Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 24th Mar 2009 18:02 UTC, submitted by google_ninja
Eric S. Raymond is one of the three big figures in open source, together with Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman. During a talk for the Long Island Linux User Group, he made some interesting statements about the GPL, namely that the GPL is no longer needed due to the way the open source movement works.
Thread beginning with comment 354813
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-11-18
Did you actually read his comment? 
The FSF advises to use the following wording:
"This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version."
If you use it as-is, and a new version of the GPL is written, users have the option to use the newer GPL. Suppose if the FSF was hypothetically taken over by Steve Ballmer's evil twin, and rewrites the GPLv4 to give a blanket license to the FSF there is nothing to stop them. Of course, such a scenario is not realistic in the short term. I think the anti-patent licensing terms can be more of a problem in the short term. What happens if a really FLOSS-friendly company (say Red Hat) is sued over a patent, and they can not succesfully defend themselves. Then they would need some patent licensing deal, effectively terminating their right to distributing that particular software if it is licensed under the GPLv3.
I hate patents as much as the next guy, but it is not an unfeasable scenario.
Member since:2008-08-19
Did you actually read his comment? The FSF advises to use the following wording:
"This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version."
The FSF advises to use the following wording: "This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version."
Right. But presumably, you're not just throwing licensing conditions on your work without reading them, right? So when you included a copyright notice at the top of your source files that says "or any later version" in the very first paragraph, you can hardly claim you didn't mean it, right?
Member since:2006-01-01
Suppose if the FSF was hypothetically taken over by Steve Ballmer's evil twin, and rewrites the GPLv4 to give a blanket license to the FSF there is nothing to stop them.
Yeah, and if Vatican was hypothetically taken over by Satanists who rewrite the Bible to make the Devil appear as the good guy, there is nothing to stop them either.
What happens if a really FLOSS-friendly company (say Red Hat) is sued over a patent, and they can not succesfully defend themselves. Then they would need some patent licensing deal, effectively terminating their right to distributing that particular software if it is licensed under the GPLv3.
Well, it wouldn't be the end of the world for them. They could easily re-license any GPLv3-licensed software they've written themselves, and they could continue distributing software that ships under any other free software license, including GPLv2. However, not signing patent deals gives them the advantage that they can also distribute GPLv3-licensed software, while their competitors who *have* signed patent licensing deals don't have this advantage.
Member since:2005-07-06
Actually, the OP isn't entirely wrong.
All versions of the GPL contain a paragraph which specifically states that, if no explicit statement is made as to which version of the GPL applies to the code, *any* version can be taken to apply - including future versions which haven't been written yet.
If you just write a piece of software and stick a copy of the GPL in the archive, no matter what particular version of the GPL that file you put in the archive was, anyone can pick any version of the GPL to apply to your code. This isn't exactly what the OP said - later versions don't supersede earlier ones in this case, so you're still free to apply GPLv2 to any code without a specific GPLv3 statement - but it's not what you said, either.
If you want a particular version or combination of versions of the GPL or LGPL, and *only* those versions, to apply to your code, this has to be explicitly stated.
Member since:2005-07-24
All versions of the GPL contain a paragraph which specifically states that, if no explicit statement is made as to which version of the GPL applies to the code, *any* version can be taken to apply - including future versions which haven't been written yet
I think that's any *later* version. The FSF's GPL is like the back-swept teeth in the maw of a shark. They want the default movement to be in one direction, with no option to go the other way.
Edited 2009-03-25 16:39 UTC
Member since:2008-02-26
Actually, the OP isn't entirely wrong.
All versions of the GPL contain a paragraph which specifically states that, if no explicit statement is made as to which version of the GPL applies to the code, *any* version can be taken to apply - including future versions which haven't been written yet.
If you just write a piece of software and stick a copy of the GPL in the archive, no matter what particular version of the GPL that file you put in the archive was, anyone can pick any version of the GPL to apply to your code.
All versions of the GPL contain a paragraph which specifically states that, if no explicit statement is made as to which version of the GPL applies to the code, *any* version can be taken to apply - including future versions which haven't been written yet.
If you just write a piece of software and stick a copy of the GPL in the archive, no matter what particular version of the GPL that file you put in the archive was, anyone can pick any version of the GPL to apply to your code.
No. You're wrong.
This would happen only when you would just put the small note in the code "this program is under GPL" without specifying the license text.
If you attach a text of a specific version of GPL then noone can take your code and release it under an earlier version of the GPL.
Read the GPL FAQ.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
"Ilja van Sprundel, a security researcher with IOActive, has discovered a large number of issues in the way various X client libraries handle the responses they receive from servers, and has worked with X.Org's security team to analyze, confirm, and fix these issues."
