The FSF today released version 3 of the GNU GPL, the popular free software license. "Since we founded the free software movement, over 23 years ago, the free software community has developed thousands of useful programs that respect the user's freedom. The programs are in the GNU/Linux operating system, as well as personal computers, telephones, Internet servers, and more. Most of these programs use the GNU GPL to guarantee every user the freedom to run, study, adapt, improve, and redistribute the program," said Richard Stallman, founder and president of the FSF. This article has some interesting replies from the BSD community (right in the middle).
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-12
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.
This is correct. Stallman's goal is a completely free OS with applications. He does not want an OS with proprietary applications.
I'm not sure that Stallman is right. It seems better to have an OS which can be used for everything, not only Free Software.
Member since:2005-07-02
There are many things wrong with that theory.
First, the vast majority of libraries are licensed under the LGPL, and not the GPL, so the point is likely moot.
Second, you shouldn't single out version 3 of the GPL in that example. A library licensed under GPLv2 would have the same effect.
Third, why on earth would Adobe use a copyleft library for Photoshop? I'm pretty sure they would use their own libraries, or libraries not under a copyleft license (or a limited copyleft license, such as the LGPL).
Finally, if Adobe *really* wanted to use that rare beast which is a GPLed library, they could always ask the authors to relicense it to them.
Again, there are many misconceptions in this paragraph. Users are not treated differently because of the GPL, but because of copyright law. Copyright has no effect on *use* of software, only in its copying and subsequent redistribution (hence the "copy" in "copyright"). The GPL, which is based on copyright law, could not dictate to users how they could use the software. They can, however, dictate conditions on redistribution, because the GPL grants additional rights compared to normal "fair use" rights as stipulated by copyright law.
Second, the GPL doesn't discriminate about anyone. It applies equally to all, irregardless of one's beliefs about software freedom. That's because it is a legal document, and sets conditions for redistribution of the copyrighted material. Someone could disagree with RMS, and think the FSF are a bunch of kooks, and he would still have the *exact* same rights as a diehard FSF fan with regards to a GPLed piece of software.
Therefore, contrary to what you claim, the GPL is *very* egalitarian, because it ensures that the code and its derivatives will be distributed with the same freedoms as the ones desired by the original author(s). Does the GPL curtail the freedom of those who want to produce closed-source derivatives? Indeed it does. But it also protects the rights of the original copyright holder about what can be done with the code, and therefore protect the author's freedom from having their IP be used for closed-source software.
This is why the GPL is as free as, say, the BSDL, but in a different way - because freedom is *never* absolute, and in order to guarantee some freedoms, you need to curtail other freedoms (as someone pointed out, to guarantee the freedom to live, you have to curtail the freedom to murder).
Member since:2006-11-15
"This is why the GPL is as free as, say, the BSDL, but in a different way - because freedom is *never* absolute, and in order to guarantee some freedoms, you need to curtail other freedoms (as someone pointed out, to guarantee the freedom to live, you have to curtail the freedom to murder)."
That's right and that's why many people will prefer microsoft, because it is much easier to use than linux and yet available on most x86 computers and other people will favor Apple which has even more restrictions because they feel it works better than anything. they also see Apple as a strike back against Microsoft because to them OS choice is more important than hardware choice or source code availability
Member since:
2007-01-10
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".