GPLv3 threatens to fork GNU projects and marginalize the Free Software Foundation, writes Linux observer Bill Weinberg in this essay. Drawing on long experience evangelizing open source licensing to business users, Weinberg suggests that the FSF’s GPLv3 high road could be a lonesome one.
Will GPLv3 Energize Free Software, or Marginalize the FSF?
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Neather of both.
The FSF has been marginal for at least a decade.
Use logic , well try to , if they are marginal , why is everyone feeling the need to at minimum adress them in some form or another , your comment is not logical , does not make sense in view of reality , and is pure UNIX wishfull dreaming , from the same people who have been opposing it since day one.
Moulinneuf: Use logic , well try to , if they are marginal , why is everyone feeling the need to at minimum adress them in some form or another , your comment is not logical , does not make sense in view of reality , and is pure UNIX wishfull dreaming , from the same people who have been opposing it since day one.
That’s exactly what often strikes me as odd in these discussions. The desperate and often funny attempts to a) marginalize the FSF and b) the affirmation that everything is OK right now.
If the FSF is marginal, why the fuss? Oh, the FSF is releasing a new license *yawn* You can just shrug and go on, can’t you? And if everything is OK right now, everything will be OK when the GPL3 arrives. Either nobody will switch licenes or the user will notice no difference. Again, why the fuss?
There is only a tiny little fraction of FOSS users that will notice a difference, those who circumvent the spirit of the GPL2 and will not be able to do so under the GPL3, because they then will also violate the written word.
The FSF has been marginal for at least a decade.
Actually, I would say it has always been marginal, along with linux and so forth. It doesn’t play by the normal rules – one of which is the end user gets to bend over and take whatever companyXYZ is handing out and then beg for more. MOst people have been bending over and taking it for so long they do not even realize what it feels like to not do so.
Anything ‘not popular’ will by definition be marginal. If we change everything we are about just to become popular then it would be sort of pointless since we would just be a “sellout’ and “the failure everyone knew free software would end up being” and
So yes, marginal is probably right. And changing to gain a quick rise to the top means a quick ride right over the top and back down again. So slow and steady wins the race, doing the ‘right’ thing always beats doing the ‘wrong’ thing and offering a choice only matters if it is truly something different.
I for one choose free software and marginal is fine with me. I cannot MAKE people enjoy the freedom of free software and make it popular. I guess they enjoy the remote-control computer they will have in a few years tat provides their bought content along with commercials so forth…..
I want to know what outcry the FSF thinks it’s responding to. I tend to have my ear to the ground most of the time, and I personally didn’t hear many people in the GPL community complaining that the GPLv2 wasn’t adequately protecting free software. Free software has been doing phenomenally well by most accounts, and various enforcement groups have had success going after GPL violators. The system is working.
Why they want to fix what isn’t really broken is a question I have been trying to answer in the months following the release of the initial GPLv3 draft. With the release of Vista, it’s easy to draw comparisons between the sentiment of Windows users contemplating Vista and that of free software users mulling the GPLv3. Yeah, maybe it’s technically better, but what we have is working fine, and the new system seems a bit draconian for my tastes.
Edited 2007-02-03 03:00
or its simply being updated. In response to changes in the way GPL is used.
I am interested by this “the new system seems a bit draconian”
draconian!?
Yes. Draconian. To date, no OSI-approved license has placed any restrictions on what kinds of functions a covered work may perform. GPLv3 throws this out the window. I can’t make a GPLv3 program validate itself with a system that requires signed extensions. I can’t make a GPLv3 program that works with DRM systems.
While neither signed modules nor DRM promote the ideals of free software in and of themselves, building a wall between free software and digital protectionism is NOT what freedom is all about. Just because my software is able to be signed and loaded into a restrictive system doesn’t make my software any less free. It makes it more free, because my users can take advantage of its features on restrictive systems. Similarly, if my software is able to interact with DRM-protected media services, it gives my users more freedom to choose the service that best fits their individual needs.
I want my free software license to protect my code from being distributed under proprietary licenses, and I want my license to grant my users the right to use my code however they please. I want my license require my users to share and share alike, to the benefit of everyone. The GPLv2 does all of these things.
The GPLv3 doesn’t grant any additional rights. It takes them away. This doesn’t benefit the developer, and it certainly doesn’t benefit the user. At best, the GPLv3 serves the needs of those concerned with protecting their intellectual property, and even those parties are concerned that the GPLv3 has IP implications that weren’t a problem under the GPLv2.
A license has to have a development culture and a cause that reflects their needs. Otherwise it’s more pointless license proliferation. The BSD has the academics, the CDDL has the mixed-source developers, and the GPLv2 has the free software developers. The GPLv3 has free software licensing enthusiasts. They don’t write much code as far as I can tell.
That’s not true.
GPL3 does not conflict with DRM itself. Au contraire! What GPL3 does conflict with is using DRM to restrict the 4 freedoms. If you use DRM in a way compatible with the 4 freedoms, GPL3 does not prevent you from using DRM.
OK, but I don’t know of any DRM systems that abide by the 4 freedoms. I would be very interested if you could point them out. I can’t imagine any theoretical DRM system that would be so permissive and still be necessary to serve some business purpose.
I seem to remember that someone notified the FSF that the GPLv3 drafts broke one of the 4 freedoms. Instead of changing the draft, they changed the wording of one of the freedoms.
Free software can be gratis or commercial. Commercial business models require that you pay for something, and in the case of free software, you are paying for a service. This service has parameters, hence it isn’t free (libre). Digital services are enforced by software. In order for free software to continue to be a viable option for service providers, it must be able to enforce certain service restrictions. As long as the provider implements these restrictions as free software, they are doing all they can to honor the community’s intellectual property rights.
Strip away the restrictions. Go ahead, it’s free software. Oh, look! You can’t use the service without them. It turns out the value was in the service, not in the software. That’s the very basis of the free software economy. If you want to deny vendors the right to use free software to provide commercial services, then don’t be surprised when commercial software firms don’t want to participate in our community anymore.
I would love it if one of you self-entitled anti-commercialists would launch your own media service. Let me load whatever I want into the kernel. Let me seed the shows I record over BitTorrent to anyone with a net connection (and set up an official tracker for this purpose, btw). I don’t care how you pay for it, just make it happen, and don’t tell me what I can and can’t do. That’s freedom!
@butters define freedom just once…or service for that matter.
If someone makes money from a service rather than the *software* although GPL2 or 3 allows you to *sell* your software.
The surely the service is to provide help support…or changes to the software for a company. If you do not like this its a GPL vs BSD discussion not a GPL2 vs GPL3 discussion which I’m beginning to suspect is your point…and the articles point as well.
I do find it worrying that you advocate that its all right that a company can use the communities(sic) Intellectual property while it keeps its own under a patent…so nothing is given back…nothing is *shared*. Its BSD again.
You then…and I’m happy for you to correct me define a service as DRM protected media. They are not the same.
