Plans to update the General Public Licence, which underpins the distribution of most open source software, were released by the Free Software Foundation and the Software Freedom Law Center yesterday. The first discussion draft of the new license – known as GPLv3 – will be released at a public conference, due to be held at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on 16th and 17th January.
I see revisions of the GPL as only means of modifying and modernizing a control structure. Nothing is perfect of course but one should cast a critical eye on any changes made to determine if the GPL is still the best license for the job.
Things have changed a lot in the open source world since 1992 or whenever V2 came out. The kernel won’t be using it and the relevance of it beyond GNU is yet to be determined. At the end of the day, it’ll just be another license.
If by “the kernel” you mean Linux I can tell you that is open. Linus didn’t like the auto update clause because the FSF might f–k up the future GPL but the FSF will make sure that Linux kernel developers ARE content with the GPL3 since they sit on one big and important pice of code.
Most other projects include the auto update clause so they can and will go GPL3 (or 3.1 if problems pop up afterall) what I would be more concerned about is GPL + extra clause licenses like WXWidgets or Lazarus.
To change the license of the kernel at this point is next to impossible. There are people with copyright that are even dead. The kernel will remain V2.
Gradual code changes make relicensing possible so Linux can change its license if it wants, just not all at once.
There is permission to include exception clauses to the GPL, or at least there was with version 2. So if Trovalds wanted to use GPL v3 for the kernel and exception clauses were still permitted he could have one to specifically invalidate the automatic update part while keeping the rest of the license intact if I’m not mistaken.
I am not talking about Linux (it don’t have extra clauses it has one less) but about all those projects that saw fit to add clauses to the GPL and LGPL to >>clarify<< them. The question is do you upgrade from GPL/LGPL2 + clauses to GPL/LGPL3 or do you upgrade from GPL/LGPL2 + clauses to GPL/LGPL3 + clauses? Most clauses interpret the LGPL to say you can develop commercial software with it (RMS says this is unnecessary to say since it is included in the LGPL but most people are still uneasy about it) if the clause would be added as an optional interpretation of the license there would be no problem since you didn’t add to the license but what dose the update clause mean when you’ve changed the license? Is the update clause valid? Is the derived license valid? How do you use the update clause? None of those are clear and that is where I see the real problem.
Ok, I think I see what you are saying, but then why not copy and paste the GPL v3 license into a text editor, change the name of it and say it’s based off GPL v3 but isn’t GPL v3, and then remove the parts you don’t like such as that update part.
From http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt
“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 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.“
That’s from the GPL v2 (1991), it looks to me like an invitation to apply any later version of the GPL to the given code anyway. Is it that much different than the v3 update part, or is the update part in v3 automatic whereas this requires someone to take action?
> That’s from the GPL v2 (1991), it looks to me like an invitation to apply any later version of the GPL to the given code anyway. Is it that much different than the v3 update part, or is the update part in v3 automatic whereas this requires someone to take action?
You could leave this part out in v2, that’s what linus and some other projects did. I believe that won’t be possible in v3. All that said, since I haven’t read a draft yet, I keep the rest of my thoughts for myself
The GPL is a control over the law. It’s basicly a restatement of the law from:
* You are not allowed to use, copy or modify other peoples software without their explicit concent. In many cases you are not even allowed to study the software.
to:
* You are not allowed to stop people from using, copying, modifying or studying software.
Now the GPL can’t actually control the law so, by using the law in an ingenious way, it creates a subdomain of copyrighted software where the laws are reverted, called copyleft.
To think that GPL is a pragmatic solution for the Open Source movement would be an error. There are other tools designed for that. In the extreme the Open Source Movement should be able to completley ignore copyright and just deal with the public domain.
> one should cast a critical eye on any changes made to
> determine if the GPL is still the best license for the
> job.
It is highly probbable that the new GPL will stay the best licence for the job.
Has anyone told RMS?
Let’s see how I can make fun of Open Source GPL.
1)That’s Free Software to you!
2)Is there a proprietary GPL too?
Your headlines suck Thom.
the GLP is not opensource it is a licence for open source software. you cant fork the GPL and make your own.
Right. For licensing there’s nothing like open or closed source. A license has to be open. Creating a license and not telling anybody how it looks like is rendering it useless.
Browser: Lynx/2.8.5dev.7 libwww-FM/2.14 SSL-MM/1.4.1 OpenSSL/0.9.7
*Open Source* GPL?
