OSNews

if you aren't happy with it don't use it and stop trolling and/or spreading shit.

GNU FREE AS IN FREEDOM!

Edited 2007-06-30 00:01

Unfortunately, we're seeing a backlash against the FSF, mainly due to these ex Windows refugees who are so used to the proprietary "you can't do anything with the software" approach they show disdain for anything that tries to broaden their freedoms. I really wish those sorts would bugger off and go back to Windows and leave free software alone. They all want to seem to use, abuse the free software packages, and then demand/dictate that they get their own way and the FSF roll over to the proprietary software types. No thanks. Keep on keeping on FSF and RMS, you're doing a sterling job, even if there's a bunch of idiots out there that don't understand the dangers surrouding free software in the modern world.

Dave

Since a lot of software is marked as "GPL v2 or later" and (now) "GPL v3 or later", here's a GPL v4 that would make everyone happy:

---

GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE v4

1) The licensor gains an perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license to redistribute, modify, use, extend, implement, trnaslate, improve and relicense the software, in source and binary forms.

2) This software is provided "as is" and any express or implied warranties, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose are disclaimed. In no event shall the licensor or contributors be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special, exemplary, or consequential damages (including, but not limited to, procurement of substitute goods or services; loss of use, data, or profits; or business interruption) however caused and on any theory of liability, whether in contract, strict liability, or tort (including negligence or otherwise) arising in any way out of the use of this software, even if advised of the possibility of such damage.

---

We could call it the BPL (Best Possible License) or just the "Best License" for short. It'd sure solve a lot of headaches.

Congratulations, you've recreated the MIT/X11 and BSD licenses.

Your license is a non-copyleft. It doesn't require the availability of corresponding source code. It doesn't offer any protection from the aggressive use of patents. It doesn't have any terminating conditions. It doesn't establish any terms for retaining or modifying attribution. It doesn't even declare copyright ownership, let alone require that it be retained.

I suggest you take a look at Apache 2. It's the most reasonable non-copyleft, non-share-alike license in common use today. Imagine if the BSD license were actually written by lawyers instead of a bunch of academics doing their best. Copyright isn't simple. We can pretend it is, but in the end, lawyers and judges are responsible for enforcing the intent of a license.

Honestly, I think that FSF is a dangerous cancer that is expanding,

No, proprietary software and the DRM-loving culture are the cancer.

Today Prince has been threatened by the recording industry with withdrawal of his albums from the shops for doing a deal with a British newspaper to release a CD free to its readers. Why the hell shouldn't he do so if he wishes? It's thanks to the if-it-moves-own-it culture to which proprietary software (and hardware) owes its existence that this kind of drivel persists. I say 'drivel', I mean 'dangerous and extortionist drivel'.

And BTW, the fact of not being a puppet of the FSF doesn't make me DRM lover, I don't like DRM eather so stop making FUD.

Which says nothing about being able to own your own IP, as is your right. That recent problem of Prince's says nothing about having the ability to own your own work, and everything about signing the rights to your work away to a large group who doesn't have your interests at heart.

... hmm. A paper comparing the actions of the FSF and the RIAA might be a interesting article to research and write, someday...

If you want to give your software away for free, use BSD. If you want to share your software, use the GPL.

Software under the GPL is not free. Microsoft office is not free, you have to pay Microsoft money. The Borland developer tools are not free, you have to pay Borland (or whatever they're called these days).

Lastly, software released under the GPL is not free: if you choose to copy and paste GPL code into your own program you have to share it. This is how you pay for GPL code. This is a very egalitarian idea: I share my code, and if you use it in your own program, you pay me back by sharing your code or else you ask me to relicense the code under a different license to suit your needs (which was always possible).

To make sure no-one can escape sharing (after all, this is how they're paying to use the software), GPL v3 requires the following

(a) You make the source code available

(b) You don't use patents to prevent people from using your code, which would effectively block code-sharing despite (a)

(c) You don't use DRM to prevent people from using your code, which would effectively block code-sharing, like (a)


The GPL is no more viral than any commercial license, the only difference is in how you pay to use the software. And it's always worth remembering that you don't have to share until you distribute the source-code (and as corporations are legal entities, you can give a copy to all your 1000-odd co-workers without legally distributing it). It's further worth remembering that if this is a problem, you can always ask the original author to re-license their work under a commercial license if you would rather not share.

This GPL is viral/evil/not-as-cool-as-BSD thing is rubbish. It does what it sets out to do: encourage people to share code. There's no excuse for "accidentally" using GPL code in your own software, just as there's no excuse for "accidentally" installing a pirated copy of MS Office on your friends PC. Both place value on software, and if you choose to use it in a certain way, then you have to pay for them: the only difference is in how you pay.

This is easily the most sane, balanced and well-written BSD/GPL comparison I have ever read.

You deserve a 10.

A very good and still simple comparison, thank you. Just to put it into a formal setting:

BSD -> use for free, as long as BSDL code copyright is retained
GPLv2 -> use and contribute back
GPLv3 -> use, contribute back and don't use patents / DRM
Commercial -> use and pay money

The GPLv3 extends the requirements of the v2, while the BSDL has lower requirements than GPLv2 and v3.

