The next version of the General Public License, GPL3 may tackle the issue of Web companies that use free software in commercial Web-based applications but don’t distribute the source code, said Richard Stallman GPL author and Free Software Foundation head.
The ethical way for companies to handle this is to use LGPL libraries over GPL’d ones. Even though the things we use at work we keep internal only I make sure we don’t incorporate the GPL’d stuff unless we buy rights to that specific software.
Bye bye GPL. (A view from a corporate user)
Welcome BSD style, MIT style, and many others WAY less restrictive, non-viral licenses !!!
If the GPL 3 is applied the way RS wants, I’m sure many projects will drop GPL 3 and use something else.
Can you imagine, many PHP/PHPBB sites that are currently used commercially with corporate mods, must now release their mods to the public?
LOL. That will be the day!! LOL
Corporate users obviously have little to no idea of the purpose of the GPL. It exists to protect free software, and free software isnt nessicarily the same thing as open software, which is far more corporation friendly.
I’m tired of seeing trolls like Google and Yahoo! consume the fruits of the free software movement, without passing anything back – go GPL3!!!
By its design free software is destine to be used and abused this way. You think human nature just disappears when you give something away for what appears to be a good reason? More power to Google
What’s the deal here? Now that the GPL has become sufficiently popular, RMS is going to change the terms to make it more viral? I know some companies indirectly profit from GPLed software, but the keyword is indirectly. If they aren’t in the software business, they shouldn’t have to worry about how they use GPLed software.
This is a good thing.
If the GPL were popular because it forces the software to be open this wouldn’t be necessary. What we have here is a very strong base of GNU supporters, and a bunch of new kids who heard about OSS and that Linux thing and decided to join the revolution. What they don’t realize is this is really a revolution, not some rhetoric. They have no clue why this revolution is happening and why we’re so strongly opposed to BSD style fairness and NDAs, DRM, corporate vendor lockin, etc.
They have no clue.
So maybe this will shake them up a bit. Survival of the fittest. If they’re weak they can go sell their worthless IP to some business or try to patent it or cry, whatever, we don’t care. We will write our own. And everyone gets the freedom to use it and all derivitive works of it for as long as it exists. No amount of free stuff can compare to the value of freedom, and that is why this is a revolutionary idea.
“They have no clue. ”
I suspect you have that backwards. Also next time one of you zealots goes hat in hand and declares “this is the year of Linux”. Don’t be surprised that your hat gets handed back to you with a footprint on it.
Suppose I used a gpl’d library, api, program etc in my commercial website. However I didn’t change any of the code, I simply called the functions in the GPL’d code from my own.
Does that mean that I should open source my program, or am I simply bound to let people know that I used library x and click here to download it?
If you call any of the GPL’ed code from your program, this proposed clause would require you to release all of your code. It’s the GPL extended to networking.
So if, for example, you used some GPL’ed php library with your php web app, you’d be required to release the source to your entire web app.
This clause is ridiculous and overbearing, I hope he doesn’t add it. The problem is that if it is added, many lemmings will just blindly use the GPL3 without thinking about the implications. If he does add it, I hope it’s emphasized that it’s an optional, “add-on” clause.
There are licenses derived from the GPL like the Affero Public License that address this problem so if an user can interact with an online application built on the Affero licensed product he can ask for the source code regardless he hasn’t been provided an executable. This kind of license is OK when you want to release some application as free software but you don’t want your competitors to get ahead of you by making some enhancements to your original product. For instance, this is applicable for IRC networks opensourcing their IRCd’s and services servers.
In your example, it would seem reasonable to require a release of the GPL’ed php library if you modified the library itself, but not if you simply made calls to the library. By that logic, should all applications running on Linux have to be GPL’ed just because they make calls to the kernel?
Hopefully, this isn’t the case, and I somewhat doubt it is. Unfortunately, I’ve never done any development with GPL software myself, so I’m not sure.
By that logic, should all applications running on Linux have to be GPL’ed just because they make calls to the kernel?
Read what I have posted above.
GPL2: You are not required to open source your code. You are note required to tell anyone that you use GPL code.
Possible GPL3: IF and ONLY if the GPL licensed code you use have implemented a function to access the sourcecode of the software. You would be required to leave this function intact (including the functionallity to download your code) IF and ONLY if the software are explicitly licensed under GPL3 or you choose to go with the “or (at your option) any later version.” clause.
