With a relatively hostile environment that has pitted proprietary software against open source as a backdrop, the Free Software Foundation, the steward of the GNU General Public License, is working on the first revamp to the license in 13 years.The changes planned for the next release, Version 3, a draft of which is due next year, focus on several broad topics that reflect the dynamic change in the software industry since the early 1990s—intellectual property licensing and patent issues, the question of how to deal with software used over a network, and concerns around trusted computing.
Elsewhere, open-source software, increasingly popular with budget-conscious companies, is beginning to expand into a new area: The lucrative infrastructure-software market dominated by industry giants such as Microsoft.
I agreee, the GPL will need to address the upcoming euro-patent issue. I don’t think it’s so much an open book here in the USA though. Microsoft, Adobe, etc., have a huge and powerful lobby, so I doubt US software patents will just go away.
everything’s gotta be adapted to the situation, even GPL (and the US-constitution should do so too!)
Why does the Constitution need to adapt? Just because it grants the government the power to issue patents doesn’t mean it has to.
I really don’t know how a web service can force GPL compliance on outside users. So does this mean that if Amazon were to create web services to allow third parties to tie into their store based on GPLd technology, that those third parties would have to GPL their systems as well? I have no idea how that can be claimed as reasonable license terms.
These include making a decision about Web services. Currently, if developers write an application using GPL parts and if that application is distributed, users must abide by the GPL’s requirements of share and share alike, Moglen said. But the right of private modification is also an important right that needs to be sustained, he said.
Not much was said it about actually, unless i’m missing something. But yeah, are they trying to expand the viralness of the GPL by essentially saying that using certain network interfaces is akin to a how the GPL defines what linkage is currently? But then Moglen goes ahead to say that private modification is also an important right that needs to be sustained.
So what exactly are they trying to do here?
“So does this mean that if Amazon were to create web services to allow third parties to tie into their store based on GPLd technology, that those third parties would have to GPL their systems as well? I have no idea how that can be claimed as reasonable license terms.”
well thats not the idea. you are right about that not being reasonable. It might not even be enforcable like you assume .if gpl v3 will have any clauses covering web services. it would work like this
any webservices enabler like amazon using modified gpled packages would have to make available the source code for the modifications. with gplv2 this is not a redistribution hence amazon can do proprietary modifications
with gpl v3 a claus can be added to have web services be covered as a form of modification or something similar…
“Not much was said it about actually, unless i’m missing something. But yeah, are they trying to expand the viralness of the GPL by essentially saying that using certain network interfaces is akin to a how the GPL defines what linkage is currently? But then Moglen goes ahead to say that private modification is also an important right that needs to be sustained. ”
having all your gpled software manage the webservices infrastructure publicly available to do commerical stuff isnt consider private modification. gpl faq has a few answers about private modifications. you might want to read that first
“But yeah, are they trying to expand the viralness of the GPL by essentially saying that using certain network interfaces is akin to a how the GPL defines what linkage is currently?”
this isnt necessarily tied to linkage. gpl doesnt say a single thing about linkage
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
what it says is that if you do modify the source code and /redistribute/ it to a third party you need to make available the source code.
if you have a dependancy on gpled software you software needs to be gpl’ed too. what “dependancy” means is covered under copyright law. in general it is understood that only static linking is covered by this. However this has never been clarified under any copyright cases regarding gpl nor it is valid under all national copyrights
I have to admit: I used to be one of those people who often liked to ridicule RMS because of his fanatic attitudes but I rarely do it anymore. Well, I still see no serious problem in proprietary software, though, it has its place in the software world too IMO… But the longer I’ve watched how things develop in the software world the more I’ve startd to agree with Stallman.
GPL might be a bit restrictive license from some points of views, more so than e.g. BSD licenses, but what GPL does, it does it for the benefit of all the open source world, and actually for the benefit of the whole software industry too.
This new plan to revamp the GPL might be very good for the continuous development and well-being of the whole open source world too.
I will take this one step further with a real example as I understand it:
As some of you know, Sherlock is a “non-free” application on the Mac that allows plugins to be written for accessing web services to do things like view eBay auctions and find movie listings.
Well, if one of these web services (let’s say Amazon or eBay) was licensed with a new GPL so that users must also be licensed under the GPL, the obvious problem is that any software that is dependent on “non-free” software cannot be GPL’d (as is the way the GPL works, in an all or nothing fashion), then no Sherlock plugin would be able to conform to this new GPL license and therefore no Sherlock plugin could access this web service.
