The FSF today released the fourth and ‘last call’ draft for version 3 of the GNU GPL. The Foundation will hear comments on the latest draft for 29 days, and expects to officially publish the license on Friday, June 29, 2007. The new draft incorporates the feedback received from the general public and official discussion committees since the release of the previous draft on March 28, 2007. FSF executive director Peter Brown said: “We’ve made a few very important improvements based on the comments we’ve heard, most notably with license compatibility. Now that the license is almost finished, we can look forward to distributing the GNU system under GPLv3, and making its additional protections available to the whole community.”
Just a reaction to the quote mentioned above:
It’s interesting marketing, calling the increasing number of restrictions that the FSF is trying to impose on people to ensure they don’t use Evil Protected IP Closed-Source Products ‘freedoms.’
We’ve been through this over nine thousand times. You might not agree with the FSF’s definition of freedom, but it’s internally consistent even if _you_ don’t accept it.
Also, in before anti-GPL shitstorm.
edit: typo
Edited 2007-06-01 15:42
Well said. Sadly, these days too many are taking advantage of the freedoms that the FSF has worked long and hard for, and they don’t give one iota about the FSF. Ungrateful bastards.
We’re seeing a strong push from the BSD users, and from corporations to try and invalidate the GPL, or circumvent it, in order to destroy the ideals of the FSF. This is very sad in my eyes, the FSF is one of the few bodies that pushes hard for [software] freedoms.
The software patent system is both horrendously broken, and also unneeded. There is another statistical evidence to show that software patents destroy competition, promote monopolies and also destroy the little guy from being able to invent (and protect his software invention). If software patents are so valuable, and so necessary, how has the EU survived for so long without them?
Can you imagine if the greats like Sir Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Johannes Kepler, Nicolas Copernicus, Ptolemy and so on and on patented their ideas? We’d have gotten nowhere, and society from a scientific point of view would have stalled.
The FSF and GPL promotes sharing software, for everyone, for the betterment of everyone. If you want to modify code and distribute it for a profit, that’s fine (disproving all of thsse who call the GPL/FSF communist), just simply redistribute your improvements back to the community that helped spawn you software.
As archiesteel has said, if you don’t like the GPL, then don’t friggen use it. Simple. Piss off, use your BSD/proprietary code, whatever, don’t reserve the right to bash the GPL/FSF because you disagree with its software principles.
I am very surprised at how many people are anti GPL/FSF these days, but I guess it has to do with the increasing numbers of Windows refugees, who come to GNU/Linux because it’s free (as in cost) and fail to realise the other fundamental freedoms that the GPL/FSF provides you with. Talk about being stupid and ungrateful.
Dave
Although I saw two or three other things in your post, here’s the biggest thing I have to correct in your comment:
The FSF and GPL promotes sharing software, for everyone, for the betterment of everyone.
I propose to prove that what the GPL promotes isn’t sharing, and that there is no-one that it benefits.
First, as to sharing.
If I create Program X with Code Y, and Code Y is GPL v2 code, I’m allowed to use it for myself. However, I cannot distribute Program X (even for free*) because I would be forced to give away the code as well (i.e., Code Z, something that’s part of X, but which is neither X nor Y). And that’s not sharing.
Sharing is based on giving unto others what you want of your own free will, as people helping other people. Giving up what you are forced to give up by some external force, with the people being subordinate to the Glorious Movement — that’s fascism.
Second, as to who it benefits…
How do I, the would-be user, benefit by using code licensed under the GPL? How do I benefit by not being allowed to create a work on my own terms? Why must I (and thousands, maybe tens of thousands of others) re-invent the wheel if I want to be able to control my project? Why must I be forced by a copyleft clause to have every would-be-king take my work, tweak to make it slightly incompatible, so they can work against with my own work? Why can’t I have the benefit of the doubt, and why must I be presupposed by a license to have evil intentions? Why is having a closed central point of control so wrong? Why is making money from my work, if I can get it, such a bad thing?
How do you, the would-be distributor, benefit from authoritarian “free” software licenses like the GPL? Will requiring others to give up their work help your project spread? Will mandating the distribution of a large, obfuscated license with anything created with your work make it any more likely that it will be obeyed? Will it make it easier to get private interest (and thus extensive bug-testing, adoption, and most importantly, a user community)? Will it make it easier to get corporate interest (and thus funding for full-time researchers, debuggers, coders, and the broad marketing and adoption that will come with their using your code)? Is artificial moral high ground you’ve built up really worth the loss of support, quality, and adoption of your work?
If you’re going to give it away, at least have the curtosy of releasing it into the public domain (or as close as possible in current international copyright law — a few countries won’t let you do that, I’m told). If you’re not going to do that, then don’t call it ‘free’, and don’t cover yourself in the drapery of ‘freedom.’ Call it open source if you like — because the source is open, true, in the same sence that Microsoft’s shared source initiative makes the code open — but it’s not by any means acually free or promoting acual freedom.
* I mean free as in actually free, not free as in any of the ‘free as in…’ metaphors for things that aren’t freedom that you hear being batted around so much lately.
Edited 2007-06-03 07:11
I don’t think you understand what sharing means: “to allow someone to use or enjoy something that one possesses.”
The GPL is, in fact, sharing with others. You are not forced to share your work, because a) you are not forced into using GPLed software, and b) you don’t have to redistribute it even if you do.
So, in fact, if you do not want to share freely with others, then you simply do not use GPLed code to build your application. It’s as simple as that.
That is complete and utter BS. You are not forced to do anything. I’ll repeat it, since your quasi-religious opposition to Free Software seems to cloud your judgement: you do *not* have to use GPLed software to build your own, and if you do you do *not* have to redistribute it.
It’s very simple: if someone chooses – of their own free will – to release their software under the GPL, then you are only allowed to redistribute it if you abide by the conditions set by the copyright holder. If you’re not ready to do that, then don’t use the license.
The most hypocritical part of it, of course, is that you decry the GPL for not allowing you to use someone else’s code to produce software which will give *no* rights to those who will use it. In other words, you criticize the GPL for not giving enough freedom to others, even though the software you say you would like to distribute would not give *any* freedom to others.
Ah, now I see the root of your misunderstanding. Licensing software under the GPL *isn’t* giving it away at all. Rather, it is *licensing* the software to third parties, and giving them *more* rights (or freedom, if you will) than they would normally have under copyright law. However, the creator of the work still retains copyright over his code (even if you use GPLed code, you still retain copyright over *your* code, incidentally). You seem to imply that coders shouldn’t have the right to choose the GPL for their software, which basically means that you do not respect their IP rights.
We already know that you personally don’t want to freely give away your code, or release it under a license that gives users the freedom to study, modify and redistribute the code (otherwise you wouldn’t whine so much about being bound by the terms of the GPL, despite the fact that you do *not* have to use GPLed code in the first place). We get it. Now can you stop polluting every GPL-related thread with your fanatical drivel? Thanks.
It is actually simpler than that. You can freely use GPL code to make a proprietary program. You can use Kdevelop and GCC to your heart’s content to make your proprietary program.
What you cannot do is incorporate GPL source code (which was written by someone else) into your program and then make it “proprietary” and try to sell it for profit to someone else.
BTW, it is quite acceptable to take some source code which you wrote yourself and had previously released as GPL, and incorporate your code into another project and make that proprietary if you want to. You can do what you want with your own source code … just remember though that it is only your own source code if you wrote it yourself.
You cannot take someone else’s work and sell it to a third party for your profit. That is just theft and rip-off, pure and simple.
If you want to make a proprietary program, then by all means use GPL code as tools (editors, compilers, debuggers, etc) to help you in the process, but do not use the GPL source code as part of your program, because the GPL source code is not yours to use for that purpose.
And once again, with emphasis … no one forces you to use GPL code. It is worth repeating … no one forces you to use GPL code … for any purpose.
Edited 2007-06-03 09:27
If you want to give away the code of program X, then you have no problem, because you can just release it under the GPL.
If you don’t want to give away the code of program X (actually the part of program X you have labeled “Z”) then don’t give it away, keep it for yourself.
If you want to be able to sell program X as a binary only, then you have two choices: (1) write all of program X yourself, and don’t sponge the Y part off of others, or (2) get in contact with the authors of Y and buy a commercial license for that code from them, and then you can use Y in your commercial product program X.
The only thing you may not do is use (gratis) other people’s work (Y) for sale in your for-profit program X.
Please note: you may not use any of Microsoft’s “Y” either, so this is no different in the case of GPL’d “Y”.
You are not forced to do that. If you want to make a commercial X, and it must use Y, then either write your own equivalent of “Y” as part of X, or get a license from the authors of Y to use Y commercially as part of your X. You are not licensed under the GPL to do the latter, so this commercial license must be a separate arrangement between you and the authors of Y.
Edited 2007-06-03 11:49
What you’re describing is a BSD style freedom, something that smacks of false freedom to me. Where is it morally right that person A can take my code, improve it, fork it, keep the src code private and resell it to make a profit without returning one iota of a thank you to me, the original coder who may have developed the VAST majority of his code? mmm? Answer that one for me please.
I don’t care about business, I care abou the people. The BSD license does NOT care about the people, and that’s why it’s very popular with business. They know they can take, not give back to the community, and get away with it.
Tell me, if you designed a computer system, and sold it, to make a profit. I came along, copied 95% of it, made a few tiny improvements, kept those improvements from you (and the rest of the competition) and it became a best seller and outsold your computer and you went bust, would you be happy? You might call that capitalism, and it is (at its worst I might add – I’m not a fan of capitalism, it promotes human greed, one of our worst traits as a species imho), you might call it fair business. You might even argue that my example is a bad one, because patents would protect you. I’m ignoring patents for in my example for a deliberate reason, to make a similar enough analogy to the FSF vs BSD licenses and software appropriation.
Dave
I am very surprised at how many people are anti GPL/FSF these days, but I guess it has to do with the increasing numbers of Windows refugees, who come to GNU/Linux because it’s free (as in cost) and fail to realise the other fundamental freedoms that the GPL/FSF provides you with. Talk about being stupid and ungrateful.
I lose patience over it. However, as friend much smarter than me reminds me, so many problems come from ignorance, which can be remedied with education.