“self-entitled anti-commercialists would launch your own media service” I think your describing the internet…and saying its anti-commercial…or saying I shouldn’t be allowed to time-shift a recording from my TV.
What you are trying to say it what many simpler say simply on the forums is “at least on Windows I get the choice of using DRM Media” thats not Freedom!
i would be perfectly fine if anyone would use DRM in GPL software for whatever they want, as long as i can replace the software on the device with an improved version. the GPL v2 has a hole in it which allows a device to use GPLv2 software but NOT allow users to run modified software, hence it can break one of the 4 freedoms. so the GPL v3 is needed to fix that. it’s as simple as that. if you would like to argue it is OK to force users to use certain software (which is how proprietary vendors tie their users to their software, just like TiVo does) then we just don’t agree about what free software is…
That’s only a little semantics game: DRM is there to restrict your freedom, so imagining a DRM system allowing for the 4 freedoms is a futile exercise.
All in all, I’d say the FSF is fighting the right battle in the wrong place.
rehdon
>All in all, I’d say the FSF is fighting the right battle in the wrong place.
I think this is a little bit shortsighted. You could have said the same about GPLv2 and the copyleft principle:
Here you could say they should not try to correct the ill copyright by a license but go to court and to politicians and change the copyright but than today we probably wouldn’t achieve anything.
If you can do something with your code to protect or strengthen freedom than you should do it, whether in the copyright field (copyleft clause), in the patent field (patent clauses) or in the DRM field (DRM clause).
That’s the first and an important step because that is what you can do by your own.
In the second step you can try to fight the underlaying system. That’s what the FSF’s are doing too and what many “pragmatic” people calling to boring and unimportant political work. But at the same time the same people criticize the pragmatic work if they do it without politic but with their own hands (code+license).
You need both do what you can do by yourself (e.g. license your code in a way which protects and strengthen freedom), go to the places were this ill system get created (politic, UN,,..) and try to create a critical dialog in the society about this topics. The FSF’s doing all three things and i think this is the best way because by doing everything possible you will achieve the best results.
Edited 2007-02-03 13:20
Draconian!? again I don’t understand.
By signed binary…you mean I can’t create *my* own binary and use it on *my* own system. Now that *is* Draconian
If you are talking about Media companies like RIAA or MPAA which you are. They will *expect* the same quality of service that Microsoft provided in Vista…and unfortunately there is no good answer to that. The solution to that maybe Draconian.
Unfortunately you misunderstood the article. *Patents* you write the code, a company can make changes that are patented…you cannot use them. This nullifies the point of GPL…Its BSD. Companies do not have to share their little slice of code. GPL3 is about closing this loophole.
Now to your offhand insults
===========================
“They don’t write much code as far as I can tell”
I suspect your talking about FSF and their contributions to the Linux Kernel. I suspect that you will have a hard time arguing that both *their* code under *their* license is why Linux exists, or that their ideals then and now have grown beyond the small band that makes up the FSF in whole or in part.
“The GPLv3 has free software licensing enthusiasts.”
or possibly developers who think those changes within the license are important to them. Seriously after Sun releasing their kernel under GPL3 its a silly comment, and others will license under GPL3 as well. I suspect a certain compiler is bound to fo that way.
Edited 2007-02-03 05:23
I can’t understand all of what you’re trying to say, but I’ll try to respond as best I can.
First, I’m not talking about the RIAA/MPAA. I’m talking more along the lines of TiVo. The main motivation of the GPLv3 was that the FSF was upset about the way TiVo used the Linux kernel in their set-top boxes.
We are talking about copyright licenses here, not as much about patents. There are some patent provisions in the GPLv3. They prohibit distributors from exercising patent claims on any downstream users of derivative works. As of draft 2 this restriction is limited to IP in the work conveyed by the distributor in question. The distributor retains the right to sue based on IP in downstream modifications. I support these provisions of the GPLv3. I wish they would have stopped here and not included the onerous usage restrictions.
You must be misunderstanding the BSD license. There is nothing in the BSD license that requires the availability of corresponding source code. This is the biggest difference between the two licenses. Most members of the BSD community also believe their license is not copyleft. In other words, that a derivative of a BSD work is not required to be licensed under the BSD. This is also different from the GPL. However, certain compelling interpretations of the BSD license text suggest that a relicensed derivative work doesn’t retain the main license grant to redistribute.
The FSF is not in any way officially connected to the Linux kernel project. That’s one of the main reasons for the whole GNU/Linux naming convention. The GNU project (before the creation of the FSF), led by Richard Stallman, drafted the license that Linus chose for the Linux kernel. GNU was a big part of the early success of Linux. Linux needed a userland, 386BSD was embroiled in copyright litigation, and GNU’s Hurd kernel was already running behind schedule (and remains that way to this day). But neither the FSF nor the GNU project actively contribute to the Linux kernel.
Sun is releasing their OpenSolaris kernel under BOTH the CDDL and GPLv3. This means that users can choose whichever terms they want to abide by. If they want to use OpenSolaris to implement a DRM system, they are allowed by the CDDL. If they want an exclusive right-to-file for IP in their source files, the CDDL grants them that right. The GPLv3 doesn’t really grant any rights not covered by the CDDL, but it does lock-out non-GPLv3 kernel modules. That means no Linux-derived modules for OpenSolaris. But also the Linux kernel cannot use OpenSolaris-derived modules (because the kernel doesn’t use the “or later version” provision). Sun figures that keeping the Linux developers’ grubby hands off of OpenSolaris code is worth not having access to the Linux kernel’s vast array of drivers. More walls courtesy of the GPLv3. So much for sharing…
But I believe that Sun’s ultimate motivation for dual-licensing with the GPLv3 was to gain street cred and attract developers for its alternate FOSS universe. They realized that since the CDDL is so permissive (from the developer’s point of view), the GPLv3 doesn’t really change anything. It doesn’t impose strong copyleft (link definition) because the CDDL permits weak copyleft (file definition). As soon as Linus made it clear that Linux was staying GPLv2, Sun could go ahead with its master plan: to create an alternate free software community protected from Linux by a legal barrier, aka GPLv3.
/* Sun could go ahead with its master plan: to create an alternate free software community protected from Linux by a legal barrier, aka GPLv3.*/
this sounds more likely to be the motive for sun.
I just don’t want the FSF to lean more towards Sun because it followed rms wishes by giving him a kernel, so of speak, by licensing it under the GPLv3 and start trying to push linux into /dev/null. so i guess Sun is the enemy not MS,yet
Enemy?!? They’ve given you a free Kernel to look at and play with! If it improves to the point where it’s better than linux and everyone switches to it, then we’ve all won because we’ve got a better kernel. If linux stays in the lead on the free desktop, then we still have won from being able to use and learn from a stable, highly respected UNIX kernel with many innovative features.