By Anonymous on 2005-12-01 20:42:29
Has anyone told RMS?
>
>
The comment had been made before that the OSNEWS STAFF should *really* quit commenting about the Free Software/Open Source movement basically because they don’t have a single clue whatsoever about what it is about. Here’s *PROOF* of it.
OK. Just because one (mad) man calls his license free, there’s no need for the rest of the world to agree with. In fact, you will find that a lot of people (me included) find the GPL to actually be more restrictive (“less free”) than let’s say the BSD license. I really don’t want to get into that topic, but just because some people like to think their software is free doesn’t mean much to those that don’t agree (i.e. sane people :p).
Also, I remember an interview with RMS where he said that he doesn’t mind using Google (proprietary code) or even MS Word if there are no alternatives – i.e. he made an example like if he was at a friend and had to write something and his friend would be using Word, he’d do it. This just shows how flawed and nonbelieving his “belief” is. You don’t see vegetarians eating meat just because veggies taste like shit. Those people stand by their beliefs.
On a slightly off topic; Someone brought this up on Slashdot and I thought he was making a point – does RMS expect to be taken seriously with his looks? I’m not exactly a pretty person myself, but can you imagine someone looking like a hippy to be taken seriously by the politicians or the corporate America? This might seem as a flaimbait, but I think it’s a perfectly valid discussion. Can you imagine this guy sitting in Ballmer’s office trying to convince him to give their products source away and expectto be taken seriously? [Ballmer used just as an example, no need for ‘chair’ jokes]
OK. Just because one (mad) man calls his license free, there’s no need for the rest of the world to agree with.
I don’t get it. Who is pushing the issue? Noone is forcing anyone to do anything.
Also, I remember an interview with RMS where he said that he doesn’t mind using Google (proprietary code) or even MS Word if there are no alternatives – i.e. he made an example like if he was at a friend and had to write something and his friend would be using Word, he’d do it.
So?
This just shows how flawed and nonbelieving his “belief” is. You don’t see vegetarians eating meat just because veggies taste like shit. Those people stand by their beliefs.
That is just stupid. Beliveing that software should be free is not the same as beliveing that using non-free software is a crime. I think people shouldn’t encode with mp3 when they could encode with vorbis. I’d still listen to mp3’s though.
does RMS expect to be taken seriously with his looks?
Seriously, why do you care?
Edited 2005-12-02 03:24
What’s wrong with the GPL, no one is making people use it. Ok, I’ve heard the “using other GPL code means that yours has to be GPL too ” (aka GPL is viral) argument, but that argument is 100% flawed. You can write your own programs and libraries if you don’t want to use something licensed under the GPL, you can even buy licenses to non-GPLed toolkits or get exceptions from the authors of GPLed software so you don’t have to license your software under the GPL as well. Quite frankly The original author has every right to choose the license he wants to put his code under.
Also, as I understand it you can make an LGPLed interface to GPLed code, and then use that LGPLed interface for proprietary apps. But I may be mistaken on this one, better wait for confirmation.
Richard Stallman never forced anyone to license their code under the GPL, the developers chose to use his license. They aren’t madmen, they just believe in a different way of doing things which quite frankly has benifited me and others a lot. One way or another people get their hands on your source code, there’s no stopping them whether they decompile it or it gets leaked. Obfuscating code isn’t 100% effective, if it can be done, it can be undone even if it takes a long time.
“Also, I remember an interview with RMS where he said that he doesn’t mind using Google (proprietary code) or even MS Word if there are no alternatives – i.e. he made an example like if he was at a friend and had to write something and his friend would be using Word, he’d do it. This just shows how flawed and nonbelieving his “belief” is. You don’t see vegetarians eating meat just because veggies taste like shit. Those people stand by their beliefs. “
I don’t see anything wrong with this, although I doubt very much that he said he’d use MS Word. You’ll have to cite sources on that one before I’ll believe you.
If there is only one way to do things, and you don’t want to create your own alternative then you use what you can get if you need it. In those cases it doesn’t matter whether you agree with the motivation/ideology or not.
“RMS expect to be taken seriously with his looks?”
Oh great, so Joe Sixpack and Jane Bigboobs can be complete retards and still get taken more seriously than RMS just because of the way they look. Sorry man, but I know a lot of attractive women who are also on drugs, if I based their credibility on the way they looked then I’d be a complete sucker.