I find it helpful to think of two ideas of the free software movement. First, software should be free. Second, free software must include its philosophy. So much collective vested interest is threatened by one or both of these ideas and so unwilling are these opponents to attack the ideas directly, that instead we see all manner of fallacious, elaborate, deceptive, ridiculous hate directed against the FSF, the GPL, RMS, etc.
Maybe the most important group of opponents comes from those with the most to lose in the face of their own stubborness: developers, lawyers, journalists, bloggers, salespeople, academics and many others active in the Microsoft development ecosystem. In this most sophisticated group will be sincere people but also all manner of shills, turfers, trolls, you name it.
A related group belongs to, as you say, the Windows refugees (refugees that are fortunately on the increase). It’s good to remember that many of them may have spent their formative late teens and twenties steeped in a culture of no knowledge or experience of the four freedoms, and especially that these freedoms matter. This group will be the noisiest by sheer numbers.
Some other groups are likely more established but dropping off. They may even oppose Microsoft, who they may view as more an embarrassment than a criminal. Nonetheless, they very much have a stake in non-free software. Mini-Microsoft-wannabes, in a sense?
Another group might be the rebels who rebel for rebellion’s sake. They are “independent thinkers” who are suspicious of any advice, even if they are unable to find any holes in it.
Another, rather pathetic, group are sentimentalists, who are just stuck in the past. It’s easy for any of us to fall prey to sentimentalism, of course.
A more interesting group which often intersects with the other groups are those who confuse the open source campaign and the free software movement. Clearly, the two camps are on the same side, but there are two goals that are mixed up: the open source goal of sheer numbers and the free software goal of people working only with free software. The free software goal simply takes more committment than the open source goal, so it’s no wonder that the other goal is more popular, and popularity breeds popularity.
In short, I find it helpful to realize that “inertia” explains much of the hate. Moreover, it is encouraging that the vast bulk of the planet will be far more predisposed to the ideas of free software.
Edited 2007-06-03 15:54
I gather it is freedom from one point of view or within a specific context rather than a notion that the term freedom is a catch all. This difference in the perception of freedom is generally what sparks the Linux/BSD flame-fests around here.
As an example, I’m free to pay lots of money for Vista Ultimate.
Being free to pay for Vista is ‘choice’, not fundamental freedom.
edit. I should add that I’m not disagreeing with your first point.
Edited 2007-06-01 15:54
Being free to pay for Vista is ‘choice’, not fundamental freedom.
You have a very strange definition of freedom.
It’s Americans who have the strangest definition of Freedom.
WTH!? Why was I god-modded down??
http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=18012&comment_id=244620
People were agreeing
Looks like a cut-and-dried violation of the personal attack clause to me…
“””
Looks like a cut-and-dried violation of the personal attack clause to me…
“””
Speaking as an American citizen, Kroc’s statement has a lot of truth to it. And stating the truth is not a personal attack.
Looks like a cut-and-dried abuse of the moderation system to me.
Speaking as an American citizen, Kroc’s statement has a lot of truth to it. And stating the truth is not a personal attack.
No, it’s not “truth”, it’s “opinion”.
You mean tomcat’s comment, which was referring specifically to Kroc (and therefore was personal)? Or Kroc’s comment, which made a sweeping generalization (and thus wasn’t personal at all)?
Personally, this whole sub-thread is off-topic and should be modded down as such.
Freedom is Choice residing with the Individual. They are not bound to purchase the decisions other Individuals choose to make.
I’m still in the mind that the FSF trying to step above the patent system, is just as bad as other companies using it. Some patents exist for good reasons, and good intentions.
If the FSF has issues with patents, it should be lobbying for change. At the end of the day, the written law is above the GPL3 “contract”, and the terms of the GPL3 can be thrown out as not within the bounds of law, the same as any EULA.
edit: two typos
Edited 2007-06-01 15:58
I’m still in the mind that the FSF trying to step above the patent system, is just as bad as other companies using it. Some patents exist for good reasons, and good intentions.
If the FSF has issues with patents, it should be lobbying for change. At the end of the day, the written law is above the GPL3 “contact”, and the terms of the GPL3 can been thrown out as not within the bounds of law, the same as any EULA.
Excellent comments. Too often, people solely think of patent holders as big corporations. But there are plenty of small-time inventors who deserve the protections of the patent system against the big corporations. GPL3 doesn’t seem to acknowledge this need at all.
Those are a very small minority. The vast majority of software patents are held either by big ISVs, or worse yet, by companies that do nothing but amass patents for litigation purposes.
This is not new in GPL3, it was there in GPL2. It is perfectly consistent with the FSF’s well-articulated opposition to software patents.
BTW, the FSF isn’t alone in thinking software patents are bad. I’m sure most ISVs agree (including Microsoft, who has had to pay hundreds of millions in patent-related lawsuits). The reasons these ISVs build patent portfolio is to protect themselves from litigation, not to protect their R&D investments.
Software patents should be scrapped, pure and simple. Copyright law is quite sufficient to protect IP as far as software is concerned.
Those are a very small minority.
So what?
Minorities also have rights, only communist think the contrary.
@Hiev
Minorities also have rights, only communist think the contrary.
The whole point here is that with GPLv3 there is a choice for all, including the minority, to avoid the issues associated with patents.
Anyone is still free to chose a different license that offers patent protection.
]{
Not for all, some of us and the minorities you mentioned don’t believe in the four “freedoms”, so is not for all,
Edited 2007-06-01 17:14
I don’t think you understood what he said at all. He said there is *choice* for all, those who want to use the GPLv3, and those who don’t.
I’m puzzled as to why you don’t believe in the four freedoms. Don’t you think the ability to use, study, modify and redistribute the code give you more freedom than what copyright law normally allows?
Don’t you think the ability to use, study, modify and redistribute the code give you more freedom than what copyright law normally allows?
You already have the ability to do that with your own creations. It’s called intellectual property, and it’s an innate human right, not something the GPL or any other license magically grants you. All the GPL does is take abilities you already have, sell them back to you, and then offer you the chance to steal the work of others through its copyleft clauses. All for the low, low price of not being allowed to say ‘no.’
(Edited to fix spelling error.)
Edited 2007-06-01 19:28
I wasn’t talking about your own work, but the work of others.
Let’s me rephrase this so it’s less ambiguous: don’t you think the ability to use, study, modify and redistribute code *other than your own* give you more freedom than what copyright law normally allows *for code not written by you*?
Nonsense. First, the GPL doesn’t “sell back” your abilities to you. As copyright holders, you do not forfeit any rights to the code when you license it under the GPL (although you cannot revoke the rights of someone who uses the code unless they do not respect the conditions of the license). You can even relicense the code under a different license if you want (though, again, the code originally distributed under the GPL can still be used by a third party).
You don’t get to “steal” anyone’s work. Others can only use and modify *your* code if they allow others the same rights that they received. That’s the condition that *you* set when you freely choose the GPL as a license.
You completely miss the point of the license.
You already have the ability to do that with your own creations. It’s called intellectual property, and it’s an innate human right, not something the GPL or any other license magically grants you. All the GPL does is take abilities you already have, sell them back to you, and then offer you the chance to steal the work of others through its copyleft clauses. All for the low, low price of not being allowed to say ‘no.’
“IP” is a marketing phrase devoid of legal meaning that has few legitimate uses.(1)
Copyright is the issue here, and it is merely an artificial right, an artificial monopoly designed to entice producers to produce whatever might be useful for society. It is not an innate human right. What you can do with anything under your copyright is a trivial case in that you can always relicense it under any licenses you want. The GPL is nothing special in this context. You can license under the GPL and turn around and license under non-free terms–e.g., MySQL. Thus, it does not “sell” anything at all back to you, since you already have it.
(1) See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property for a sympathetic treatment. E.g., Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer like to use “IP” in order to confuse the notions of software copyrights and patents when such confusion will lull people into accepting some of Microsoft’s unethical business practices.
Edited 2007-06-01 20:12
“IP” is a marketing phrase devoid of legal meaning that has few legitimate uses… It is not an innate human right.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 27, line 2. That’s been ratified everywhere — even in Europe.
“IP” is a marketing phrase devoid of legal meaning that has few legitimate uses… It is not an innate human right.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 27, line 2. That’s been ratified everywhere — even in Europe.
Three points:
1. Your abuse (I assume unintentional) of the ellipsis punctuation (“…”) misrepresents my comment. I dismissed “IP” right away, and then focused on copyright. So the correct substitution is “Copyright is not an innate human right”. I defend it in the case of the U.S. simply by appealing to the Constitution. If it were innate, there would be no need for the authorization of an artificial one.
2. I am guessing that the declaration that you cite was the result of heavy lobbying from WIPO(1), which is one of Microsoft’s many longtime attack dogs. While I cannot dispute that what you cite exists, its implications on policy are far from clear. After all, in the U.S. the Constitution still tends to rule the day, much as Microsoft would prefer it not on some issues, I realize. Fortunately, there are legal eagles who believe in fighting the drift away (e.g., DMCA) from the Constitution.
3. What you cite is a “Golden Rule”: they who own(2) the Gold make the Rules.
(1) For more on this controversial body, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIPO
(2) Microsoft et al, in this case, if there was any doubt
Edited 2007-06-01 21:22
> Minorities also have rights, only communist think the contrary.
They do, but isn’t it the other way around? Doesn’t communism see everybody as equal? Isn’t it democracy that needs special constructs to protect minorities from being overrun by the majority?
I think democracy seeks the better for all including minorities, communism seek to see everyone equals, so mínorities wouln’t have rights because they wouldn’t be recognised.
No. It sees the “working class” as superior to other classes and the Collective superior to the Individual. All systems that contains a Collective leadership of some kind need to protect the minority. The smallest minority is the Individual.
If e-patents served their original purpose, I’d agree with you, but what we have is cold war era arsenal, you register/buy patents so that others won’t sue *you*. Just keeping the lawyers busy.
Even a small, hobbist project is expected to infringe at least 2-3 (trivial) patents without knowing.
Edited 2007-06-01 19:10
So the reality is different from what tomcat was implying.
You’re mixing apples and oranges here. We’re not talking about fundamental human rights for minority groups, we’re talking about the patent system being abused by large corporations, and people here defending this abuse in the name of a few hypothetical individuals.
Let’s try to keep this discussion on rational grounds and avoid these types of logical fallacies, shall we?
Also, if you’re so concerned about freedom, why do you support patents at all? After all, they prevent other people from freely developing code. If the GPL’s restrictions bother you, those associated with software patents should logically bother you even more!