Sometimes I don’t understand certain Linux users: some seem to view anyone who isn’t promoting Linux as an enemy, regardless of what they’re doing instead. It’s like a religion. You’re either a linuxian or a heathen.
Now for the typical “I’m typing this from Foo distro and I’ve been using linux for Bar years”: I’m typing this from Windows Vista and I’ve run linux for a couple years on and off (though mostly without using X). And I’ve spent a lot of time recently reading the Kernel Source.
But I believe that Sun’s ultimate motivation for dual-licensing with the GPLv3 was to gain street cred and attract developers for its alternate FOSS universe. They realized that since the CDDL is so permissive (from the developer’s point of view), the GPLv3 doesn’t really change anything. It doesn’t impose strong copyleft (link definition) because the CDDL permits weak copyleft (file definition).
Which I think is a point that’s lost on many in the recent Sun-love-in over the idea they’ll use GPL v3.
At the end of the day it’s a hollow move; any contributions from the free-side of the community to openSolaris will have to be dual licensed under GPLv3/CDDL, and in fact will have to attribute copyright to Sun who will reserve the right to relicense at will.
The only way solaris will become a viable kernel for those espousing the 4-freedoms is for the community to immediately fork it into a v3-only licensed version, which will be interesting to watch.
So no matter how much the stubbornness of the linux kernel devs irks the FL segment of the FLOSS camp, the linux kernel will likely still remain the most viable kernel for their intentions of a truly free OS.
As soon as Linus made it clear that Linux was staying GPLv2, Sun could go ahead with its master plan: to create an alternate free software community protected from Linux by a legal barrier, aka GPLv3.
Bingo. Sun has nothing to lose with selecting v3, so why not? With v2 they would have ran too great a risk of merging and co-mingling code with linux. Sun is using the community to earn cred as an OSS player, and the FSF is using Sun to earn cred for v3. But nobody is really gaining anything other than hype.
Of course, having said all that, I still applaud Sun’s move; I just don’t think it’s the paradigm shift for the FLOSS community that many are making it out to be.
@butters 5 whole paragraphs and you say nothing, you have not even attempted to address any of my responces. You still do not define freedom or this mythical service.
TiVo is hardware. I’m in the UK where it *failed*. As far as I know the one service they provided was a TV Guide. This was before EPG or the rise of internet databases, and was optional.
I’m very much into HDR. I have one. The point is that TiVo can use the Linux Kernel…and I can’t change it. I can’t update it to take advantage of EXT4, take advantage of bugfixes in the kernel etc etc. Show me the freedom!? The freedom and you use the word loosly is the freedom to *stop* my freedom…when the license is about protecting my freedom. Eh!?
I do understand the BSD license….but to argue that source code you cannot *use*, either by *patents* the point of the article or because only certain binaries work is better than it just being a binary, is a nonsense.
The argument put by Linus is that widespread adoption of Linux, will mean more hands/eyes from companies working and fixing the code, and the Linux codebase will benefit from that *indirectly*. You either agree with him or not.
I don’t becuase
1) That advantages of an open source over a binary solution are lost to the user
2) That companies routinely try to abuse GPL
3) That changes cannot come from the users of a device rather than the company.
etc etc.
I think you have a misunderstandings about the FSF, and its an idea thats pushed far too often on this site. The reality is the License goes *far* beyond that of the FSF. GPL is the *predominant* license in open source…and for good reason. The reason is simply that the ideals of FSF simply extend further than its own relatively small group. All that Linux is…is a better Hurd. The only *difference* that there could be between a Hurd and Linux is *influence* Linus has it with the kernel FSF don’t. Even the Userland code which Linux’s small band of kernel programmers have *nothing* to with is named after it. No wonder Richard in not happy.
The great thing…and it is great is that there are *multiple* influences with different ideals, and are driven by different goals within Linux. It makes for a better Linux. Total control by any one group would be a disaster.
Now dual-licensing that just sucks. I hate it. Suns only Motivation is to sell Sun Products and services, and that is what is wrong. I’m more concerned that a *single* company would have such control over the kernel.
I’m interested to see whether either Linux or OpenSolaris will except GPL3 *only* code.
Edited 2007-02-03 16:55
butters wrote:
-“While neither signed modules nor DRM promote the ideals of free software in and of themselves, building a wall between free software and digital protectionism is NOT what freedom is all about.
actually, building a wall between free software and digital restrictions is pretty much exactly what FSF is about.
I know… hence the FSF is not about freedom, it’s about building walls.
It’s like saying building walls between people and murder isn’t about freedom.
The GPL is, and always has been, about preserving the freedom of the software. DRM and patents offer ways to subvert that freedom in very insidious ways. Consider, for example, if Apple decided to use Linux (under the GPL v2) as the basis for OS X. Then, they encrypt the disk images, and refuse to run the installer without a TPM-verifiable code signature.* The net result would be that even though you could have the source code, you couldn’t build a new disk image with it, and you’d effectively be prevented from using that source code to improve the product. Go back and think about the whole reason the GPL was created: RMS was frustrated that new printers in his lab had closed drivers, which he couldn’t modify to support certain notification features he’d implemented in previous printer models with open drivers. It becomes apparent how DRM can be used to subvert exactly the sort of freedom the GPL was designed to preserve.
When the original GPL was created, TPM didn’t exist, but a possible way of subverting the license requirement was to release the source in obfuscated form. That’s why the GPL specifies that the released source must be in “the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.” The intent of that statement is the ensure that the code that gets released is actually useful and usable. The new DRM clauses are basically a modern update to that clause. The intent remains to ensure that companies can’t release code to comply with the license, but then use DRM to make that source useless.
*) This is actually not that far away from what OS X does already, and is basically what the TiVo does.
Edited 2007-02-03 07:52
that’s a very clear explanation of the issue. and i think the previous poster isn’t really unaware of this, but is merely trying to confuse everybody because he has a different agenda – just like the kernel developers, who don’t care about the whole freedom issue. Linus choose the GPLv2 because it was perfect for SHARING code and COOPERATING. he doesn’t care about TiVo restricting users, as long as TiVo releases their software and cooperates with the kernel developers.
it’s not really worse or something, but it’s different, and we should be clear about it. the FSF is about FREEDOM. Linus and many others want COOPERATION. nothing wrong with that, as long as you’re clear about what you want…
“no OSI-approved license”
That one made me laugh real hard , its FREE SOFTWARE , OSI is for Open Source certification only , its just one small quality that Free Software possess.
“GPLv3 throws this out the window.”
You fail to show GPLv3 putting restriction on Open Source.
” I can’t make a GPLv3 program validate itself with a system that requires signed extensions.”
That is pure lie , you cannot use sign extension to restrict the modification of the user to modify its GPL software to make it work like he want t to legally.
” I can’t make a GPLv3 program that works with DRM systems. ”
Another pure lie , you cannot use DRM to restrict the rights given by the GPL.
“While neither signed modules nor DRM promote the ideals of free software in and of themselves”
No , they are extreme opponent of it in the case you support …
“building a wall between free software and digital protectionism is NOT what freedom is all about.”