I think your example is wrong. The intention is only to enforce this GPL for the supplier. not the consumer like sherlock. what you are claiming is that gpl would be extend to cover webservices itself as a api like thing. What GPL v3 is trying to do is enforce the gpl from the supplier perspective as explained above
[/i]Well, if one of these web services (let’s say Amazon or eBay) was licensed with a new GPL so that users must also be licensed under the GPL, the obvious problem is that any software that is dependent on “non-free” software cannot be GPL’d (as is the way the GPL works, in an all or nothing fashion), then no Sherlock plugin would be able to conform to this new GPL license and therefore no Sherlock plugin could access this web service.[/i]
If that is true then how do they plan on enforcing it?
>>>any webservices enabler like amazon using modified gpled packages would have to make available the source code for the modifications. with gplv2 this is not a redistribution hence amazon can do proprietary modifications
I think you got it backwards. If you read the quote — it said that CURRENTLY under gpl2, you have to “share and share alike”. So he is thinking about in gpl3, you don’t have to share the source code.
>>>GPL might be a bit restrictive license from some points of views, more so than e.g. BSD licenses, but what GPL does, it does it for the benefit of all the open source world, and actually for the benefit of the whole software industry too.
The current GPL2 benefits IBM and Novell (and those that have large number of patents). And RedHat is holding the patent timebomb.
It’s RedHat that is pushing for gpl3 right now.
But it’s going to be very difficult to get the big guys to accept these changes (because they manage to make large amounts of money without holding the timebomb).
it said that CURRENTLY under gpl2, you have to “share and share alike”. So he is thinking about in gpl3, you don’t have to share the source code.
—-
no. thats completely wrong. read what he said properly
”
The current GPL2 benefits IBM and Novell (and those that have large number of patents). And RedHat is holding the patent timebomb.
It’s RedHat that is pushing for gpl3 right now. ”
what the heck are you talking about. this has nothing to with specific companies like ibm novell or redhat. this is a push from the fsf side and redhat isnt involved at all. Talk to RMS or Eben moglen through email if you want any clarifications
With more and more adoption of GPL software by mainstream software businesses, this would be an excellent opportunity to include a clause that if you use or distribute the software, you must put all software-related patents tht you hold in the public domain (or release them under similar conditions so that open source software is indemnified).
The problem with that would probably be that most projects driven by companies would either simply stay GPL version 2 or even fork.
“The problem with that would probably be that most projects driven by companies would either simply stay GPL version 2 or even fork.”
the kernel is explicitly licensed under gplv2. many others include the optional claus to consider all updated licensed from fsf as inclusive. there is NO way companies are going to fork everything. they might as well as go in for proprietary software instead of forking. the additonal burden would be too much. what might be problematic is the diversity of patent laws across the world
>>>no. thats completely wrong. read what he said properly
Can you guys help me read this then:
“These include making a decision about Web services. Currently, if developers write an application using GPL parts and if that application is distributed, users must abide by the GPL’s requirements of share and share alike, Moglen said. But the right of private modification is also an important right that needs to be sustained, he said.”
I think he is saying that CURRENTLY (under GPL2) if you write a web services application using GPL parts, then users of those web services application have to abide by GPL requirements of share and share alike.
I think that he continued saying that Web Services is going to be a big part of the world economy in the future. In order to promote the use of web services, we have to respect the right of private modification of these web services applications. So in GPL3, there is no need to share such modifications (whereas currently in GPL2, you are required to share such modifications).
You definitely misread this.
I asked RMS why GPL doesnt cover webservices currently linking to http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/jeffdillon who talks about the requirement on GPL update
Let me quote his reply
”
We are looking at ways to make GNU GPL version 3 deal with this issue.
The Affero GPL is one attempt
Meanwhile, Dillon’s article would have been clearer if he had avoided
the confusing propaganda term “IP”. It is always harmful to use that
term, and people should always keep away from it.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html for
more explanation.”
this isnt necessarily tied to linkage. gpl doesnt say a single thing about linkage
It doesn’t need to. According to the GPL, if you link to GPLed code, your code must also be GPLed because it is now a “derivative”.
(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL)
This is precisely why the LGPL was created.
I think you got it backwards. If you read the quote — it said that CURRENTLY under gpl2, you have to “share and share alike”. So he is thinking about in gpl3, you don’t have to share the source code.
Except that’s not what the GPL is about at all. Under the GPL you may have to “share” anything from far less, to “alike”, to far more, depending on the circumstances.