Edited 2007-06-01 19:17
Those are a very small minority.
So what. I hold a few patents, myself. I’m not a big ISV. By your standard, my patent rights don’t matter at all under GPL3. Quite frankly, I find that perspective to be ridiculously oppressive, not “freedom”.
tomcat wrote:
“So what. I hold a few patents, myself. I’m not a big ISV. By your standard, my patent rights don’t matter at all under GPL3. Quite frankly, I find that perspective to be ridiculously oppressive, not “freedom”.”
what it means is that if you distributed your patented code under GPLv3, you will not later be able to sue anyone for using, distributing or modifying that patented code. you do have the freedom not to distribute your patented code under GPLv3 to begin with, it’s up to you. not really opressive imo.
Actually, they *do* matter. That’s the whole point of the debate. In this context, it means that you couldn’t release software using those patents under the GPL. Is that something you were planning on doing? Yeah, I didn’t think so.
So, what software patents are you holding? Because, you know, if you can’t prove it then it’s useless to bring it up in this discussion.
Actually, as someone else pointed out, you could release it, but then you wouldn’t be able to sue someone that would use those patents.
(Missed the edit window…)
Excuseme, but what patents do you hold? are you in the same group as Eolas? patenting broad reaching paradigms which have not been the biproduct of R&D by rather a nice way to sue and make money.
Oh, and btw, GPL3 does not invalidate patents; what it means is that arrangements like Novell’s don’t occur; if people like Microsoft wish to sue, they’ll have to file millions of suits against John Doe’s in regards to patent violations. Patent holders either have one of two choices; grant patents to all GPL3 holders or don’t do a thing.
So what. I hold a few patents, myself. I’m not a big ISV. By your standard, my patent rights don’t matter at all under GPL3. Quite frankly, I find that perspective to be ridiculously oppressive, not “freedom”.
There was a time when Bill Gates saw software patents as harmful. It’s a quick read:
http://news.com.com/Bill+Gates+and+other+communists/2010-1071_3-557…
Edited 2007-06-02 04:20
Actually, no. The GPL is an extension of copyright law, i.e. the copyright holder gives you *extra* rights, as a recipient of the code (in other words, he gives you rights you normally wouldn’t have). There are, however, conditions on those extra rights, one of them covering patents. If you don’t respect those conditions, then the copyright extension no longer applies, and therefore you lose those extra rights. That is *completely* within bounds of the law, and does not contradict patent law at all.
Some patents may exist for good reasons, but it is difficult to make any good argument in favor of *software* patents. The FSF believes they should be scrapped, and therefore the GPL (version 2 *and* 3) have anti-patents provisions. Don’t like ’em? Don’t use the GPL or GPLed code.
“Don’t use the GPL or GPLed code.”
You’re a large business utilizing open source components to drive your product, or have an open source product.
Some small third party decides to upgrade their code to GPL3. This code is directly used in your own project, and you do not wish to use the GPL3, or are unable to do so – you will have to re-engineer your code to use the third party code as a library, if possible at all.
The GPL is viral. At some point, maybe now, maybe three or five years down the line, any company currently utilizing GPLd code (and that’s a lot) are going to run into the GPL3 and have difficulties or conflicts trying to manage their code.
It is never as simple as just “not using” the GPL. Thousands of companies have a huge investment in GPL2 code. The GPL3 only adds to the burden of companies trying to diligently keep within tricky licensing requirements.
Kroc wrote:
“Some small third party decides to upgrade their code to GPL3. This code is directly used in your own project, and you do not wish to use the GPL3, or are unable to do so – you will have to re-engineer your code to use the third party code as a library, if possible at all. “
and what would your reasons for not being able to use GPLv3 be? employing restrictive drm in your project? or including patented code which you’d later like to sue others for using? if so, the very reason this small third party decided to upgrade to gplv3 would likely be so that their code could NOT be used in your project and the likes of it.
I think they should have that right over THEIR code.
and what would your reasons for not being able to use GPLv3 be?
Maybe because they don’t like where the FSF is heading, like me.
Edited 2007-06-01 17:22
Maybe because they don’t like where the FSF is heading, like me.
Indulge us: tell us where it is heading, please.
Edited 2007-06-01 18:07
In my personal opinion the FSF was simple a fundation to give you an option to propietary software, but now I see them like extremist who want’s to embrase and extend everything with the GPLv3 and where there is no room for people who don’t agree with those extremist causes, is my personal opinion, you may liked or not but that’s the impression I get.
Edited 2007-06-01 18:18
> now I see them like extremist who want’s to embrase and
> extend everything with the GPLv3 and where there is no
> room for people who don’t agree
I kinda agree with your view, with the exception that there is always room for debates (i.e., people who disagree), just not for proprietary code, nor for software patents. I agree with the FSF. I see no room for code not being free to its users.
I see no room for code not being free to its users.
People who didn’t create it.
People who have no license to use it.
People who have no license to edit it.
People who have not paid for a full license.
People who have not paid for the software at all.
People who only have a license to use the compiled binary.
People who handle information that affects the livelihoods of others.
People whose livelihoods depend on information not being compromised by third parties.
Then I don’t see any difference between propierary and “free” licenses, all of them restrict the users in some way.
Edited 2007-06-01 18:59
“Then I don’t see any difference between propierary and “free” licenses, all of them restrict the users in some way.”
Have you read the Windows EULA?
That’s kind of the point of a license in general: why bother otherwise?
The problem with FSF licenses is that they restrict the creator who provides, not the user who benefits (unless they redistribute, making them another creator.) This seems kind of backward!
The original creator (who got to freely choose the license) does retain some rights, such as the possibility of dual licensing (assuming they have resources to enforce it and no valuable data/methods are involved.) This is a good position to be in.
Downline contributors give up any meaningful rights to their work in exchange for the use of others’ code. Nothing wrong with that choice, but declining to do so doesn’t make make anyone “immoral” or “unethical,” any more than choosing to release original work as closed source.
The ability to study and fix GPL software at need is nice, but I don’t feel I have a right to that, any more than I have a right to use anyone else’s work for free. If something is important enough to fix/add, it may be too valuable to give away for free (i.e., effectively give up all rights to the work.) That’s a choice too.
The Four Freedoms, like Christianity, make no sense (and are often an offense) unless one is a True Believer already. And, like pursuing Zen enlightenment, it’s a good idea to think beforehand about the consequences of “getting the revelation,” before setting out to do it. I don’t want to “get” the FSF position. Given that I have to work for a living, I’m freer without it.
The Four Freedoms, like Christianity, make no sense (and are often an offense) unless one is a True Believer already. And, like pursuing Zen enlightenment, it’s a good idea to think beforehand about the consequences of “getting the revelation,” before setting out to do it. I don’t want to “get” the FSF position. Given that I have to work for a living, I’m freer without it.
We could claim the same thing about any philosophical stance, such as a belief in democracy. However, the process is not some mystical journey, just a plain consideration of ethics and an acknowledgement that software is a zero-marginal-cost good. OTOH, Christianity, requires, e.g., a genuine faith in a human resurrection.
Believing that software should be free requires merely “faith” that one can do a cost-benefit analysis(*) on behalf of society that includes individual freedom as well as production of software; such a CBA is merely a special case of what the U.S. founders considered. In the same way, an environmentalist would need “faith” that one can do a CBA on behalf of the planet that includes environmental measures as well as economic development.
We agree that it is good to consider the consequences. Indeed, a CBA does precisely this. Speaking from experience, we are often too lazy to do things like this and just have “faith” in an unjustified default (i.e., that non-free software is morally acceptable).
(*) For one CBA, see
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html
However, in all these years, no one has ever been able to expound this theory of ethics so that I can agree with it (RMS is merely the loudest and most annoying failure at this, as well as the most Rosannadanna-ishly clueless in the linked article.)
It doesn’t cost much to reproduce a set of house plans, or a book, or a painting, but no one seriously suggests that those professionals should allow free reproduction and modification by anyone who wants to. How is software different, except that people can do it professionally for a living and still have time to produce Free software as a hobby?
I can easily do such a CBA on behalf of Marxism-Leninism, or Nazism for that matter. Communism, like the GPL, claims to preserve freedom while actually taking it away “for the good of all.” I don’t want to be part of a group who cedes their rights to each other, as a matter of principle for which I do not apologize.
A LOT of us don’t appreciate being called unethical because we don’t agree with your opinions. And if your opinion is that the Four Freedoms are 1) good; 2) moral; 3) somthing to care about, then we most definitely disagree.
However, in all these years, no one has ever been able to expound this theory of ethics so that I can agree with it (RMS is merely the loudest and most annoying failure at this, as well as the most Rosannadanna-ishly clueless in the linked article.)
If the article is so clueless, it should be trivial to point out an instance of cluelessness. The only assumption made is that a software user is as important as anyone else, including an author and the author’s employer.
How is software different, except that people can do it professionally for a living and still have time to produce Free software as a hobby?
As information, software is (1) nonrival and (2) both input and output of its own production process. Either deduce the implications of this yourself or note this observation:
“Perhaps the most amazing document of the consensus among economists today that, because of the combination of nonrivalry and the “on the shoulders of giants” effect, excessive expansion of “intellectual property” protection is economically detrimental, was the economists’ brief filed in the Supreme Court case of Eldred v. Ashcroft.”(1)
I can easily do such a CBA on behalf of Marxism-Leninism, or Nazism for that matter. Communism, like the GPL, claims to preserve freedom while actually taking it away “for the good of all.” I don’t want to be part of a group who cedes their rights to each other, as a matter of principle for which I do not apologize.
While I would not hold that the mere existence of a CBA suffices to show that a belief is valid, I reject the original suggestion that believing that software should be free requires some kind of mystical faith, that one already need be some kind of True Believer. A line of criticism similar to yours was made against global warming and other environmental concerns for years, but the world is waking up. I fail to see how free software is any different in principle. Both are far less involved a question than, say, a system of government.
Moreover, you already are doing what you don’t want: after all, you are part of a democracy that involves a ceding of rights to one another. You might mean that you want to cede no further, but I think that ethics involves important questions that inevitably challenge us on this point.
A LOT of us don’t appreciate being called unethical because we don’t agree with your opinions. And if your opinion is that the Four Freedoms are 1) good; 2) moral; 3) somthing to care about, then we most definitely disagree.