The wall is not built by the GPL , GPL make it clear that if your intent is to use those tools to restrict the protected freedom in the GPL , The GPL will enforce the law and justice and crush you as it was design to do so.
” Just because my software”
With the GPL its not your software , its everyone who as a copy of it. Choose another license if you want to make it your software , its really simple.
“is able to be signed and loaded into a restrictive system doesn’t make my software any less free.”
Your right , for a change , but if you use the restriction to block others from receiving the same right you have received , then , yes you are at fault as much as the builder of the restrictive system.
You are now collaborator and accomplice in a crime , punishable under the law. The law will be defended and you will have to pay the price for your breaking of it.
“It makes it more free”
No , because Freedom is not about restriction for the privilege of a few at the expanse of everyone else , but of giving freedom to everyone.
“because my users can take advantage of its features on restrictive systems. ”
You have no users , you have partners with the GPL. If you block there right and freedom they are in there rights to defend justice and freedom and make you pay for your breaking of the law.
“Similarly, if my software”
Again , With the GPL its not your software , its everyone who as a copy of it. Choose another license if you want to make it your software and control its use , its really simple.
“is able to interact with DRM-protected media services, it gives my users ( your partner , see above ) more freedom to choose the service that best fits their individual needs. ”
You cant if your intent is to put restriction on your partner and there rights and freedom. The GPL will not permit that.
” I want my free software license to protect my code from being distributed under proprietary licenses”
Don’t use the GPL then , its not your software under it , its everyone who as a copy.
“and I want my license to grant my users the right to use my code however they please.”
Don’t use the GPL , its not a license that allow restriction of others rights.
“I want my license require my users to share and share alike”
Don’t use the GPL , its not your license , its everyone license.
“to the benefit of everyone.”
Your demand of control on the software and of the content of the license make it a contradiction with your last statement , you want a license that will remove my rights and freedom for your self serving needs and own exclusive privileges. The GPL is not for you in those case.
“The GPLv2 does all of these things. ”
No 😉 , you don’t control what’s in the GPL v2 to your own self benefit and it don’t allow people to put restriction on the right and freedom of others. Your intent is to promote the GPL v2 at the expanse of GPL v3 by lying about both content of the license.
“The GPLv3 doesn’t grant any additional rights”
Your right , it protect those you already have from new way that are not mentioned in the GPL v2.
“It takes them away.”
No , it correct your miss interpretation of the rights you wrongly thought you had.
“This doesn’t benefit the developer”
The GPL is not about the developer its about freedom and protection of rights of and for everyone.
“and it certainly doesn’t benefit the user.”
Well it stop criminal like you with the intent from taking away my rights and freedom from using it, so in reality its a stamp of trust that GPL v3 is a good thing for me and everyone against you.
“at best, the GPLv3 serves the needs of those concerned with protecting their intellectual property”
No , it serve to protect my freedom and rights from people like you who would take it away for there own self interest. Your also not qualified to discuss it effect and possibilities.
” and even those parties are concerned that the GPLv3 has IP implications that weren’t a problem under the GPLv2. ”
A lot of nonsense and lie is trown at the GPL at all time , the GPL does not cover IP , it just don’t let you take over GPL with your IP either.
“A license has to have a development culture and a cause that reflects their needs.”
Now you are creating your own world and special request that do not exist in reality to justify your extreme outcry …
“Otherwise it’s more pointless license proliferation. ”
Addressing new laws that did not exist at the time of creation and new actions that are not covered and that you did not envisioned is not pointless and for the sake of proliferation.
“The BSD has the academics”
Thats your false interpretation and wrong preception of reality …
“the CDDL has the mixed-source developers”
Thats your false interpretation and wrong preception of reality …
“and the GPLv2 has the free software developers.”
Thats your false interpretation and wrong preception of reality …
“The GPLv3 has free software licensing enthusiasts.”
Thats your false interpretation and wrong preception of reality …
“They don’t write much code as far as I can tell.”
You cant tell much … Care to put some money on a bet in fiduciary say 10 000$ ? 5 000$ to the FSF and 5000$ to BSD after you loose ?
GPL v2 + already as the majority …
Why we don’t live in caves and huts anymore ? Its not broken and don’t need fixing …
butters wrote:
-“I want to know what outcry the FSF thinks it’s responding to. I tend to have my ear to the ground most of the time, and I personally didn’t hear many people in the GPL community complaining that the GPLv2 wasn’t adequately protecting free software.”
well, we’ll see when it is finished. if as according to you, there is no need for GPLv3 then it won’t be adopted outside FSF. now on the other hand, the reason that commerical interests ARE indeed bickering about GPLv3 is that the DO think developers will choose to licence their code under it. else they simply wouldn’t care.
now, there ARE developers that doesn’t want their code to be used in projects emloying restrictive DRM, GPLv3 is likely a good choice for them.
at the end of the article (after painting GPLv3 as a licence that ‘leaves commercial interests in a state of bewildered frustration’), Bill concludes that “Adoption will trump a narrow view of Freedom. The FSF role will shrink to marginal proportions, and GPLv3 will become, sadly, just another license.”
first off, with ‘adoption’, he actually means ‘commercial interests using foss to make money’ that’s what we’re talking about here after all, and those are the interests that Bill Weinberg serves. it’s nothing wrong with doing that, as long as these commercial interests abide by the rules set by the licence the developer(s) chose.
GPLv3 will be able to prevent some of this ‘adoption’, namely that in which the end users freedom of being able to modify and run those modifications is circumvented (as is possible now with GPLv2). not being able to circumvent this end user right is what Weinberg describes as a ‘narrow view of freedom’.
depends on which side of the fence you are I guess.
as to how FSF’s role will shrink because of GPLv3 is beyond me. GPLv2 is also an FSF licence, so if noone except FSF adopts GPLv3 they’re not exactly shrinking. can’t see the gcc toolchain going away either.
as for GPLv3 is just another licence, I totally agree. it’s exactly what it is. it’s another option, one that certain people with commercial interests in FOSS think shouldn’t be available to developers. I find that offensive.
I don’t think that the GPLv3 shouldn’t exist, or that projects shouldn’t be allowed to choose it. Even if it weren’t “ratified” or whatever, developers are free to use it to full effect. I support this freedom of choice.
I agree that free software licenses should protect the users right to use the software however they like. However, many software systems are deliberately designed to impede this right for various reasons. Not only will the GPLv3 do nothing to enable users to circumvent such restrictive systems (because they won’t be licensed under the GPLv3), but it will prevent users from modifying the software in an attempt to work with the restriction technology. The GPLv3’s goal to prevent restriction technology failed as soon as the Linux kernel community decided that it is the distributor’s right to implement such technology using Linux.