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
"Google is facing a new antitrust probe by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission into whether the company is using its leadership in the online display-advertising market to illegally curb competition, people familiar with the matter said." Sucks to be Google today, apparently.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
"In the midst of the major press blitz surrounding its annual I/O Conference, Google dropped some unfortunate news about its instant messaging plans. In several places around the web, the company is replacing the existing 'Talk' platform with a new one called 'Hangouts' that sharply diminishes support for the open messaging protocol known as XMPP (or sometimes informally Jabber), and also removes the option to disable the archiving of all chat communications. These changes represent a switch from open protocols to proprietary ones, and a clear step backward for many users." That's why I always say: only suckers trust companies.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
"The wave of departures is a sign of internal struggle, but amidst all the bad news, there is a glimmer of hope. According to an anonymous HTC executive cited by WSJ, the crucial HTC One is selling 'pretty good so far'. The executive revealed that HTC sold about five million One units since launch, a performance that is deemed encouraging. However, sales have been limited by the persisting supply issues that still plague the production of the HTC One." Finally some good news for HTC. Five million units amidst supply constraints is very impressive.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
"Sony gave the PS4 50% more raw shader performance, plain and simple (768 SPs @ 800MHz vs. 1152 SPs & 800MHz). Unlike last generation, you don't need to be some sort of Jedi to extract the PS4's potential here. The Xbox One and PS4 architectures are quite similar, Sony just has more hardware under the hood. Weâll have to wait and see how this hardware delta gets exposed in games over time, but the gap is definitely there. The funny thing about game consoles is that itâs usually the lowest common denominator that determines the bulk of the experience across all platforms. On the plus side, the Xbox One should enjoy better power/thermal characteristics compared to the PlayStation 4. Even compared to the Xbox 360 we should see improvement in many use cases thanks to modern power management techniques." AnandTech does its usual in-depth thing.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
"The Verge has learned that HTC's Chief Product Officer, Kouji Kodera, left the company last week. Kodera was responsible for HTC's overall product strategy, which makes the departure especially notable on the heels of the global launch of the make-or-break One. It's not just Kodera. In the past three-odd months, HTC has lost a number of employees in rapid succession." I really hope HTC pulls it together.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
"It is with huge pleasure that the Debian GNU/Hurd team announces the release of Debian GNU/Hurd 2013. This is a snapshot of Debian 'sid' at the time of the Debian 'wheezy' release (May 2013), so it is mostly based on the same sources. It is not an official Debian release, but it is an official Debian GNU/Hurd port release." Important note: 75% of Debian packages are supported bu Debian GNU/Hurd. Impressive.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
"The first killer app was VisiCalc. This early spreadsheet turned the Apple II from a hobbyist toy to a business computer. VisiCalc came with room for improvement, though. In addition, a new architecture and operating system, the Intel-based IBM PC and MS-DOS, also needed a spreadsheet to be taken seriously. That spreadsheet, released in early 1983, would be Lotus 1-2-3, and it would change the world. It became the PC's killer app, and the world would never be the same. On May 14, IBM quietly announced the end of the road for 1-2-3, along with Lotus Organizer and the Lotus SmartSuite office suite. Lotus 1-2-3's day is done." Impressive 30 year run.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
"There's a disconnect between how Apple CEO Tim Cook sees his company's tax strategies and how some members of the US Senate view it. That became clearer than ever today after Cook and two other Apple executives testified before Congress, explaining why they're holding most of their international income in Irish subsidiaries like Apple Operations International, which declare no tax residency anywhere in the world. AOI hasn't filed a tax return anywhere in the world for the last five years, yet it earned $30 billion in income from 2009 to 2012, according to a Senate report released yesterday." Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's just. Apple, Google, Microsoft, and many more - these companies might not be breaking any laws, but it's obvious to anyone that what they are doing is scummy.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
The new WebKit Opera for Android has been released. "Opera 14 for Android is built on top of Chromium 26, with a total overhaul of the UI in native code, making it fit well with the latest Android design guidelines. Go get the build from Google Play or point your browser to m.opera.com, and give it a spin!"More News »
Sponsored Links
Member since:
2006-04-22
Dude, you need to educate yourself on how the GPL works before you open your mouth again. You just made a complete fool of yourself.
By releasing the GPLv3 *zero* people who have licensed their code under GPLv2 were affected unless they chose to upgrade their licensing.
Really what we are seeing with people like you is a *religious* or *political* distaste for the GPL and not a logical objection. So I guess that is sort of the definition of "fool".