Even MORE people (not me) as well may not appreciate being called unethical because they do not agree with the opinions of copyright holders, in particular that sharing copies of software with their neighbors is anything but a good deed.
In short, software is special, and people around the world are slowly waking up to this fact.
(1)Ch 2, _The Wealth of Networks_, Y. Benkler
Edited 2007-06-02 19:48
> > I see no room for code not being free to its users.
>
> People who didn’t create it.
> People who have no license to use it.
> People who have no license to edit it.
> People who have not paid for a full license.
> People who have not paid for the software at all.
> People who only have a license to use the compiled binary.
> People who handle information that affects the
> livelihoods of others.
> People whose livelihoods depend on information not being
> compromised by third parties.
What’s your point?
Are you trying to say all those things are reasons for keeping code locked up? If so, then do you see room for car engines not being accessible (i.e., for hoods not welded shut) to the owners? Or maybe you’d then say:
People who didn’t create the engine.
People who have no license to use the engine.
People who have no license to modify the engine.
People who have not paid for a full license.
People who have not paid for the car at all.
People who only have a license to use the assembled car.
People who drive affecting the livelihoods of others.
People whose livelihoods depend on driving not being compromised by third parties.
Anyway, I see no room for hoods welded shut to keep its owner out, and in the same way I see no room for code not being free to its owner. (And before anyone starts complaining about that last word there, I should point out that I also don’t see any room for people not owning the copy of software/music/whatever they buy in a store or online, or even get for free.)
I believe that your impression of the FSF is incorrect.
The history of the FSF began with the aim of doing away with non-free software, including replacing all non-free software with free software (whether it is under GPL is much less important). Their contention always has been that non-free software is unethical and not a desirable option. From the start, they have advocated the four freedoms.
I believe that it is true that the opposition to the FSF is increasing now, and naturally the opposition seeks to convince everyone that this is all somehow the FSF’s fault.
The FSF may indeed be at fault in various ways, but its politics–that the four freedoms must be promoted–has been unchanged all during the existence of the FSF. Thus, a common accusation, that the FSF is somehow “changing its stripes”, is nothing but a silly smear tactic that just gets repeated. Again, the smear is supposed to explain the opposition as a reaction to “changing stripes”.
What is too often overlooked, however, is that the opposition has increased along with two other increasing trends:
first and foremost, the increasing use of free software at the expense of non-free, often monopolistically-supplied, software;
second, the maturity of the GPL3 drafting process, which will result in a license that makes it more difficult to profit from harming the four freedoms.
Speaking from experience, it is easy to come away with an overly-simplified picture of free and non-free software, so please see a very helpful link at the end. I am sure that there are explanations on other websites, but it is the best I have found so far.
“Categories of Free and Non-Free Software”
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/categories.html
Edited 2007-06-01 19:11
I believe your impression of the FSF is incorrect.
I don’t that’s the impression they give to me, and I’ve have informed my self, and what you say I’ve heart it before, and after all that I believe the same.
There’s no much diference form MS to the FSF, both try to make you a slave in one way or another.
There’s no much diference form MS to the FSF, both try to make you a slave in one way or another.
This has to be the biggest pile of ….!
I think this is a moment of further escalation in the free vs. proprietary conflict. It is quite a big step in the direction of increasing pressure to keep free software pure, thus forcing those who are still sitting on a fence to take a leap. As such I don’t see anything wrong with it, quite the opposite I completely endorse it
There’s no much diference form MS to the FSF, both try to make you a slave in one way or another.
Yeah, but MS just wants your money, they lock you in to get more of it. FSF wants you to help them smother closed software.
But you don’t have to buy into either side 100%. MS can’t make you upgrade and FSF can’t force anyone to use GPL3 software. If people don’t want to pay for Vista they won’t. If people don’t want something to be GPL3, they can fork it.
Yeah, but MS just wants your money
MS wants my money and the FSF wants my soul, I’d rater to give my money than my soul.
To me MS if better than the FSF in this area.
Edited 2007-06-01 22:02
You consider that giving others the freedom to study, modify and redistribute your code, on the condition that they extend these freedoms to others, is the same as giving your *soul* away?
I thought I had heard every illogical, fallacious, silly and downright misleading statements about the GPL, but it seems I was wrong. You, sir, take the cake.
You consider that giving others the freedom to study, modify and redistribute your code, on the condition that they extend these freedoms to others, is the same as giving your *soul* away?
See it as you want, but to me is not the case.
I was not making a statement, but asking a question. More precisely, I was asking you to confirm that you actually believe that giving others the ability to study, modify and redistribute your code, on the condition that they extend this ability to others, is the same as giving your soul away – because, you know, that’s what you said.
Now you say that to you it’s not the case. What isn’t? That the GPL asks you to give your soul away? Because that’s what you appeared to have said. So are you disavowing that statement now?
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn’t understand the question the first time around, and allow you to answer it again…
Those concepts looks nice in some cases, specially when you wish to do that, but in cases you don’t really believe the user or programer should have or deserve or you don’t find convenient to give the source or infect your code with such license the problems begins, the FSF sees anything as black or white, no gray areas, if there is a license I believe is fair for all is the LGPL, not the GPL.
I don’t really want to argu about it, I won’t change your mind and surely you won’t change mine, to me the FSF is getting worse than MS in making you a slave and cuting out your options.
Edited 2007-06-01 22:38
MS wants my money and the FSF wants my soul, I’d rater to give my money than my soul.
He, he – i bet you never let others take pictures of you because of concerns for your soul, do you? 🙂
There is no freedom that you get with Microsoft software that you do not get with GPL software. None at all.
Just remember, Microsoft does not allow you to just take Microsoft source code and incorporate it into your product for your profit either.
If you want to use MS code in your for-profit product, or indeed if you want to use GPL’d code in your for-profit product, then in either case you are first going to have to obtain (pay for) from the author of the code a commercial license to do just that.
In both cases, there is a certain chance that the author of the code may not agree to sell you such a commercial license. If that happens, then you may not use the source code in question in your product.
Edited 2007-06-03 09:43
You can still use other versions of the license’s, or create derivative versions of their copyleft offerings, so what is the problem?
Business is business, open code or not. See Novell.
I think they should have that right over THEIR code.
You know, the funny thing here is that is contradictory with what the FSF believes, because if you have the right to put the license you want in the code you wrote is not freedom but power, hey don’t look at me is RMS who says so.
so GPLv3 is about power and not freedom.
Edited 2007-06-01 17:45
Hiev wrote:
…because if you have the right to put the license you wan’t on the code you wrote is not freedom but power, hey don’t look at me is RMS who say so.
err… what?
You ran out of answers?
Tipycal.
You know, the funny thing here is that is contradictory with what the FSF believes, because if you have the right to put the license you want in the code you wrote is not freedom but power, hey don’t look at me is RMS who says so.
For a reference to this, see
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html
In short, we can think of freedom as being able to make decisions that affect mainly you and power as being able to make decisions that affect mainly others. Given this distinction, choosing a software license is indeed an exercise of power, not freedom.
so GPLv3 is about power and not freedom.
Bzzt! You mean, “choosing the GPLv3 is about power and not freedom”. We as well could say, “choosing the X11 license is about power and not freedom”, etc. OTOH, the GPLv3 is indeed about freedom, namely the four freedoms.
Are you hoping that with a little bit of fact, you can get away with fooling people with fiction?
In short, we can think of freedom as being able to make decisions that affect mainly you and power as being able to make decisions that affect mainly others. Given this distinction, choosing a software license is indeed an exercise of power, not freedom.
I don’t see the point of quoting it, but still probes my point.
Bzzt! You mean, “choosing the GPLv3 is about power and not freedom”. We as well could say, “choosing the X11 license is about power and not freedom”, etc. OTOH, the GPLv3 is indeed about freedom, namely the four freedoms.
eh.. what?
Are you hoping that with a little bit of fact, you can get away with fooling people with fiction?
Im not fooling anyone, is what I believe, if people agree with me or not is their problem and I won’t lose my sleep for it.
Bzzt! You mean, “choosing the GPLv3 is about power and not freedom”. We as well could say, “choosing the X11 license is about power and not freedom”, etc. OTOH, the GPLv3 is indeed about freedom, namely the four freedoms.
eh.. what?
Recall that you pointed out that the act of choosing a license, any license, is an act of power, not of freedom. However, then you tried to conclude from this, “GPLv3 is about power and not freedom”.
We could substitute “X11 license” for “GPLv3” and it still would make no sense, because you are mixing up two different concepts. That is, “the act of choosing a license” is a different concept than a “license”.
For example, RMS’s entire discussion of power had nothing at all to do with any particular license itself. Instead he was talking about the ability of a software developer to choose any license. If the GPL had never existed, his point would still stand. The GPL has nothing at all to do with it.
See the difference now?
Yep, I see now that for the FSF the GPL will always be the “Exception to the rule”.
The way I see it, it just makes my point stronger.
WTF? No one is making people release their code under the GPL. I don’t see RMS going around holding a gun to software developer’s heads making them release under the GPL, do you?
Stop with the outright lies and anti GPL propoganda.
Dave
No one is making people release their code under the GPL.
GPL, section 3; http://gpl-violations.org/; et al.
Edited 2007-06-03 07:09
Way to miss the point. What the OP said was that now one is forcing anyone to release any *original* code, that does not contain any GPLed code, under the GPL.
If you want to use GPLed code, on the other hand, you have to respect the legal rights of the author of the code – or do you think that other programmer’s rights don’t matter, and only yours?
It seems to me like you want to use other people’s intellectual property without abiding by their choice of a license. That is a) illegal and b) unethical.
These are people who have stolen GPL code and tried to hide it, and when asked to abide by the license of the software that they’re merrily using, have given the FSF the finger.
If YOU are going to use the software, then abide by the license agreement that comes with the software. If you don’t want to abide, don’t use the software. I have no feelings for those businesses using FSF/GPL’d software and not abiding by the license. They deserve what they get. Sometimes, you cannot rely solely on good faith with people, humans are greedy by nature, and that means that they’ll screw someone over to make a buck. It’s part of our disgusting nature.
Dave
Some small third party decides to upgrade their code to GPL3. This code is directly used in your own project, and you do not wish to use the GPL3, or are unable to do so – you will have to re-engineer your code to use the third party code as a library, if possible at all.