Likewise, I believe that it is the distributor’s right to implement these restriction mechanisms so long as they share and share alike. As soon as you start cherry-picking which modifications are “nice” and which are “evil,” it stops being free software. It becomes anti-commercial software, in this case. These vendors (i.e. TiVo) are not just distributing software, they are providing a service. The software is nearly useless without the service. Services come with restrictions (otherwise the cost of providing the service would become unbounded). If you don’t like the restrictions, then don’t use the service.
As far as I know, the only OS kernel that will be licensed exclusively under the GPLv3 is Hurd. Go have as it, maybe it will be ready before Duke Nukem Forever. OpenSolaris will always be licensed under the CDDL, which permits just about everything. They will never go GPLv3-only for exactly this reason. Without a GPLv3-only kernel, the DRM restrictions in the GPLv3 are fruitless at best, and restrictive in other cases.
I’m pleased that you support “freedom of choice*(sic).
“I agree that free software licenses should protect the users right to use the software however they like. However, many software systems are deliberately designed to impede this right for various reasons.”
What!? read what you have written…re-read it because thats the point. Thats what its about thats why I advocate GPL3, becuase GPL3 is about *protecting my rights* thats freedom.
I’m a little confused by the *rest* of your post. Linus does *cherry pick* for pragmatic(sic) reasons. Not everybody is happy, You seem a little unhappy with GPL2. As its a blind eye approach. Linus compromises whether you think this is a good thing is a different flame war. Although I find it interesting that you suggest Linus pragmatic(sic) approach actually puts of companies who don’t know where they stand…and I agree.
Richards *big* mistake IMO is he never turned around and called Linux the “Hurd “everyone was waiting for. The Man thought he was bigger than the License.
OpenSolaris has everything to gain from going GPL3, for reasons stated in my earlier post. Namely Linux clique so can attract the new blood, or those who would prefer to work without binary blobs in the kernel both developers and users alike; can use any code from Linux. Its a win-win situation. The only downside for the user is Linux has an independant(sic) developer in control, rather than a company *pushing* its own product.
butters, you just have a different view of freedom compared to some other posters here. YOU want ppl to SHARE and COOPERATE. they want ABSOLUTE USER FREEDOM. you prefer to have MORE software which is shared, they rather have a small amount of ‘pure’ free software than a lot of less free software.
neither view is worse, they’re just different. you should accept some ppl want to be able to do anything with their hardware, have it their way, so they need GPLv3 to allow them to do that. they should accept you want free software to be used and shared, so everybody can enjoy it’s benefits – and the GPLv2 does that.
I agree with you.
Also take this into consideration: GNU maintains a big huge software stack and that would no doubt be licensed under GPLv3. Anyone who thinks the FSF/GNU plays a marginal role should try to fork everything under their umbrella.
Anyone who thinks the FSF/GNU plays a marginal role should try to fork everything under their umbrella.
I’ve already got an embedded Linux distro that contains no GNU components. It really wasn’t that hard to do. Took, IIRC, a week.
And what do you build it with?
LOL
RVDS
It will, no doubt, surprise most of the FSF fans, but GCC has never been the only C compiler available.
Edited 2007-02-03 18:30
Also take this into consideration: GNU maintains a big huge software stack and that would no doubt be licensed under GPLv3. Anyone who thinks the FSF/GNU plays a marginal role should try to fork everything under their umbrella.
The parts of that stack that are relevant to linux receive significant development contributions from companies like HP, IBM, Intel et al., specifically because of their relevance to linux.
If GPL v3 becomes a weapon rather than a tool, I think you’ll find forks will be much more viable than people are assuming. It happened before when people became disenfranchised with RMS, there’s nothing to say it won’t happen again.
At the end of the day, linux inc. is a multi-billion dollar market for a vast number of companies. Whether or not people agree with that philosophically is irrelevant, the point is that the companies that helped the FSF/GNU projects maintain relevancy will not sit back and allow anything to threaten that market.
People often vastly over-estimate the role or relevance that independent, principle-driven developers have in the overall GNU/linux development biosphere. Even the FSF depends on the largesse of commercial contributions. This system has worked well for years because of the neutrality of the GPL with regards to collaboration from otherwise competitive organizations, and it’s ability for small independent developers to work alongside the commercial interests. I’m not trying to diminish the role independent developers and the community at large have, just pointing out that it would be dangerous to discount the role commercial contributions have either.
If the FSF seriously tries to upset this balance and fsck with linux by playing games with the toolchain/userspace utilities, the the FSF will be marginalized because the companies backing linux will have no choice. Don’t doubt for single moment that will happen, because these companies have far too much invested at this point.
Pragmatism is a word I rarely use in regards to the FSF, but I suspect in this case even the FSF realizes this and will only go so far.
The FSF is responding to the outcry called TiVo. Do you happen to be a TiVo owner?
I use MythTV. There’s no subscription fee, and it hardly has any technical limitations. It does require a second cable box if you use digital cable and want dual-channel capabilities. Fortunately you can buy a single capture card that supports two input channels. I’m very happy with my MythTV box. I would be hard pressed to find a reason to choose a different PVR system.
If you’re a TiVo owner, however, maybe you could help me understand the limitations. What additional features do TiVo owners want that TiVo doesn’t offer? Could these be implemented if existing Linux kernel modules could be loaded into TiVo’s kernel?
For example, suppose I wanted TiVo to store my recorded media on a RAID array. Is this possible with TiVo? Does TiVo provide the md driver with their kernel and a way of attaching an external enclosure? If not, then I wouldn’t consider buying a TiVo. I find that scalable and fault-tolerant storage is an essential feature of any PVR system.
afaik, you can’t change the software on the TiVo, it’s protected by DRM. that’s why they are writing the GPLv3…
I think thats the main issue. The problem isn’t really that TiVo has DRM protection, they could have it with GPLv3, they would just have to let you the user (o my god) decide whether you want to install uncertified software, with a big blinking WARNING stating the warranty and support would expire and a lecture about legal distribution of recorded material from “YOUR” TiVo. Would that be rally such a bad thing??
I mean if nobody is asking why TiVo has to restrict your software on (again) YOUR hardware. If they feel free to use the labor sweat fun and effort of the community, maybe and just MAYBE they should give some freedom back. Speaking of which, it’s not “their” kernel.
The GPLv2 Software was quite popular before the DRM was starting to get implemented, so it’s not “To Be Or Not To Be”. TiVo and alike will have to comply opening their hardware under GPLv3, and if they choose to use other software WHAT DO WE LOOSE? U couldn’t modify the linux on that mashine ANYWAY.
I understand that Linus is pleased to see his toaster runnin LINUX, he’s an engeneer, pleased to see his baby working, but it could be a standard mecanical toaster for that matter and nothing would change.
Point is, it’s irrelevant wheter Linux or Windows or OSX or some XYZSoftware runs on ur TiVo. We can be happy and feel good that the “Open” Linux is under the hood but it doesn’t really matter because you can’t change the Linux on that machine more then you could some X proprietery software. Vanity, what else do we really get from tivo, besides the acknollegment that Linux a is functional and beutifull piece of software?
