, you’re right. I thought this clause applied automatically in the same way as (I believe) any LGPL software can be relicenced as GPL.
With the rationales behind GPL beeing whay they are: Yes that [providing source for modified GPL software when output has been published] would be fair to require. Why it isn’t I actually don’t know.
Respecting privacy? Whatever people do in their own home is their business, be that (consenting) sodomy or even modifying GPL software. 😛 I can see your point, but I think there’s a fine line that could be difficult to draw.
In the case of the Linux kernel, it’s clearly staten in the COPYING file that it’s under the GPL v2 without the “any later version”.
Anyway, I don’t think the GPLv3 would do much for the kernel.
“Aren’t EULA copyright licences? Isn’t the GPL an EULA already? (I’m confused about what you’re saying.) ”
EULAS fall under contract law. I suppose for the purposes of argument the GPL could be seen as a EULA because usage of the software forms an implicit contract. With the primary difference being either a gain or a loss of rights, over normal copyright.
Fair Use is similiar in that it grants you rights that copyright normally would prevent you from having. e.g. timeshifting.
I’m not trying to start a flame-war but having released three products using the GPL license, every future release is no longer going under it. There’s only one left to go for me.
The reason? First, I do not find that the GPL protects freedom as I do believe businesses should be able to use my code in their non-free product if they choose. That is true freedom. The public domain is true freedom.
Another thing, I went to Stallman’s web site, read all his outrageous rantings and decided not to have anything to do with FSF or Gnu from then on.
“First, I do not find that the GPL protects freedom as I do believe businesses should be able to use my code in their non-free product if they choose.”
Your code, your choice. Even Stallman agrees that a BSD style license is appropriate in some cases. See the Ogg Vorbis licensing discussion for an example; encouraging the use of an open format is more important than encouraging sublicensing of the source.
But I’d like to point out that the idea that a BSD license is friendlier to business than the GPL is false. Certainly, the BSD license is preferred by businesses that wish to use the work of others without making their own work available. All take, no give. Of course, most users of BSD-licensed code do contribute, I’m just trying to point out what can and sometimes does happen.
Businesses sometimes develop improvements that they would like to see in wider use, and making the source available is one way to do that. A strategy of growing the overall market is a good choice when technology is changing rapidly. Making source available promotes wider use, and speeds improvement. Sharing the source can also cut the cost of support, by enlisting others in bug-fixing.
But making the source available can backfire if your competition can use your enhancements but conceal their own. The GPL solves this problem. This is why companies such as IBM, SGI, and HP contribute to the Linux kernel rather than BSD. All would like to expand the market for NUMA systems, so they all work to improve NUMA performance in Linux. IBM can’t use SGI’s work while concealing their own, and vice versa.
There is no one perfect license. One may be better than the others for a given situation. The one certainty is that there are many businesses that would happy to see *your* work under the BSD license, but would never release their own work under any open license. Businesses with good reason to release code often prefer the GPL, which promotes a “I’ll scratch your back if you’ll scratch mine” environment.
It’s a lot easier to make a business case for the GPL’s quid pro quo than the BSD’s altruism.
“But making the source available can backfire if your competition can use your enhancements but conceal their own. The GPL solves this problem. This is why companies such as IBM, SGI, and HP contribute to the Linux kernel rather than BSD. All would like to expand the market for NUMA systems, so they all work to improve NUMA performance in Linux. IBM can’t use SGI’s work while concealing their own, and vice versa.”
And why can’t they contribute to both? Anyway the GPL partialy solves the “lockin” problem.* The two key ideas that make it possible, are the distribution clause, and the fact that a benefit for a business can be derived from more than just distribution. e.g. a more efficient business. Also in some situations a company can release it’s “enhancements” in a form that is GPL compatiable, and still preserve privacy of code. e.g. Nvidia, or Broadcom. Both have gained business advantages basically through association.
*Keeping in mind the context of the primary story, there’s also the web services angle.
“It’s a lot easier to make a business case for the GPL’s quid pro quo than the BSD’s altruism.”