No, all they have to do is “fork” the last version that is gpl2, and stick with that one. They have the choice of upgrading to the gpl3 version or not. That simple.
They also have the option of not using it at all if they think getting it for free under the gpl3 is not worth the hassle.
No, you don’t. The original code you used is still licensed under the GPLv2. Even if it is relicensed later on, the copy *you* got was under the GPLv2, therefore that is the only license that applies.
You cannot, for example, release code under the BSDL, then when someone uses it in their own software (under the BSDL or, say, a proprietary license) change it to the GPL to force them to change their own license. That’s simply not how it works.
No, it doesn’t, unless you want to use new code that was never licenses under the GPLv2. Your argument is based on a false assumption, and therefore is false as well.
Eeh… using the code as a library is linking so the GPLv3 kicks in.
Besides that a license chance won’t hurt you. You can just keep using the code released under the former license. Or rewrite your code. You don’t have to re-engineer anything, since you have source access to your own product.
Add to that that you are using the property of somebody else. If you can’t accept the terms, cease to use it. Or accept the terms. If it truly is a small third party thing it is easy to replace. If you don’t want to do that you are simply to lazy.
It is never as simple as just “not using” the GPL.
Ah, you’ve hit the nail on the head! The GPL is a copyright license crafted to illustrate the paradox inherent in the superposition of patent and copyright law in the context of the software industry. The rhetoric of freedom and morality is an overlay that binds a social movement to a political statement against exclusive patent agreements: licensing, cross-licensing, and now covenants.
The very existence of the GPL is a threat to any distributor that relies on exclusive agreements to distribute their products. The great success of the GPL software has turned a hypothetical threat into a troubling reality for many vendors. The GPL requires vendors to do what many simply can’t–to grant their customers any rights required to redistribute the software. Any third-party upstream code they use can become GPL at any time, it extends to any linked code, and it propagates through distribution.
The GPL intentionally polarizes the patent landscape in the software industry. Vendors can depend entirely on exclusive agreements, or they can reject them altogether. There is no middle ground. Is this fair to vendors that already have numerous exclusive agreements? No. It really puts them in a tight spot. Maybe they should think about lobbying for patent reform?
The intent of the GPL is to use copyright to stop patents from destroying the software industry. It’s not fair to the beneficiaries of the present system, but they really don’t have any choice in the matter. These giants thought their money and clout could protect their interests, but they’re not going to lobby to drastically weaken copyright in order to protect their interests in patents. As much as their businesses rely on patents, they rely on copyright a whole lot more.
Note that the GPL is not against software patents in principle, it’s against the way they’re used in practice. If a software vendor wants to patent an innovation and protect their limited monopoly to exercise that innovation, then that’s justifiable. But software vendors don’t typically pursue patents to establish limited monopolies. They seek patents to defend themselves against the patent system. They amass patents as political capital and leverage in the back-door negotiations that control the balance of power in the industry.
The Microsoft/Novell deal was about Microsoft trying in vain to introduce the free software community to how industry giants use the patent system. Free software is getting too powerful and influential to ignore in the industry. Microsoft is trying to get free software vendors to sit down, drink brandy, smoke cigars, and negotiate terms for how we’re going to coexist as new members of the industry elite. We’ve been invited to the secret club.
Novell was kicked out of this club some years ago and wants back in. To the rest of the community, this pomp and drama is strangely foreign. Why not compete on the merits of your offerings and let the market decide the balance of power? Because then the establishment can’t compete with agile startups and their disruptive technologies. These corporations believe that their participation in the formative era of the modern software industry entitles them to extra power today. Software patents serve as a legal basis for this power, providing the fuel for the fear tactics that hamstring the industry and its customers.
It really doesn’t matter whether or not you believe that software patents are hurting the software industry and its customers. The very existence of the GPL threatens vendors that participate in this patent licensing charade, and its success puts the future of these vendors in jeopardy. It’s ironic that, in a patent landscape that begs for cold war metaphors, the real nuclear option turns out to be a copyright license.
Edited 2007-06-02 01:54
My heart bleeds for them. NOT.
I don’t hear you bitching about changes to proprietary software EULAs which continously remove end user rights. Poor big business. It’s so hard…I mean use someone elses code, abuse it, make profit and then bitch when you have to give something back to the community. wah wah wah.
Dave
100% correct in my eyes.
Dave
It is the other way around: GPL got patent troubles? Then kill the software.
I strongly believe the FSF should rethink its patent provisions.
Software freedom more important than software patents in GPL (Restate without Freudian slip
)
I strongly believe the FSF should rethink its patent provisions.
One of the most frequently overlooked yet obvious facts is that the FSF is representing an entire community whose priority is the four freedoms and so the FSF must consider other issues such as software patents within the constraints of that priority. With the GPL3, the FSF has already bent over backwards to satisfy those who want to profit from damage to those freedoms (e.g., Tivoization allowed in business and organizational contexts).
The obvious question then is, in what ways could the FSF rethink the patent provisions with no further compromises of the four freedoms? Unless you have an answer for this, I suspect that it is you who needs to rethink some things.
Edited 2007-06-04 00:23
Why? The patent provisions of the GPL amount to these: (1) if you hold a patent that pertains to software you are releasing under the GPL, then you agree to give all recipients of the software the right to use that patent, and (2) if you are “conveying” GPL software to other parties, then you agree to give everyone the same rights to the code, not just to the people you actually supplied the software to.
If you don’t agree to those terms, then don’t distribute any code under the GPL.
Why should the FSF re-think these provisions in your view?
They simply spell out the same provisions as are implied (but not explicitly stated) in the current version of the GPL.
What exactly is wrong with these provisions, in your view, that requires the FSF to re-think them?
Edited 2007-06-04 01:15
It’s odd that people single out the GPLv3 language on patents, ignoring the very similar language in other open source licenses, like those used by Apache or Mozilla.
I think you hit the key point there — ‘ignoring.’ Who uses the Apache or Mozilla licenses, outside of their creators?
Code that builds on the Apache code uses that license. GPLv2 isn’t compatible with Apache so code can’t be shared, but GPLv3 is compatible.
I think you hit the key point there — ‘ignoring.’ Who uses the Apache or Mozilla licenses, outside of their creators?
I use the MPL.
The GPLv3 will be considered a failure (to me at least) if Linux stay GPLv2, remember that all started with “Tivoisation” and Linux will still be GPLv2 hense “Tivoisation” will continue.
I personally don’t support GPLv3 and I’ll try to avoid it in the software I use or make.
@Hiev
I personally don’t support GPLv3 and I’ll try to avoid it in the software I use or make.
You will not be able to avoid it because most, if not all, GNU packages will become GPLv3 …
]{
Then I’ll switch to something else.
Like what? All the BSD’s use GNU packages, as does Mac OS X and even Solaris is GPLv3.
So that only leaves, you know, a Microsoft OS or one of the hobby OS’es.
Sort of a faustian bargain, don’t you think?
]{
So be it.
I honestly prefer MS over the FSF any time.
Edited 2007-06-01 17:14
I’m curious: what do you *specifically* dislike about the GPLv3 as opposed to GPLv2, that you would go to the extent of not using an OS that has GPLv3 elements in them?
Fine. You can buy a license for Vista just to realize the license won’t allow you to do anything. With GPL3 you have at least unrestricted use rights. The MS EULA won’t give you that.
“Keep tellin yourself that darlin”
Capt. Jack Sparrow
Well that says a lot..
So what are you doing here? Trolling, what else … I can understand that MS (and their ardent followers) as well as Novell don’t like GPL 3. But that’s a good sign – then it must be a really good license.
Be sure most if not all GNU developers will move to GPL 3. And I predict Torvalds will eventually also fully embrace GPL 3.
“What is he doing here” ? What a question….
What are you doing here deb2006 ? OSNews is not owned by FSF. Anti-FSF posts are, at least, as welcomed as pro-FSF ones.
… well, they would be if the anti-FSF posters could come up with a single valid point.
So far, we have not seen one such valid point. Not one.
All we have seen so far is sprouting of pure misinformation such as “… with the GPL, I am forced to do this or that” … when clearly there is no “forcing” involved at all, or “one line could force all my code to be GPL” … when the very worst that would be required is a re-write of that one line. These are not “anti-FSF points” at all, but rather they are all pure misinformation.
In who’s interest is it to spread such misinformation about the GPL, I wonder?
What points, are you talking about ? Hiev said that he preferred Microsoft over FSF. Hiev probably knows what Hiev preferrs, in fact he is a world leading expert in that field. The ‘deb…’ character called him a troll for that.
And I agree with Hiev. Yes, I preferr Microsoft over FSF. FSF is bad for me. No point will ever change that. Even if someone calls me a troll for that. Both of us, me and Hiev have every right to say that here and anywhere else.
And I agree with Hiev. Yes, I preferr Microsoft over FSF. FSF is bad for me. No point will ever change that.
I.e., you will never believe in the promotion of free software. You might as well blow against the wind; the genie has long gone out of the bottle.
What if eventually, say decades from now, Microsoft totally agrees with the FSF and becomes the main patron of the FSF. Even then you would be unchanged, preferring Microsoft and feeling that the FSF is bad for you, huh?
(“Curiouser and curiouser!” Cried Alice)
I have never said that I like Microsoft. Just said that they are lesser of two evils.
I make a living from writing software on customer’s demand. Not with Microsoft technologies, except MS SQL server. With rare exceptions, it is a proprietary software. I am going to make sure that not a single line of my code will ever be under GPL. I might (and I did) release some parts under BSD license, but never GPL.
Which way the wind blows, I pretty much don’t care. It often changes direction in this business, anyway.
Of course you have a right to state your view, but you surely have to recognise that others have a right to question your view.
So I am going to call you on it.
What could you possibly prefer about Microsoft over the FSF? The Microsoft deal (as described in Microsoft’s EULA) gives you almost no rights for your money … they give you a limited right to run one copy of Microsoft’s software, and they will check up on you (spy on you) to make sure you have paid for it, and they reserve the right to enter your premises unannounced to audit you, and they will sue you heavily if they find anything “not right” (according to Microsoft’s own ideas about what is not right) about your use of their software.
The FSF deal gives you the four freedoms: The right to run the code … as many copies of it as you want; the right to study the source code; the right to modify the source code for your own use; and finally, the right to redistribute the code as long as you keep to the same terms under which you received it.