Edited 2007-02-03 16:49
fully agreed. that’s exactly the point.
The omission of a patent clause really is a problem. Most of the newer open licenses from Sun and IBM include a patent clause, which the GPL lacks. It was actually one of the major motivations for licensing Solaris under the CDDL, and GPLv3’s inclusion of the patent clause is one major reason Sun is considering supporting that as a license as well.
“I want to know what outcry the FSF thinks it’s responding to. ”
Nice , outcry , such an inappropriate word , as far as I can see , because unlike you I don’t blind myself to some reality , the one crying because they do there jobs are those who like you want them to compromise and go away …
“I personally didn’t hear … free software. ”
The *TIVO* discussion , amongst other , probably never reached your fined tuned ear …
” Free software has been doing phenomenally well by most accounts”
Yes , because those in charge are expert at earing and seeing what your blind and deaf to …
“and various enforcement groups have had success going after GPL violators.”
Its not enforcement , its defender of the law , they act for justice , not for there own self interest.
” The system is working. ”
Yes , and it need to adapt to new laws new times and address some grey area that are now more define today and those that are coming , 10 years ago a lot of what we have now did not exist and we still have a lot of things that are coming …
“Why they want to fix what isn’t really broken is a question I have been trying to answer in the months”
The most simple answer, is that they are expert and professional at what they do and you are not and have just decided to look at it from the past and its accomplishment , where as they see the changes coming , the new challenges and the new try on the grey area.
” With the release of Vista”
Vista is NOT Free Software , its release is actually a sign that there is still a lot of work to be done.
” it’s easy to draw … mulling the GPLv3. ”
And you claim to have your ear to the ground … Most people are calling upon everyone to wait for the service pack 2 and even go as far as suggesting service pack 3 before starting to move to it.
“Yeah, maybe it’s technically better”
Your not qualified to make a comment.
“but what we have is working fine”
Your not qualified to make a comment.
“and the new system seems a bit draconian for my tastes. ”
That means its close to perfection.
I really believe it is going to hurt more than help. Even for people in the GPL community it is a divisive issue.
“I really believe it is going to hurt more than help. Even for people in the GPL community it is a divisive issue.”
Make a point please. GPL community!?
Edited 2007-02-03 03:18
wowo, that one would be easy. Look at the MS/Novell deal. It has divided the community in two; some of them actively are feeding the FUD because they, for whatever reason, think that interoperability is something we should not have.
The GPLv3 tries to close such deals and prevents linux to intermis with other systems.
So yes, it will hurt, it won’t help. Unless you also think that interoperability is a bad thing. Big companies are seriously waiting to have heterogenous networks!
wowo, that one would be easy. Look at the MS/Novell deal. It has divided the community in two; some of them actively are feeding the FUD because they, for whatever reason, think that interoperability is something we should not have.
Close, but no cigar. OK, I admit. Not even close. Not even close to being close.
The MS/Novell deal has not “divided the community in two.” I have yet to witness or hear of a single case of a LUG splitting, or two linux users being at each other’s throats over the question of the MS/Novell deal.
Nor do we think that interoperability is a bad thing. However, this deal will not make interoperability any easier except maybe between NOVELL Linux and Windows, which is in contravention of the terms of the GPL, since all code has to be shared between everyone (unless it’s only for private, non-distributed use).
It’s YOU who are “spreading the FUD”, so if you don’t like people doing it, then don’t.
In my view, I think that a great portion of the Free Software movement will be looking at which version of the GNU user land the Debian project will end up using by default. I say this because Debian itself is a base from which many other GNU/Linux(and other kernels) distributions are built. And whether the GPLv3 is compatible with the DFSG.
I won’t debate the definition nor the limits of freedom… But I will point out that ideologically pure interpretation of freedom in a shrinkingly small community … constitutes a Pyrrhic victory for Free Software.
Says it all, really.
The main issue can the user update software on a device.
Side one
========
Linus + Others.
Greater adoption means *companies* will contribute to code, and the code will benefit.
Side two
========
FSF + Others.
If the community/user/3rd party software company can change the code, the code will benefit.
Pick a side. Its not a complex argument. I’m tired of I think its bad…or I think its good. Make a point.
I love GPL2. I love GPL3 *more* because its about me. I know that under GPL3 devices grow in ways that benefit *ME*. Why would I care what kernel is running on a device; If the company drops support for the device, or that things cannot change like say a hard drive recorder being used as a cheap console/server/firewall/media center, or added benefits like removing commercials, or sharing missing episodes of a season with other users denied me, because of a fault on the device, or be able to copy…and play programs off a hard disc recorder onto my computer where I can burn it to disc. In fact why would I care that it runs Linux at all.
I understand the argument for GPL2, the problem is I don’t think companies *voluntarily* contribute to Linux. They often have to be dragged kicking and screaming to support it…by Microsoft most of the time. Its often put in places like these as pro-developer…Its not. Its pro-companies not wanting to play ball.
I actually believe that companies will *benefit* from the GPL3 license. Customers like Freedom…esp when it comes to their MEDIA.
The ear to the ground here says that significant number of GPL2 supporters are normally doing pro BSD posts, or Vista posts, check peoples history its enlightening.
Whats interesting is to a significant proportion of people *who use Linux* this has become a Richard vs Linus battle. And I expect to see a popularity contest on here soon. Rather than focus on the license.
Edited 2007-02-03 04:09
@cyclops
I understand the argument for GPL2, the problem is I don’t think companies *voluntarily* contribute to Linux. They often have to be dragged kicking and screaming to support it…by Microsoft most of the time. Its often put places like these as pro-developer…Its not. Its pro-companies.
Aren’t companies users too? Why should they have to contribute?
Whats interesting is to a significant proportion of people *who use Linux* this has become a Richard vs Linus battle. And I expect to see a popularity contest on here soon. Rather than focus on the license.
It is a GNU/Stallman versus Torvald issue. The FSF has a lot to lose if they can’t eventually force Linus into the GPL3 has most Linux kernel projects will still be GPL2 only. You must take into account that Linux is the flagship product for the FSF and the GPL.
“Aren’t companies users too? Why should they have to contribute? ”
*No*. You do understand GPL; it enforces contributions(sic). Read the article and look at his reference to BSD. Look at how BSD works. Look at his driving points about *Patents*(sic).
Its not a Richard vs Linux issue they are at best advocates. Linux is made up of thousands of components. Linux is a *critical* part of the OS, but is made up of a small number of developers, albeit good ones, and has and will received criticisms itself for forming a clique and putting off potential contributers. Even amongst its own there have been recently dissatisfaction of *binary blobs* and tried to purge these. Thats without SUN coming forward with a kernel that is *GPL3*.
Even with this Linux’s is already made up of many licenses for *critical* applications that are neither GPL2 or 3. If Linux the kernel vanished tomorrow there is *many* potential Linux’s waiting in the wings.