Thanks to open source I can get an OS and Office suite at a price I am willing to pay, and companies like Mandriva still make money. Like it or not it works for me.
RE: using other people’s proprietary software
I think his justification for this was that his freedom wasn’t affected – it was the person who’s computer he was using. E.g. at a company using proprietary software the individual employees do not have their freedoms restricted (well they might not want to be at work but that’s another discussion!), but the company itself loses the potential benefits from using free software, for instance they can’t fix bugs or add new features relevant to their business.
RE: GPL v2 written by RMS
I think v1 might have been written by RMS alone, but v2 was written with Eben Moglen.
Both of these topics are addressed on the GNU website (and in ‘Free Software, Free Society’), but I can’t
links immediately after a very brief search.
OK, so The Register decides to go with the headline “Revised Open Source GPL Expected Spring 2007.” They’re the New York Post of the computing world so we expect bad headlines from them. But shouldn’t OSNews know better? Didn’t we just finish OSNews flamewar 3,296 about “free software” vs. “open source”? Why start 3,297? Stupidity, laziness? Or just a desire to be as poorly thought out and sensationalist as The Register itself?
I actually don’t side with the RMSfolk on this one, but I’ll spare you my complete riff on the matter. I got bored of it myself back in, say, 1998. The real issue here is that OSNews, through what appears to be either carelessness or deliberate trollishness, publishes a junk headline like this. How sad.
“Open source GPL” means “GPL license used for Open Source software”. Man, is it that difficult to understand? And the Free (RMS-wise) vs. Open Source thing doesn’t matter at all because all Free software is Open Source.
Do people really have nothing to discuss on this topic other than kosherness of the headline?
The real issue here is that OSNews, through what appears to be either carelessness or deliberate trollishness, publishes a junk headline like this. How sad.
No. The problem are people with toes the size of Manhatten. If you can get worked op over something as trivial and pointless as this… Then I feel sorry for you.
We’re talking a software license here, people, not the bible/koran/torah/etc.
No. The problem are people with toes the size of Manhatten. If you can get worked op over something as trivial and pointless as this… Then I feel sorry for you.
Bullshit, Thom. I happen to agree with you that it’s a trivial and pointless argument. But we both seem to be well aware that this pisses people off, greatly. Unless you were deliberately trying to make a point – and you weren’t – let’s just fess up and admit a sloppy headline that seems almost custom-made to spark a flamewar.
I agree 1000% with your comments, Varg Vikernes!
Cheers!!!!!!!!!!!
I agree 1000% with your comments, Varg Vikernes!
Cheers!!!!!!!!!!!
Who the hell modded this one up? Was it you, Varg Vikernes?
How many developers really do understand the GPL lawyerspeak? And how many users do?
KISS is a principle we must apply to software licenses, too.
What is funny is that the BSD license was written by expert lawyers while the GPL was written by a programmer.
What is funny is that the BSD license was written by expert lawyers while the GPL was written by a programmer.
That could be part of the reason it’s being updated. 🙂 It does seem to have worked fairly well so far though.
> How many developers really do understand the GPL
> lawyerspeak?
So far virtually everybody I’ve ever met. Or do you think its difficult for a software developer to understand that he must include the source code under the GPL of a derivative work if he distributes it?
You see, the “spirit” of the GPL is easy to explain in one single sentence. The legalese is for lawyers, to deal with anybody whou would like to take the code and deal with it against the easy to understand “spirit” of the GPL.
> And how many users do?
Users do not have to understand it, since from their point of view they can do with it everything they can think of. From the user’s point of view GPL’ed Software is just “freeware”.
That is the reason why the GPL is not click-through license: Because for normal usage (not programming) there is no way to violate the license. And for programming, you do not have to agree to the GPL either. Because if you do not accept that license, don’t include that code.
No need for agreeing with it.
Yet people find the need to include it in an annoying nagscreen as if it was an EULA.
Please, for the love of god, stop referring to Free Software and the GPL as having ANYTHING to do with Open Source. They are entirely different causes, with entirely different principles behind them. Free Software was around first, and CONTINUES to be the most popular of the two, with two thirds or three quarters of FOSS software being Free Software, rather than Open Source. If you have to err on one side or the other, then please use the term Free Software. If you want to encompass both, the term is FOSS.
Nope. You’re wrong, he’s right.