No comparison. The FSF deal wins hands down, any day of the week.
Edited 2007-06-04 01:05
Good bye and good luck —
GNU tools come with an exception clause, meaning that you do not have to make your code, that uses these libraries and tools, does not have to be GPL. It can be proprietary if you so wish.
The issue is in libraries or code for entire applications constructed by other users that you’ll want to use and that may be GPL3 (or GPL2 for that matter). They may or may have the exception clause and you’ll have to comply likewise.
Don’t kid yourself. GNU projects were forked before, they can be forked again.
Just like the linux kernel, GNU has evolved from the point where it’s a group of grassroots developers banging away on keyboards in the name of free software. There are companies like IBM, HP and Intel providing contributions, and not in the name of the four freedoms, but simply because it facilitates their own corporate objectives, with the benefit to the free software community being an unintentional benefit.
Not saying it will happen, just pointing out that it could. The v3 proponents inevitably point to the GNU toolchain and utilities as some sort of inalienable influence, when the fact of the matter is they could be forked overnight if the companies floating a considerable portion of the code as part of their investment in the multi-billion dollar Linux Inc. market decide they’re uncomfortable with the uncertainty or even extremism surrounding v3.
And there lies the gamble for v3, which is the predominant reason that they chose a quasi-open process for drafting (I say quasi-open process because Moglen made a point of mentioning at the beginning that v3 would not be drafted by consensus, they were merely looking for input). If the industry rejects v3, then the free software community is SOL because those vast resources will be quickly diverted to v2 alternatives. Under the current licensing, the FLOSS, OSS and commercial segments have achieved a remarkable, even unprecedented, equilibrium that benefits all. Don’t underestimate the significance of that, or assume that it will be a simple transition.
No way to know how things will shake out until the license is released and the dust will settle, so it’s just food for thought.
True.
The thing I would note, however, is that you seem to be cheering for the losing side.
Microsoft has made patent noises about FOSS. GPL3 protects FOSS code against patent noises far better than GPL2 did, and GPL3 has potential to disarm the Microsoft/Novell attempted work-around.
I would guess that most FOSS projects would opt for moving to GPL3, and there is a strong chance parts of the kernel will also. Even Linus has wavered in his initial opposition to GPLv3, and the murmurings from Microsoft have got to be a strong incentive to consider a move to GPL3, even for the kernel.
All of GNU will certainly go to GPL3, as will critical projects like samba.
You can have a mix of GPL2 and GPL3 code in a given Linux distribution, there is no problem with that.
What you will not be able to do is hold to a policy of GPLv2 only, and expect to continue to compete as a GNU/Linux/FOSS distribution.
Not saying it will happen, just pointing out that it could. The v3 proponents inevitably point to the GNU toolchain and utilities as some sort of inalienable influence, when the fact of the matter is they could be forked overnight if the companies floating a considerable portion of the code as part of their investment in the multi-billion dollar Linux Inc. market decide they’re uncomfortable with the uncertainty or even extremism surrounding v3.
It’s nice to be reminded that human beings are (increasingly it seems) at the mercy of corporations.
All the GNU software controlled by the FSF will most likely be re-licensed under GPLv3 but that doesn’t say anything about other GPL projects not owned by the FSF.
Choosing a license is where the freedom is at. If you dislike a particular software license, you aren’t obligated to pick it for your development.
Its as simple as that.
As a user, you shouldn’t be concerned about running GPL software as it does not restrict what you may do with it once installed on your systems; GPL license provisions only come into effect when distribution is involved. At least thats my understanding.
The problem with the GPL most people have boils down to the fact that the GPL forces people into adopting the GPL even if only 1 line of code in your 100000 line project was originally GPL. The GPL limits the freedom of programmers to choose whatever license they wish. People see this as a contradiction to the term “freedom”.
The FSF writes:
However, one so-called freedom that we do not advocate is the “freedom to choose any license you want for software you write”. We reject this because it is really a form of power, not a freedom.
Personally, I am not a fan of the GPL for this very reason. Were I to write code, I would choose a BSD or MIT-like license, and in all honesty, even that would be too much for me. I have an ego (haven’t you noticed?), and that is the only thing preventing me from simply preferring… Public domain.
However, this does not mean the GPl is a “bad” license. Ok, I think the very ideals of the FSF lead to a license that is overcomplicated (and it will only get worse over time); personally, if your *free and open source* software license requires 5200 words (only 1200 less than Apple’s OSX EULA!) to convey your idea of F/OSS, then I think there’s something wrong with your idea of F/OSS, but that’s just me. Nobody is forcing me to use the GPL for my code, and hence, I may not like the GPL, but that does not mean that the license itself and the ideals of the FSF are bad or wrong; it just means they do not correspond with my personal ideals.
That’s why I chose to contribute my time to a MIT licensed project (I do [API] documentation work for Haiku). I suggest everyone who’s ideals do not correspond with those of the FSF to do the same.
That’s a lie. The GPL does not kick in for such situations since such elements are trivial and the GPL does not kick in for trivial elements.
That’s not true. You can choose any license for your code and even link to GPL. Only in regard to distribution of binaries does the GPL kick in. And it only limits your freedom to choose a license if you take the code belonging to somebody else. Nobody forces you to that. Ergo you are not forced.
Your claim is equal to this: “McDonalds demands I pay them in order to get a hamburger. Ergo McDonalds are limiting the freedom I have to take what I want.”
OTOH, in a perfect society (Utopia) the copyright law would be identical to the MIT license (or the more complex revised BSD-license). But since humans are imperfect and the law reflects this the GPL is the best choice for most things. Since you don’t code and don’t make a living it’s easy for you to choose the MIT license (my favourite in regard to simplicity – the GPL is getting more and more difficult to understand).
That’s a lie. The GPL does not kick in for such situations since such elements are trivial and the GPL does not kick in for trivial elements.
I’d love to know a complete list of all the times you can use GPL code and not adhere to its license. You keep bringing them up.
Basic copyright law: you can’t copyright a sentence or anything trivial. You can’t copyright a name either (that’s why we have trademark law).
The GPL is based on copyright, ergo it cannot negate any part of it, such as provisions for fair use, which would cover such things as a single line of code.
Thom’s post was actually quite well-argued, and over took a very moderate approach. I agreed with most of it, but he *is* wrong in stating that a single line of GPL code would be enough to make a program GPLed.
Absolutely.
There is a website about GPL violations.
http://gpl-violations.org/
Anyone who does even the slightest research about GPL violations that have actually occurred knows that there are two typical outcomes:
(1) there is only a small piece of the proprietary program that was GPL code. That piece is replaced, and everyone is happy, or
(2) the “proprietary” program is in fact only a slightly modified version of GPL code … and the vendor has not in fact really written the code to begin with. In this case, the vendors invariably agree to publish the source code and small modifications (and in the case of embedded firmware, continue selling the product) … and everyone is happy.
You can use GPL anyway you like. The GPL kicks in the moment you distribute. No sooner, no later.
a) You have unrestricted use rights;
b) You have unrestricted modification rights;
c) You DO NOT have unrestricted distribution rights.
d) Accepting the license is not required in order to have use rights and modification rights.
Is that easy to understand?
According to the GPL the license only covers distribution. Therefore you cannot “have to abide by the license” in order to USE or MODIFY the code. You only have to abide by the license if you DISTRIBUTE. And you can only abide by the license in case of DISTRIBUTUION.
That’s a lie. The GPL does not kick in for such situations since such elements are trivial and the GPL does not kick in for trivial elements.
So a line like:
#include “some _GPL_librarie”
doesn’t apply?
I mean, that’s a “trivial” line.
It really scare me how the “Advocates of freedom” make any excuse to justify the obvious misstakes, think by your selves at least once.
It really scare me how the “Advocates of freedom” make any excuse to justify the obvious misstakes, think by your selves at least once.
The original claim tried (and failed) to push a trivial case as resulting in a conversion to GPL. That was the claim, that the case could be trivial. What you are implying, linking to a GPLed library, is a nontrivial use of code, and all of the nitpicking in the world is not going to change that, dude.
Edited 2007-06-02 00:11
No, it’s not. You’re including a whole library – that can be many, many lines of code.
BTW, most libraries fall under the LGPL, so the point is moot.
What mistakes?
-1 point for Ad Hominem attack
****!
By including an entire library you are also including more than one line of code in your project. The code in the library is not trivial.
However, if you copy 1 (one!) line from the GPL’ed code into your own code it is trivial according to FSF. Whether you and I disagree with FSF is irrelevant in that regard. FSF says it is trivial and that the GPL does not apply to such situations.
Your example #include “some _GPL_librarie” is flawed since that code isn’t GPL’ed. Include lines cannot be copyrighted. However the code in the included library can be copyrighted.
You are incapable of making that choice for others.
Note the context of his quote:
OTOH, in a perfect society (Utopia) the copyright law would be identical to the MIT license (or the more complex revised BSD-license). But since humans are imperfect and the law reflects this the GPL is the best choice for most things.
Thus, as he posited, if utopia entails only, say, an X11 license, then it is true that given the imperfect situation in reality–that there are those who will end up distributing software not under an X11 license, including non-free licenses–a license different than the X11 license will be needed to recover the ubiquitous free software licenses in the utopia. Which license should that be? It would necessarily have to be the best at discouraging non-free software licenses, whatever it is.
Edited 2007-06-02 02:31
He’s only speaking for himself within that context.
The problem with the GPL most people have boils down to the fact that the GPL forces people into adopting the GPL even if only 1 line of code in your 100000 line project was originally GPL. The GPL limits the freedom of programmers to choose whatever license they wish. People see this as a contradiction to the term “freedom”.
There is no such “fact”. It is unreasonable to assume that one line of code would matter to a copyright holder of GPLed code. Even in the incredulous and unprecedented scenario that it did, all of your code falling automatically under the GPL is counter to the way that the (admittedly gentle) enforcement process has always played out: notification of the violation has been an essential aspect of enforcements.
Now, the freedom vs. power distinction has already been described repeatedly as involving you vs. others. Choosing a license will clearly affect others more than you, so unless someone can justify a better distinction, choosing a license is not an exercise of freedom but of power.