The latter is good for promoting the freedom of ideas over the former’s freedom of code. e.g. TCP/IP Plus I’d say that Apache’s success is a strong testimony of altruism.
What products did you release under the GPL? I’m asking, because your post sounds like a total fabrication in order to attack the GPL.
What do you care if businesses make money turning your code into proprietary products? What satisfaction do you derive from privileging corporations over individual users?
Also, you can easily release something under the GPL without “having anything to do with” the FSF or Gnu. Your (alleged) software doesn’t belong to the FSF or doesn’t become part of the Gnu project because you release it under the GPL, you know?
Seriously, I try to find the rationale behind your post, and the only thing that I can come up with is that it’s pure anti-GPL FUD like we read so much of on this site, disguised as a genuine post from a developer in order to give it more credibility.
This is why, for the credibility of your argument, you should disclose the name of your software products which were originally licensed under the GPL. There’s really no other way to give any kind of credence to your claims.
This was modded down, but I’ll repost it because I believe OSNews readers are entitled to an honest answer.
What products did you release under the GPL? I’m asking, because your post sounds like a total fabrication in order to attack the GPL.
What do you care if businesses make money turning your code into proprietary products? What satisfaction do you derive from privileging corporations over individual users?
Also, you can easily release something under the GPL without “having anything to do with” the FSF or Gnu. Your (alleged) software doesn’t belong to the FSF or doesn’t become part of the Gnu project because you release it under the GPL, you know?
Seriously, I try to find the rationale behind your post, and the only thing that I can come up with is that it’s pure anti-GPL FUD like we read so much of on this site, disguised as a genuine post from a developer in order to give it more credibility.
This is why, for the credibility of your argument, you should disclose the name of your software products which were originally licensed under the GPL. There’s really no other way to give any kind of credence to your claims.
C’mon, don’t mod me down…if you disagree, reply isntead! 🙂
> First, I do not find that the GPL protects freedom
> as I do believe businesses should be able to use my
> code in their non-free product if they choose. That
> is true freedom. The public domain is true freedom.
Well, you shouldnt grant businesses the freedom to impose silly proprietary licences on their customers. The same way a state shouldnt grant businesses the right to make their workers unfree, restrict their freedom, i.e. to enslave them.
The “public domain” can never be really free as long as it is possible for businesses to “occupy” works that are placed under this public domain.
> Another thing, I went to Stallman’s web site, read
> all his outrageous rantings and decided not to have
> anything to do with FSF or Gnu from then on.
Thats your problem dude. Most of free software users and developers value these rantings because they lead to what we know as the Free Software movement today.
But as long as you place your software under the public domain, it still can be converted to the GPL by freedom loving Free Software enthusiasths, and thus “saved” from ever ending up in proprietary hands.
Hi
http://antizealot.blogspot.com/
#1 I believe Linus (and I could be wrong) has already stated the kernel will not user v3.
#2 I do not believe that a “service” should have to give up the source. And to force that in v3 is a bad deal.
I love knowing that they’re going to release the roadmap to a viral license…
I love knowing that they’re going to release the roadmap to a viral license…
This is an accusation that I don’t understand. Any work illegally containing someone else’s copyrighted work is in breach of copyright (obviously), so surely all copyright is ‘viral’ in this sense.
If I write a spreadsheet depending on MS Excel, then my spreadsheet is ‘infected’. If I write any document containing copyrighted clip art or fonts, then my document is ‘infected’ (I might want to read the licence agreement carefully to understand what I am and am not allowed to do with them).
The GPL is more liberal than commercial EULA, I can basically do whatever I want with the binary without worries. It’s only using the source that’s restricted, and commercial EULA don’t allow me to use the source at all. So if I don’t use the source, then I’m in no danger of ‘infection’ from GPL software. But if I use commercial software, I don’t get the source, and I’m in danger of ‘infection’ anyway.
Perhaps (guessing) the ‘viral’ idea come from a belief that if I am allowed to have a copy of the source then I should be allowed to do anything with it I like? But why should this apply to source when it doesn’t apply to compiled programs?