“this isnt necessarily tied to linkage. gpl doesnt say a single thing about linkage
It doesn’t need to. According to the GPL, if you link to GPLed code, your code must also be GPLed because it is now a “derivative”. ”
my point was that it isnt necessarily a attribute of “linkage” but whats considered to be derivate under copyright laws
“Except that’s not what the GPL is about at all. Under the GPL you may have to “share” anything from far less, to “alike”, to far more, depending on the circumstances.”
very vague statement..
Lets see if we can straighten things out some. Here’s a little scenario:
A web services company, lets call them ‘Nile’, produces a site using software covered by the GPL. They make changes to the GPL code and also link it to non-free code from another source. Users of the site connect to the software, create accounts, buy books/mugs/whatever, all the usual web services stuff. Nile do not make their modified code available under any terms.
With the current GPL this is allowed, since the modified code isn’t distributed. The GPL only comes into effect when code is distributed, so if it stays on Nile’s servers they don’t have to make the original source code or their changes available.
Now, there has been talk from the FSF for a while that they want to change this. They would like to see the modified code being made available to the users of web service providers such as ‘Nile’. As far as I know they have no desire to require other code written to access these services to be covered by the GPl as well, if you write an app that connects to and uses the Nile API you will still be able to release it under any licence you choose. All they want is that the source to the modified GPL app be available to its users, even though it isn’t distributed in the usual sense.
Hope this clears things up somewhat.
Right.for short GPL V3 might consider webservices a form of redistribution.
my point was that it isnt necessarily a attribute of “linkage” but whats considered to be derivate under copyright laws
But it *is* attribute of “linkage” – if you link to GPLed code then your product is (according to the FSF) a derivate of that GPLed code.
What’s considered a derviate under copyright laws only comes into play if/when the GPL is ruled invalid. Until then, users of GPLed code are bound by the *GPL*, not copyright law, and the GPL stipulates that linking code is creating a derivative.
very vague statement..
It has to be, since it takes into account every scenario from a project that’s 1% new code, 99% existing GPLed code through to one that’s 1% existing GPLed code, 99% new code.
If you take some GPLed code and modify one or two lines out of a few thousand, then you’ve gotten more from the GPL than you’ve given. If, OTOH, you write several hundred thousand lines of your own code, and use a thousand lines of GPLed code (resulting in the whole project having to be GPLed) then clearly you’re giving back more than you’ve gotten.
“But it *is* attribute of “linkage” – if you link to GPLed code then your product is (according to the FSF) a derivate of that GPLed code.
What’s considered a derviate under copyright laws only comes into play if/when the GPL is ruled invalid. Until then, users of GPLed code are bound by the *GPL*, not copyright law, and the GPL stipulates that linking code is creating a derivative.
”
If you are bound by GPL you are automatically bound by copyright laws because GPL is fundamentally based on it. GPL doesnt contradict copyright law or try to defy it. read the gpl. the gpl faq answers what FSF believes is a valid form of definition
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
”
It has to be, since it takes into account every scenario from a project that’s 1% new code, 99% existing GPLed code through to one that’s 1% existing GPLed code, 99% new code.
”
rewrite the 1 % from scratch if you want it to remain proprietary
what the gpl does is leveling the playground so that no one “kid” can grab all the “toys” and then sell of the use of them to the other “kids”.
yes there can be to many rules, but there can allso be to few rules. the idea is to get just the right amount of rules.
from what i see about web services is this:
if a web service server application is released under gpl then you can take its code and use that code, with or without changes, in house (basicly on your own lan or wan or whatever). its when its put up for general use by the public that the need to release code comes into play. this is just like the gpl acts for any other code that use it.
allso, remeber that there are two ways to link code. static (it all becomes one binary, one “.exe” if you will) and dynamic (several binarys, one or more “.dll” and atleast one “.exe” that use them).
im not up to speed on dynamic linking in the gpl proper, but as from what i understand it does not have a problem with that (you can dynamicly link with a gpl library and not haveing to gpl your binary(s)). but im not 100% sure if this is correct as there is allso the lgpl (i think it basicly allows static linking to a lgpl library without the resulting binary haveing to become (l)gpl).
im no lawyer however so do not use this as legal advice for the use of either the gpl or the lgpl licence
it seems i made a error about linking in my other post
sorry about that.
LGPL is about dynamic linking while keeping code non-gpl, and the GPL says that all code linking to it (dynamic or static) must be released under the GPL…
rewrite the 1 % from scratch if you want it to remain proprietary
So you’re telling me that I could look at a program and rewrite a closed-source clone with the parts I remember? For some reason, I don’t think it works that way.