By copyright law you are not _using_ a software library by using its API in your code. You are creating a derivative work.
IANAL
“By copyright law you are not _using_ a software library by using its API in your code. You are creating a derivative work.”
Right. From GPL v2:
“Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.”
To me this means that if you make calls into the API of a GPL library, then your program has to follow the terms and conditions of the GPL; that is to be publically released under the GPL if the compiled version is released publically. Web services seem to get around this because the program itself is not released, only its output. For a more traditional program though, I don’t see how you can legally get away with using a GPL library and not releasing your source code.
For a more traditional program though, I don’t see how you can legally get away with using a GPL library and not releasing your source code.
Thats the whole point of the GPL. You can’t. If you intend to distribute the work that is.
Remember that the GPL was not created to be an Open Source license. It’s designed to be one of the weapons the FSF use to free software.
Considering how many thing are compiled with GCC, and therefore have a little GPL in them, this could be a major shift. THe other issue comes if using any language for which the interpreter is GPL or any application server which is released under the GPL. It may require relicensing compilers and interpreters under LGPL.
Ummm, duh. The libraries like libstdc++ are all either LGPL or BSDL depending on the library. You do realize many proprietary programs, an example being RealPlayer, are compiled with GCC and still distributed under a closed license. Quit trying to spread FUD and use your head a little bit more.
Who knows what the “command” stuff is. In any case, GPL v2 will be the preferred straight GPL license and GPL v3 will be remembered as a complete failure.
Stallman doesn’t understand that open source isn’t just a hobbyist thing anymore and corporations have the resources to fork.
Stallman doesn’t understand that open source isn’t just a hobbyist thing anymore and corporations have the resources to fork.
You don’t understand that GPL is not Open Source its Free Software.
I used to think the GPL was great, but with this, somehow I now have doubts. I’d like to think that corporations and individuals have already learned the value of open source enough that ~requiring~ it through the auspices of a legalistic nanny would not longer be required.
But who knows … back when the original GPL was conceived, software was largely confined to running locally for users, and yet the GPL world took off all the same. So maybe we’re just being shortsighted, and the long-term benefits of GPL3 will eventually prove its worth just as they did for GPL2.
And then again, a broken clock is wrong twice a day, and RMS may just be a nut that had one huge success, but won’t have another, and we’re crazy for listening to him.
It would be interesting to see if Linux goes GPL3 … would that mean Google would have to release its modified kernel to the public?
Taken from the COPYING file coming with the Linux sources:
NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls – this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of “derived work”. Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.
Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
Linus Torvalds
Given the language he used, it looks unlikely that we will see Linux going GPL3 in a near future.
So now GPL becomes concerned with usage as opposed to pure distribution and thus turns into an EULA instead of a copyright license?! What he proposes is equivalent to this: Let’s say I sell astrological services and create personal horoscopes using a GPLed word processor that I have modified but not distributed to the outside world; by his logic, I should be forced to release my modifications just because this word processor is used to deliver some services to the people! He seems to believe that Web services are somehow fundamentally different from any other services, which they aren’t – they’re only delivered using a different medium. Hell, GPL v.2 was a fine, balanced license for the intended purpose, and now he wants to fsck up it all…
It will be interesting to see what Linus’s opinion is on this … I’m sure a lot of people are waiting to see how he’ll react once GPL3 is released.
So many people are obsessed with what Google do (obviously I can see why as their stuff is amazing). But if Linus would change to GPL 3 why does everyone think this will affect Google? I don’t think it will, their fork is most likely already done a long time ago and they have little to no interest of the upcoming Linux kernels.
If they would be using the Linux kernel and this GPL3 thing would hit the fan. Be sure that Google is a company with resources enough to either
a) fork the kernel
b) switch kernel to let’s say a BSD one
c) Buy a copy from Sun of the solaris kernel (which is superior I’d say).
d) Build their own stuff from scratch as it seems they’ve already done with so many other things.
Google isn’t the company that will suffer from this. All the small firms using MySQL (god forbid) will be the guys suffering. On the other hand, this is nice to see as I expect more users running for PG or Firebird.
kill the gpl… yeahhh