Suppose, however, that we accept this as a freedom anyway. In the case of the GPL, choice of subsequently used license may be more limited than, say, the case of the X11 license. It is still not at all clear that one freedom contradicts another, in the same way that the freedom for me to swing my fist is not contradicted by how the swing must stop at your nose (i.e., your freedom to live in peace). It’s a limitation, not a contradiction. Moreover, the issue of “freedom” is clearly more involved than you suggest because of the guarantees of freedoms provided by the GPL vs most other licenses.
The FSF writes:
However, one so-called freedom that we do not advocate is the “freedom to choose any license you want for software you write”. We reject this because it is really a form of power, not a freedom.
Personally, I am not a fan of the GPL for this very reason.
I don’t see the connection: what does someone’s opinion about power have to do with a particular license? Is it because the FSF said something you disagree with, and therefore you don’t trust any software license they write?
However, this does not mean the GPl is a “bad” license. Ok, I think the very ideals of the FSF lead to a license that is overcomplicated (and it will only get worse over time); personally, if your *free and open source* software license requires 5200 words (only 1200 less than Apple’s OSX EULA!) to convey your idea of F/OSS, then I think there’s something wrong with your idea of F/OSS”
My idea of F/OSS is software that promotes the four freedoms. The document that best enforces those four freedoms is the GPL2 and will be the GPL3. My idea of democracy is what the Constitution describes. That both the Constitution and the GPL are not that simple may complicate my life but in no way is a critique of my ideas. Unnecessary complexity may point to a problem, but fortunately, both documents have received a relatively high amount of scrutiny, especially on that point.
That’s why I chose to contribute my time to a MIT licensed project (I do [API] documentation work for Haiku). I suggest everyone who’s ideals do not correspond with those of the FSF to do the same.
OK. Of course, it’s easy to say what the FSF ideal is, that software should come with the four freedoms. The belief or disbelief in that one ideal generates a ton of words like few other debates, no doubt about it!
The problem (To me) is that the FSF contradict it self in so many aspects and make always an exception to the rules they make for them selves in the name of “Freedom”, that makes me don’t trust to them or anything made by them.
Edited 2007-06-01 23:34
The problem is that the FSF contradict it self in so many aspects and make always an exception to the rules they make for them selves in the name of “Freedom”, that makes me don’t trust to them or anything made by them.
What bothers me is not so much all of the accusations and claims that you throw out but that you do not seem to try very much to support them with facts and logic.
Forget about software for a moment. Read a book about logic, argument, evidence, critical thinking, etc. All of us can further improve with such materials. I have a title in mind right now that I want to finish.
Edited 2007-06-01 23:47
Like I said, my opinon may or not may like you but is not something of my concern.
Well, if you’re ready to post your opinion on web sites, shouldn’t you be prepared argue it as well? The point raised by b3timmons is valid.
If you’re not ready to defend your ideas in logical debate, what’s the point of stating them in the first place?
The problem (To me) is that the FSF contradict it self in so many aspects and make always an exception to the rules they make for them selves in the name of “Freedom”, that makes me don’t trust to them or anything made by them.
A truely righteous cause does not need double talk. But you shouldn’t toss out the GPL because you don’t like the FSF. It’s not a pure reflection of the FSF ideals.
But just to stay on topic, people say that the FSF does not compromise their core ideals. This, as you said, is not true. They did before with the LGPL and again with the Web Service clause. They compromise to stay relevant. If they actually made no compromise, most people would not use the GPL and it would not be relevant.
Exactly. As I’ve said before, you could think the FSF were a bunch of lunatics, and that RMS smelled, but still use the GPL license if it served your purpose. The license is a legal text, and it exists independently of the FSF.
A good example is Linux itself. Linux is far from being a RMS groupie, but that didn’t stop him from releasing the Linux kernel under the GPL. That turned out to be a pretty good decision, too…
A truely righteous cause does not need double talk. But you shouldn’t toss out the GPL because you don’t like the FSF. It’s not a pure reflection of the FSF ideals.
The cause is that software should have the four freedoms. I doubt that it will be shown how that entails double talk.
But just to stay on topic, people say that the FSF does not compromise their core ideals. This, as you said, is not true. They did before with the LGPL and again with the Web Service clause. They compromise to stay relevant. If they actually made no compromise, most people would not use the GPL and it would not be relevant.
That’s just an ordinary observation on a social change. One could as well marvel at how far it has come given the enormous vested interest opposing it.
I don’t believe there is any Web Service clause, since that concern will be handled in a non-FSF license, the AGPL2, but anyway I do concur that they compromise. Anyone would have to concede that the GPL3 is the result of a long process with compromises for the sake of many diverse interests. Such compromise often characterizes a healthy, diverse community.
Edited 2007-06-02 00:37
The cause is that software should have the four freedoms. I doubt that it will be shown how that entails double talk.
Not the four freedoms. Those who argue for the four freedoms use the double talk. It’s used so that the cause is easier to swallow for those who might not buy off on the “closed software is immoral” part.
Not the four freedoms. Those who argue for the four freedoms use the double talk. It’s used so that the cause is easier to swallow for those who might not buy off on the “closed software is immoral” part.
double talk
n : deliberately unintelligible gibberish
Let’s cut to the chase. RMS argues for the four freedoms and against non-free software. I assume that you are suggesting that these arguments depend on deliberately unintelligible gibberish. Where? His essays contain the most important arguments: http://www.gnu.org/doc/TOC-FSFS.html
If you cannot support your suggestion with this canonical reference, I find it hard to take your claim seriously.
If you cannot support your suggestion with this canonical reference, I find it hard to take your claim seriously.
Q: Should not intellectual property rights be protected?
deliberately unintelligible gibberish:
It is a mistake to use that term at all. The term “intellectual property rights” is fundamentally misleading, because it lumps together disparate laws, such as copyright law and patent law, which have little in common.
This blurred picture leads many people to imagine…
…Let’s inquire which copyright policies are good for society, and separately, let’s ask which patent policies are good for society.
<End of non-answer>
http://www.freelists.org/archives/glugot/03-2004/msg00001.html
But you are right, when he’s preaching, there is no double talk.
Edited 2007-06-02 04:37
I must be dense because I cannot identify any kind of gibberish in that answer to an arguably loaded question:
———————————————————————- —
Should not intellectual property rights be protected?
It is a mistake to use that term at all. The term “intellectual property rights” is fundamentally misleading, because it lumps together disparate laws, such as copyright law and patent law, which
have little in common.
This blurred picture leads many people to imagine that copyright law and patent law are instances of one general principle, and that they exist as natural rights. The fact is, copyright law and patent law
developed independently. Copyright and patent apply to different entities, have different rules, and have different effects, so they raise different public policy issues. Far from being natural rights, they are artificial restrictions, imposed for the sake of indirect benefits that it is hoped will result for the public.
But do copyrights really benefit the public? And do patents really benefit the public? Those two questions are important, and they are separate. Each one may have different questions in different areas.
To think about these various issues intelligently, the first step is to avoid blurring them together. I have no opinion about “intellectual property”, and I hope you will also decline to have one. Let’s inquire which copyright policies are good for society, and separately, let’s ask which patent policies are good for society.
———————————————————————- —
His answer contains more specific questions, which could be considered a non-answer or as well an admission that the issues are complex and depend critically on whether the area is patents or copyrights (hence the meaninglessness of “IP”). Merely answering a question with more questions need not at all be double talk. Indeed, his questions were asked by the U.S. founding fathers and are what led them to reject a mandate for copyrights and the patent system!
But you are right, when he’s preaching, there is no double talk.
However, that “preaching” contains the strongest arguments of the whole free software movement! Defeat them and you undermine the basis of the movement. (I am surprised that the Microsoft monopoly has not invested more in lobbyists to attack those arguments. Probably they will have more luck in contracting more smear job artists like Dan Lyons at Forbes to attack RMS.)
Indeed, I think you are merely trying to show that RMS engages in double talk in some instance, and that this supposed fact somehow invalidates his arguments. However, this is fallacious reasoning. If it were true that someone’s double talk invalidated any of their arguments, much knowledge would simply not exist. Suppose I engaged in double talk about how to do a double integral; that would say nothing about my understanding of integration. Indeed, it would not even show that my understanding of double integrals is wrong; however, if that double talk were all that anyone had to go on, then the burden would of course be on me to demonstrate my understanding of, say, double integrals.
Edited 2007-06-02 05:28
I’m sorry Tom, but this bit is purely and simply utter nonsense.
If 1 line in your program was originally GPL, then just change that 1 line. Write your own code, if you want it to be your code.
If most of your project was originally GPL, and you cannot easily change it … then it is not really your code to begin with, is it? … it is mostly the original GPL code.
You are NOT forced to adopt the GPL.
Even if you are in a situation where you find a significant (and irreplaceable) chunk of the code for a much larger project that was intended to be proprietary had in fact been copied from GPL source … then even in that case it is often possible to approach the original author and arrange a separate license for that chunk of code, so that you can include it in your proprietary project. This separate license would involve payment to the original author … which is all well and good.
Not exactly, and that’s a common misconception about the GPL. The FSF would claim that the act of distributing essentially GPLs the entire distributed work, but your modules only have to be GPL-compatible.
There’s actually a real-world example of this misunderstanding. The SharpDevelop IDE developers claimed that MonoDevelop (a fork of SharpDevelop) plugins had to be licensed under the GPL. The MonoDevelop developers wanted to license plugins under MIT/X11. The Monodevelop developers were right.
Not exactly, and that’s a common misconception about the GPL. The FSF would claim that the act of distributing essentially GPLs the entire distributed work, but your modules only have to be GPL-compatible.
A common misconception cannot be corrected with more misconceptions. First of all, the various cases of combining code have long been addressed in the GPL FAQ. Indeed, that is what the MonoDevelop developers consulted to correct the SharpDevelop IDE people:
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCGPLAndPlugins
Of course, people such as the SharpDevelop IDE guys saying that something will fall under the GPL implies nothing about what the FSF might claim, so I’m not sure how you know what the FSF would claim.
Moreover, the original incorrect claim about a project using one line of copied GPLed code could be any kind of project, not just “modules”. Thus, e.g., a program might depend on the GPLed readline library. (Or, to be more faithful to the spirit of the original scenario, a program might use GPLed code directly in its source.) In this case, the program would also have to be under the GPL, not merely a GPL-compatible license.
Edited 2007-06-02 04:03
You’re not reading what I wrote. I never implied (explicitly or implicitly) that what the SharpDevelop guys claimed had anything to do with the view of the FSF.