Wow, that cleared things up pretty well, thanks.
That’s how it works, yep. Sure you could re-implement something, if you know what it does, without actually using the existing GPL’d source.
If you are bound by GPL you are automatically bound by copyright laws because GPL is fundamentally based on it.
No, the GPL grants additional rights over and above copyright. Copyright is RMS’s “plan B”, in that if the GPL is ruled invalid, no-one is able to benefit from GPLed code.
You are _not_ restricted by copyright laws if you are using the GPL – the GPL specifically allows many activities which copyright laws disallow.
Only if the GPL is ruled invalid, or in cases where the GPL makes no definitions, does copyright come into play.
GPL doesnt contradict copyright law or try to defy it.
It *does* contradict copyright law. “Free to distribute”, to name just one way.
read the gpl. the gpl faq answers what FSF believes is a valid form of definition
I’ve read both numerous times. The GPL is quite clear – linked code is derivate and therefore must be GPL as well.
I’ll also add that it was clearly RMS’s intention that any linked code should also fall under the GPL. It was the impracticalities of this approach that “forced” him to create the LGPL (just look at the name – “Lesser”) that he dislikes so much.
rewrite the 1 % from scratch if you want it to remain proprietary
As usual with GPL apologists, you miss the point.
use the GPLv3 if you end up disagreeing with anything in it, there’s nothing to prevent anyone from continuing to use GPLv2 so long as there is a copy of the license available somewhere…
“use the GPLv3 if you end up disagreeing with anything in it, there’s nothing to prevent anyone from continuing to use GPLv2 so long as there is a copy of the license available somewhere…”
Yes there is: That clause in GPL 2 that says “Or at your option, any later version of this license.” ie: The next person you pass it onto can choose to redistribute it under GPL 3 according to the terms of GPL 2.
It seems that open source helps people share knowledge and learn much better than the old ways. And I grant you that GPL helps, and even requires, something be open source.
But could GPL also have a negative effect, too? That is, could it also scare commercial developers away and make us loose some good apps? GPL library, like V4L, might force application that link to it — even dynamically — to be open source and GPL, if I am not mistaken. That has at least scared away one possible commercial vendor, to my knowledge.
We are using GNU to help make Linux become feature rich and competitive, right? Then something that scares commercial developers away isn’t exactly helping to bring more applications to Linux. Why couldn’t we make V4L less restrictive for commercial vendors, similar to LGPL, for instance?
And what about the clause in LGPL about using headers? I am not sure that I am clear on that part. I hope it is not saying that any C/C++ application that “#include” a LGPL header has to become LGPL and open source, too.
Could someone clear that up for me, please? Thanks.
“And what about the clause in LGPL about using headers? I am not sure that I am clear on that part. I hope it is not saying that any C/C++ application that “#include” a LGPL header has to become LGPL and open source, too.”
What it is saying is that you at a minimum you have to provide the ability for your customers to be able to relink your application if they ask for it. That means you have to provide them with object code on request so that they can relink your application.
Even the LGPL can cause problems if used with commercial libraries. For example, my understanding would be that if you have a commercial library that you do not have permission to redistribute (other than as compiled into your exe), that you could not use it with an LGPL library since tou would not be able to legally provide your customers with all of the components they would need to relink your application.
hobgoblin wrote:
> from what i see about web services is this:
> if a web service server application is released under gpl
> then you can take its code and use that code, with or
> without changes, in house (basicly on your own lan or wan or
> whatever). its when its put up for general use by the public
> that the need to release code comes into play. this is just
> like the gpl acts for any other code that use it.
Nope, it doesn’t work like this with GPL v2. This is how the FSF want it to work, which is one reason they’re working on GPL v3.
The important thing to remember here is that the GPL v2 only comes into effect when code is distributed. When you connect to a web service provider with your browser, or some other app, you’re not downloading the code, you’re interacting with it remotely. At no time does any of the code leave the servers belonging to the service provider: it is not distributed.
It doesn’t take much thought to realise that changing this could get complicated very quickly. For example, would the web server itself be classed as a web services app? How about the OS it runs on? It will be very interesting to see what v3 looks like when it’s made public.
flimflamman – don’t believe a word of it.
“It *does* contradict copyright law. “Free to distribute”, to name just one way. ”
copyright law doesnt automatically restrict distribution
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html
seriously you got copright laws completely wrong
“As usual with GPL apologists, you miss the point. ”
hmm. whats the point at all. nothing
copyright law doesnt automatically restrict distribution