What I most dislike about Linus is he has taken this personally, as his clear from his comments.
What I most dislike about Linus is he has taken this personally, as his clear from his comments.
As the kernel devs have pointed out, they feel that they’re being bullied and harangued on their licensing stance by people that haven’t contributed a single line of code to the kernel. Mostly the same people that were, and remain, utterly incapable of producing their own kernel.
In fairness, I’d be a little pissed, too.
“As the kernel devs have pointed out, they feel that they’re being bullied and harangued on their licensing stance by people that haven’t contributed a single line of code to the kernel. Mostly the same people that were, and remain, utterly incapable of producing their own kernel.
In fairness, I’d be a little pissed, too.”
I’m shocked and appalled at the outragiousness of that lie
How do I know this is true. Because Linus and his gang got ignored by the FSF over GPL3. Its heavily documented…everywhere.
Edited 2007-02-04 02:24
“It is a GNU/Stallman versus Torvald issue. The FSF has a lot to lose if they can’t eventually force Linus into the GPL3”
Its not possible. Read the license
GPL3 has strong support from companies so I don’t think it will be “just another license”. Add in the fact GPL3 works better with other OSI-licenses than GPL2.
Most of the attacks on GPL3 are based on incorrect information, so I choose to play “wait and see”.
Open Solaris is coming full bore with GPL 3. No Force is being applied.
The “Community” has flourished because of “Show me the code”. The GPL has protected my rights and freedoms to see it as well as freely participate in its useage, advocacy, and even distribution. I love those freedoms because so much of that code is so well thought out and somewhat inspired. I like that good ideas will propegate and flourish. I also benefit from interacting with good people. The “code” is a great reason to hang out. Geez, I might actually learn something or do something productive.
Definately do not feel oppressed or denied.
Open Solaris is coming full bore with GPL 3. No Force is being applied.
That isn’t true. GPLv3 is being discussed by our community, but no decision has been made yet. My feeling is that it will not happen, and that I hope it does not.
why wouldn’t you want the OpenSolaris system to be GPLv3?!? i haven’t followed the discussion, so i really wonder…
There is a fear that dual licensing OpenSolaris could result in a fork that is only licensed under GPLv3 in which case Sun would not be able to include any such modifications in their codebase as the code would have to be dual-licensed CDDL/GPLv3 to be included.
Personally i think CDDL is a great license and Sun should stick to it soley for OpenSolaris.
Well, that’s a realistic fear, and it’s why I think dual-licensing isn’t the smartest thing in the world (tough it has its value now and then).
why wouldn’t you want the OpenSolaris system to be GPLv3?!?
Because the CDDL is already good enough and is a license with *more* freedoms and *less* restrictions than the GPLv3. Besides that, until the GPLv3 is finalized, I can’t say for certain that I will like it. The current version is unacceptable in my view for some of the same reasons that Linus doesn’t like it.
Well, if the ‘more freedom’ means, like it does with BSD, that it allows for taking away the user’s freedom, I wouldn’t call that an advantage.
The reason Linus doesn’t like the GPLv3 is that it forces vendors to ALWAYS allow consumers to change the software on their devices (after all, on of the 4 freedoms the GPLv2 should’ve been forcing) – do you have a problem with that? I can see why – from a commercial point of view, it’s great if you can restrict consumers’ rights as that’s a great way to make money. But it’s not what Free Software is about – if you want to make money in a GPL world, you just have to be better than the competition, instead of better at restricting users. The GPLv2 has a loophole, allowing you to prevent users to do with their devices whatever they want. The GPLv3 fixes that.
If you see it as an advantage of the CDDL that it allows a vendor to restrict the ability of their users to change the software on a device, well, I can see why you don’t like the GPLv3. But then we just disagree about what a vendor should be allowed to do…
/*Open Solaris is coming full bore with GPL 3. No Force is being applie */
so, is this where the GNU GPLv3 forking begins with SUN’s opensolaris kernel? so i guess i’m witnessing what is going to drive the GPLv3 license a community of solars happy people competing against the linux people and the GPLv2.
Edited 2007-02-03 07:13
forking? you mean forking of the solaris kernel, or ‘forking’ from linux to solaris? i don’t see the problem there, eg in debian you can choose what kernel you use with the OS. KDE runs on BSD as well, no enduser will know the difference… Linux isn’t that special, imho. i wouldn’t care if there was more choice of kernels in the current linux-centric distributions…
/*GPLv3 threatens to fork GNU projects and marginalize*/
If it ever comes down to a point where GNU/Linux gets fork, I’ll align myself with whatever side Gentoo Linux picks.
Edited 2007-02-03 05:12
You clearly haven’t been paying attention to Gentoo. Gentoo is a build from source…look how its being used to build FreeBSD.
GNULinux can fork however it pleases Gentoo can *accommodative* that without forking…or could fork itself.
The reality is many large projects simply are not under GPL.
/* Gentoo is a build from source…look how its being used to build FreeBSD. */
is freebsd using gentoo to build freebsd?
/* GNULinux can fork however it pleases Gentoo can *accommodative* that without forking…or could fork itself.*/
i only said i will run whatever apps gentoo decides to bundle with the distro it can be GPLv3 apps or GPLv2 apps does not matter to me i will still stay with gentoo.
Edited 2007-02-03 06:54
Right behind ya.
http://gplv3.fsf.org/gpl-draft-2006-07-27.html
For those who are curious.
DRM is the threat to your freedom, not GPL3. I see DRM splitting us into two distinct camps and naught to do with ones operating system of choice.
Now I don’t consider myself a GPL backer, I’d prefer someone contribute back because they want to, rather than they have to. However, every developer should have a right to choose how their code is used and if there is a significant portion of them that don’t want their code used within DRM and software patent encumbered projects then I’d say it is fully within their right to chose to do so. That said the free software community has always seemed to hold a balance between those support it based on pragmatism and those who support it based on principle and I think the GPL 3 may upset that balance. In the end though, I feel the decision should ultimately lay at the hands of each developer on his own and their freedom to choose.
In summary: Developers, Developers, Developers!
Edited 2007-02-03 07:29
I forgot the song from whence “I, Me, My, Mine, Four Words which spell decline…” came, but those words are equally relevant for most of these posts further up in this thread. It’s baffling that you people are so worried about an advocacy group protecting *your*/*my* freedom, *your*/*my* rights, your/my this and that.
I mean, if the FSF was formed in order to protect the freedoms of others (including developers in the Third World) more so than propagate their own advancement (the guys behind the GNU project being citizens of the leading First World nation), then why are you people doing the opposite?
It’s not about you, and it’s not about me. It’s about others besides oneself, which is why it’s called the General Public License, not the Specific Private License.
So it would help if the supposed FOSS advocates on this board would follow through in using appropriate terminology in describing the goals of that movement, rather than come off sounding like a bunch of stingy, militaristic neoconservatives.