Modules is used in the GPL FAQ to typically refer to indpendent files, for example in the case of a programming language like C. But modules is a more general term.
I already covered this, but the FSF would claim that the act of distribution created a GPL work. I reject the notion that the entire “program” would have to be under the GPL.
You’re not reading what I wrote. I never implied (explicitly or implicitly) that what the SharpDevelop guys claimed had anything to do with the view of the FSF.
Here’s what you wrote:
“The FSF would claim that the act of distributing essentially GPLs the entire distributed work, but your modules only have to be GPL-compatible.”
That contains two errors. First, it is false that the FSF would necessarily make that claim. After all, the FAQ that the FSF wrote plainly explains when modules need only be GPL-compatible. Second, it is false that GPL-compatibility suffices in all cases, given the generalized notion of modules. You may feel that it suffices, but that opinion is not supported in all cases, hence the many projects that have chosen the GPL for just this reason.(*) E.g., Trolltech’s business strategy has long relied on this.
Note what I wrote:
“Of course, people such as the SharpDevelop IDE guys saying that something will fall under the GPL implies nothing about what the FSF might claim, so I’m not sure how you know what the FSF would claim.”
That non-implication is not at all asserted to be your belief (correct me if I am wrong!); instead it is merely ruled out. What is asserted to be your belief is that you know what the FSF would claim. After all, you yourself asserted it!
I already covered this, but the FSF would claim that the act of distribution created a GPL work. I reject the notion that the entire “program” would have to be under the GPL.
So when in your opinion does code ever have to come under the GPL then? Maybe you should tell gpl-violations.org to go take a hike.
(*): Supporting excerpt from the GPL FAQ:
———-
If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL?
Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library.
———-
Regardless of whether you believe this, most if not all developers do adhere to it.
Edited 2007-06-02 16:07
Trolltech dual licensing scheme is irrelevant to anything I have said and irrelevant to any conclusion you are attempting to draw. My point still stands.
And after further reflection, you bringing up Trolltech actually proves my point, and completely disproves your point. If your assertion was true, then all open source programs that use the GPL version of the Qt library would have to be GPL. That is clearly not the case.
The FAQ and GPL license is pretty clear on what the FSF claims, so I’m not sure what you’re getting at.
And this is where you are confused, as are many other people. The GPL only kicks in at distribution time. Once you understand that fact, you can better understand the implications of the GPL. Now if you can point out to me where someone has been forced to license their program under the GPL (a court precedent), then I’ll gladly retract that. Remember, BSD and GPL licenses can be in a “program”.
Edited 2007-06-04 04:20
Trolltech dual licensing scheme is irrelevant to anything I have said and irrelevant to any conclusion you are attempting to draw. My point still stands.
Right–thanks, I was wrong and should not have used Trolltech as an example because, for whatever special reason (exceptional provision?), they are not requiring for Qt what is required for, say, Readline. Given your hatred for the FSF, I will note some other non-FSF examples. An example I should have used other than Readline would be Java. Another example is Agg-2.5.
Java without the Classpath exception conflicts with what you claimed(1). Sun recognizes that, without the Classpath exception, distribution of non-GPL apps depending on Sun Java are impractical.(2) So, if I, say, wrote a main module that depended on Java under just the GPL (without the Classpath exception), any license other than GPL for my distributing my app would be impractical.
The Mono people plainly acknowledge the same about another GPLed library, Agg-2.5.(3)
The problem, again, is that you overgeneralized, so your point, as you originally stated it (1) does not at all stand.
The FAQ and GPL license is pretty clear on what the FSF claims, so I’m not sure what you’re getting at.
Just re-read what you wrote: “The FSF would claim that the act of distributing essentially GPLs the entire distributed work, but your modules only have to be GPL-compatible”.
You are saying here that the FSF would claim the entire work would be under the GPL. Period. That is plainly contradicted by the various cases that they address in their FAQ. I.e., there is no blanket answer of “GPL” from the FSF, directly contradicting what you claim the FSF would say.
And this is where you are confused, as are many other people. The GPL only kicks in at distribution time.
You cannot be referring to me here, since the quote to which you are responding is verbatim from the GPL FAQ. Anyone reading the FAQ would know that the GPL kicks in only on distribution.
Now if you can point out to me where someone has been forced to license their program under the GPL (a court precedent), then I’ll gladly retract that.
Never did I have in mind merely court actions. Clearly, over many years many parties have had to correct their practices with respect to following the GPL after being notified that one alternative is that they license the entire work under the GPL. If that alternative were not a credible possibility, those offending parties would never have corrected their behavior.
Moreover, yet another indication of when your work must be under the GPL are, again, the plain statements from copyright holders of GPLed libraries, such as the Readline, GSL(4), etc.
I’d be the first to admit my mistakes, as I have shown clearly on this forum. It’s disappointing that you seem incapable of doing such a simple thing for yourself.
==============================
(1)Here is the paragraph you replied to, your reply, and your subsequent emphasis on a general use of “modules”:
——
The problem with the GPL most people have boils down to the fact that the GPL forces people into adopting the GPL even if only 1 line of code in your 100000 line project was originally GPL.
Not exactly, and that’s a common misconception about the GPL. The FSF would claim that the act of distributing essentially GPLs the entire distributed work, but your modules only have to be GPL-compatible.
There’s actually a real-world example of this misunderstanding. The SharpDevelop IDE developers claimed that MonoDevelop (a fork of SharpDevelop) plugins had to be licensed under the GPL. The MonoDevelop developers wanted to license plugins under MIT/X11. The Monodevelop developers were right.
——
Modules is used in the GPL FAQ to typically refer to indpendent files, for example in the case of a programming language like C. But modules is a more general term.
(2): Note what I emphasize from http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp :
Q: Why do you need the Classpath exception?
A: If an application is distributed with an implementation of Java such as the JDK under GPL v2, that application could be subject to the requirements of the GPL that all code that is shipped as part of a “work based on the [GPL] program” also be GPL licensed. Accordingly, a GPL license exception is needed that specifically excludes from this licensing requirement any application that links to the GPL implementation. The Classpath exception accomplishes this. Without the Classpath exception, a Java SE implementation licensed under GPL v2 could not practically be distributed with non-GPL licensed Java applications. This could present a serious barrier to adoption, for example by OpenSolaris or GNU/Linux distributions if left unaddressed.
(3):http://groups.google.com/group/tiraniaorg-blog-comments/browse_thre…
(4):http://www.gnu.org/software/gsl/#licensing
Edited 2007-06-04 15:28
There are an number of real-world examples where GPL source has been included in a project that was supposed to be proprietary. Where this has happened and it has been discovered, the outcome has depended on the amount of the code which was originally GPL code.
Outcome type (1) is where the vendor has agreed to provide the source code for the product, as required by the GPL. This has occurred where almost all of the code was originally GPL, such as the most famous example, the linksys WRT54G router, which used a linux kernel and iptables. There was almost no original linksys code in that case … the code was GPL to start with, and remained GPL after the negotiations. Linksys gave almost nothing away that they actually wrote themselves.
Outcome type (2) is when the vendor has replaced the code which was originally GPL code with newly-written code. This has occurred in every case where the amount of GPL code included was relatively small proportion of the whole.
There has never AFAIK ever been a single outcome as you suggest where a whole project has gone to GPL because a small part of it was originally GPL code. If you know of a case where that has happened, please point it out. Otherwise, you are thouroughly rebutted.
Edited 2007-06-03 01:11
If you know of a case where that has happened, please point it out. Otherwise, you are thouroughly rebutted.
Thanks for correcting my unclear assertion about this case. I considered also projects that had not yet assigned a license and should have stated that there were no cases of proprietary software becoming GPLed. Sorry to add to the confusion.
Edited 2007-06-03 02:16
GPL!=FSF. The GPL is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. While the FSF uses it as a tool to bludgeon the taint of proprietary software, Linus chose it as a tool to force reciprocity in shared development. It has works extremely well in both situations, with considerable overlap and to the ultimate benefit of the FL/OSS community.
You’re certainly free to choose the license that best reflects your objectives, but don’t decry the GPL simply because of the FSF. You need not worship at the Church of the Four Freedoms in order to appreciate the pragmatic benefits of the GPL. Hell, I’d say that the pragmatic applicability of the GPL made it a success *despite* the FSF.
Seriously, these FSF either are stupid or smoke weed all the day because I can’t even understand a word, a single WORD of the holy GPL3 license that Richard Stallman praises as the holy grail.
Seriously, I have a dream. A dream where everything is Microsoft-branded and everyone praises Bill Gates for destroying the ugly Richard Stallman
A short description of problem with GPLv3 is that Linux and possibly some other, even unrelated, open source software would loose corporate support.
Corporations contributed software, ported their own software and payed developers an financed projects in the past. They might not want to do that in the future. They might even loose interest in community developed software as a whole, even BSD or Apache projects which are not based on GPL.
Even FSF has corporate donors, which might decline to spend money on someone working against their interests. Who could blame them ?
Correct.
Can you speculate why? Tell us why you would think this?
After all, as you say, “Corporations contributed software” in the past under the GPLv2, and the intent of GPLv3 is exactly the same as v2, it just closes the loopholes that some clever lawyers have recently been able to spot in the GPLv2 license.
Corporations who have previously contributed software to GPLv2 have done so in the spirit of the GPL, and I can see no reason why they would not continue to carry on in exactly that same spirit.
I didn’t mean GPL-ed software. I meant software like Acrobat Reader. What if Adobe decided that Linux is business unfriendly, and conclude that is not worth effort to port further releases.
Do you think that Novell is going to spend 1$ on Linux if GPL3 ruins their plans ? Do you think that they will keep paying Samba team to release another GPLed version ? What about Mono team ?
I don’t.
Business entities contribute because they expect they will be able to make money out of it, not “in spirit”.
Yes, Red Hat will keep contributing. MySQL AB, maybe. What about the others ?
What would they base this decision on? GPLv3 will not prevent Acrobat Reader from being released under a proprietary license, not any more than GPLv2 did.
The question is, in what respect does GPLv3 change things compared to GPLv2 for these companies? You still haven’t identified the new provisions in GPLv3 that makes it less friendly to business than GPLv2 (with the exception of the Microsoft-Novell pact, which doesn’t really do much for Novell except give them an edge in the increasingly unlikely event of a patent strike by MS).
Edited 2007-06-03 21:53