=> BryanFeeney.mod++;

Totally agree, yet when Linus says this, the FSF crowd criticizes him for not understanding the "spirit" of the GPL.



Ah, well, now we're on a different page. Using DRM to prevent people from using your code is already prevented by the GPL. What v3 does is prevent hardware manufacturers from using DRM to restrict the GPL code that can run on it, if they are distributing GPL code as part of their product. And there we have the big split between the kernel devs and the FSF. Tivoisation.

The GPL v2 requires anyone using GPL v2-licensed code to provide source for any modifications they make to the code they distribute.

The GPL v3 requires anyone using GPL v3-licensed code as part of their product to provide a method for anyone to modify the code running on their product for their own requirements.

In other words, GPL v3 would prevent linux from being used as an embedded solution for things like Tivo, cell phones, media centers, networking gear etc. unless those manufacturers intentionally permitted their hardware to be "hacked". The fact that the companies utilizing the GPL software provide back all of their modifications to the benefit of the community is immaterial, because the community demands the exclusive right to modify the hardware as they see fit.

In an ideal world, this wouldn't be a problem. There would be nothing like FCC regulations on wireless that force manufacturers to intentionally obfuscate interfaces to prevent modification that could permit wireless use outside of regulations. The content owners wouldn't have such control over governmental regulation that they could impose such strict controls over the right of companies to be able to present that content. Companies like Tivo would be able to utilize linux as a means to deliver a relatively cheap service for customers without being forced to give those customers the right to take that service at will. But this isn't an ideal world.

As Linus pointed out several times, Linux isn't about changing the world for philosophical reasons. It's about providing the best possible open solution in the face of real world conditions. Compromises permitting commercial and community benefit are provided by v2, not so much by v3.

That's the difference.

v2 is about "can't we all just get along?"; v3 is about "no, we can't".

Edited 2007-06-30 01:24 UTC

Public domain is even better if you want to give your code away. It's been known that certain companies have manged to not comply with the BSD license. How lazy are you if you can't comply with that?

Copyrights, patents, software licenses, and other intellectually property have slowly whittled away the commons of culture and the freedoms of the individual. The GPL sets out to use the framework of software license to make them more free, as does the BSD, but they go about it in different ways.

In the world of copyright, the GPL is more like one of the Creative Commons Licenses, because CCL uses the framework of copyright to grant more freedoms than you'd otherwise have. All this GPLv3 talk would be unnecessary if companies didn't use the letter of the GPL to undermine the spirit of the GPL and/or new problems didn't arise.

(c) You don't use DRM to prevent people from using your code, which would effectively block code-sharing, like (a)

First of all I want to say that your post was great and I largely agree with what you said.

However I want to comment on the above point. Tivo (and others) never used DRM to stop people from using their GPL'd code, they wouldn't be allowed to do so under GPLv2 and it would have stupid of them to even try. You could take the code and use it in any way you wanted within the scope of GPLv2. No problems at all.

What they tried to stop you from was run your own binaries on the hardware they sold you. So you could take their code, change it, include it in your own project, compile and run it without restrictions, as long as you ran it on some other piece of hardware.

I am sharing your wonderful comment on my blog. If you don't like it, please contact me.

Indeed, this is. However, note that this does NOT mean this is a fair trade. If you think otherwise, let us trade "metal for metal": You sent me a ton of gold while I sent you a pound of lead.

You see, trading "stuff for stuff" is not necessarily fair. The problem is what "prices" are charged. and the evaluation of what constitutes a 'fair' price usually differs.

The GPL requests people to publish modifications to awork under the GPL if they are distributed at all. This could be considered an acceptable -- and thus "fair" -- price. After all, you can't claim to be able to make an income from this code, since much of it is not yours.

But the GPL also requests that independent works -- namely "extensions" to a GPL code (for example, "plug-ins to a framework", "applications to libraries", etc.) -- are to be published under a compatible license as well. I believe the correct GPL3 clause is "You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy." Here, the price gets unreasonable.

For example, Adobe may be required to publish Photoshop under the GPL3, if they would need to use a GPL3 library. In other words, Adobe would be required to pay a fee by giving up its license income for Photoshop. That would be millions of dollars. Of course, Adobe would not do this but write their own library or license a different one for the usual market prices.

In the long run, the more libraries use GPL3, the less attractive is a port of Photoshop (or any other closed-source applications) to Linux. As a result, users will pay the final price: Either because their are required to use a additional, completely non-free operating system, or because they have to pay Adobe and others for the development of the additional libraries.

Of course, from the point of view of the GNU project --spreading their definition of software "freedom" --, this is not a problem. For others -- people with different ethical positions -- this is counter-productive and unnecessary.

You don't need to accept other people's position here. But please note that the payment scheme of the GPL is not a very egalitarian idea; for it treats users differently, and discriminates those who don't share the FSF's definition of "software freedom".