/end nitpick
/I should know. My sister’s stationed about an hour and a half from us in Fort Benning, Georgia, and did a year in Iraq.
Where is the code? This license debate kills every good code. So shut up and code.
In my opinion, GPL3 will neither ‘energize free software’ or ‘marginalize the FSF’. It will become yet another licence for people to choose. To me GPL3 will always be an updated GPL2 to counter freedom revoking issues that affect 2007 and possibly beyond.
Stallman’s campaign has always been about freedom for the user. Many people don’t know/understand this basic principle with relation to freedom in software – it is all about the user’s liberty. More specifically, Stallman campaigns about the right of the user to maintain complete control of our own systems as well as the right to share the software with anybody. With these two basic ideas in mind, Stallman defined the term Free Software as software that gives the user four particular freedoms:
0) The right to use
1) The right to tinker
2) The right to share
3) The right to publish improvements
Stallman then wrote a licence with the intent that all users would have these four liberties. This licence was named the GNU General Public License. The GPL was updated in 1991 to form GPL version 2. GPL2 has proven to be a suitable licence in maintaining the user’s freedom as evidenced by news of the GPL2 being legally sound as well as the number of people choosing to release their software under GPL2.
Stallman is now in the process of rectifying issues that nullify the spirit of the GPL2 as people have managed to find ways to restrict the user’s freedom using GPL2 licenced software. The two most famous examples of this would be Tivo’s use of DRM to prevent the user from maintaining control of the Tivo and the Microsoft/Novel agreement that essentially allows Microsoft to threat users from their right to share software. Other changes in the licence includes tighter definition of terms as well as changes to increase compatibility with many other free software licences.
Now, Bill Weinberg dislikes the direction the GPL3 is headed. He argues that:
> Adoption will trump a narrow view of Freedom. The FSF role will shrink to marginal proportions, and GPLv3 will become, sadly, just another license.
Stallman always had a narrow view of freedom – it has always been biased towards freedom for the user and this issue has never changed at all. Many people fail to realise this. FREEDOM FOR THE USER. FREEDOM FOR THE USER. FREEDOM FOR THE USER. Remember this when Free Software activists claim free software.
Edited 2007-02-03 12:15
“I won’t debate the definition nor the limits of freedom… But I will point out that ideologically pure interpretation of freedom in a shrinkingly small community … constitutes a Pyrrhic victory for Free Software.”
agreed.
The OSS/Linux crowd were setting themselves up for a hard decision by using a licencse and depending on a software stack from the FOSS/GNU bunch. If the latter changes the license in a way that is unacceptable to the former, what then do they choose to do about the dependancy on the software stack.
the answer to that question will be very interesting.
six of one, half a dozen of the other
FSF is planning on banning novel from selling linux because of the novel/microsoft agreement.
OpenSolaris will not be licensed exclusively under the GPL like Linux. So if Tivo wants to do what they are doing with Linux using OpenSolaris for example, they will just use the CDDL. OpenSolaris is also available as a non open source system, so Tivo could just license that instead.
Sun has nothing to lose by licensing OpenSolaris under the GPLv3. All contributions will likely require that you assign copyright to them and allow Sun to license your code under any terms they so wish (much like the FSF want with all code assigned to them) and so they are not really bound by the GPL. This applies to the whole code base. Linus only has unlimited rights to his own contributions to the kernel, and he cannot close off the entire thing. This means that if Sun were to decide later that they are better served by closing off the system, you can bet they will.
All contributions will likely require that you assign copyright to them and allow Sun to license your code under any terms they so wish (much like the FSF want with all code assigned to them) and so they are not really bound by the GPL. This applies to the whole code base.
This means that if Sun were to decide later that they are better served by closing off the system, you can bet they will.
uh….Can SUN require anything above and beyond what the GPL requires? In other words, can sun place ‘further restrictions’ on software licensed under v3? Can sun require that you assign copyright?
GPL covered software is bound by the GPL, and once solaris is GPL then there is really no way to ‘close it off’ as you suggest. If they hold the copyright to all the code then yes they could change the license. But nothing changes the fact that yesterdays version is still GPL covered, everyone is free to contribute to a community project that uses yesterdays version to build from.
uh….Can SUN require anything above and beyond what the GPL requires? In other words, can sun place ‘further restrictions’ on software licensed under v3? Can sun require that you assign copyright?
GPL covered software is bound by the GPL, and once solaris is GPL then there is really no way to ‘close it off’ as you suggest. If they hold the copyright to all the code then yes they could change the license. But nothing changes the fact that yesterdays version is still GPL covered, everyone is free to contribute to a community project that uses yesterdays version to build from.
They do require Copy right assignment for most of their projects. We can depend on the fact that they are ‘good ‘ now, but CEOs come and go, and that attitude (towards OSS) can change overnight.
There is no real quid pro quo between the community and Sun in the case of dual licensing software. They will require copyright assignment as gatekeepers of the project, and so will derive all the benefits of your code, whilst they will keep their own copyrights which they do not grant to you. So they can close of the whole code base and stop contributing code to the GPL version. The OSS movement will have a version which they have quite limited rights over. They will not be able to relicense it (as things stand) and since in this relationship, Sun is the majority contributor, you can bet that it will stagnate until it is not relevant.
Sun will always have a distinct advantage with OpenSolaris, because they hold all the cards. As it stands, no one can say that about Redhat, Novell or any other Linux company.
………okay………..
So they can demand stuff that the license does not demand? AND… they keep their copyrights which they do not grant to me?????? AND….they will limit my rights to all of it……….
You are aware we are talking about it being under the GPL , correct?
v3 for me!
free software that is encrypted and unusable is not very free is it…
If anyone thinks popularity should trump freedom then I have to ask what would make linux different than that other OS since it is popular and it is not free.
Why does the article assume business will stay FAR away from v3 or at least any further than they do with v2 anyway? If a business truly wants to be a ‘free software’ player then I assume they want people to enjoy the four freedoms – so I hope they would be upset by what can currently be twisted and stretched into so-called v2 compliance.
Anyone who has followed the draft process knows that input has been taken into consideration and compromise has been made. Does the ‘other side’ have any compromise or is it their way or they aint playin’
Another article that provides fodder for everyone to belief their are two camps and that are at conflict with one another. Free software is free software, why use it if you do not believe in it? By using free software you are a part of the free software community whether you like it or not. You are at least promoting it simply by usage. If you feel that JUST ‘open source’ is good enough then by all means use it. But when you want shared source code changes and other benefits of free software then go with ‘free software’. But please stop saying that ‘free software’ should become more ‘bsd like’ just to make it more popular. Because as the FSF pointed out – it isn’t about popularity. It never was. It never will be. Free software has benefits – if someone wants those benefits then it is a give/take situation. Most companies only want to take and that is why they have such a problem with free software in general.
Gettin’ ready for v3 Solaris!!!!
Nothing wrong with the right kind of choice right? A choice in kernels would be welcome by me!