Slashdot Log In
Moglen's Plans to Upgrade the GPL
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Thu Feb 03, 2005 10:38 AM
from the keeping-pace-with-the-times dept.
from the keeping-pace-with-the-times dept.
Nick Irelan writes "Although it most certainly won't be easy, Eben Moglen is attempting to upgrade the GPL. He sees an opportunity to create a version of the GPL that will be able to adequately suit the needs of modern programmers. If they are implemented, his ideas will be the first major change the GPL has experienced since Richard Stallman wrote the original version. Eweek has an amazing article about Moglen's work. Linus Torvalds discussed what he believes should happen to the GPL with Eweek as well."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
I can't see this helping... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I can't see this helping... (Score:5, Insightful)
well, the lgpl [gnu.org] has been around for a long while and it's caused no serious confusion so far. the fact is, if there are a lot of licenses it's easier to find one that suits your project and organization's requirements. choice good.
Parent
Re:I can't see this helping... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I can't see this helping... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:I can't see this helping... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I can't see this helping... (Score:5, Interesting)
For example, Linus explicitly allows non-GPL'd software to run over Linux, though an addition to the LICENSE file. In this case, Torvalds wasn't modifying the GPL, he was essentially adding an additional license.
This is allowed because a license (as opposed to an EULA) is just a set of permissions. Each set of permissions adds to any you already have (including your default set of "fair use" privileges.) You can license any project you own under as many licenses you wish, and end users can pick and choose which (complete) licenses they want to agree to. (The word "complete" in that sentence is important.)
Also, while the GPL is unmodifiable for existing projects that do not belong to you, if you have a strong enough case you can persuade the FSF to agree to a modified version for projects you own, on occasion even if the result is a license incompatable with the GPL. For example, the Affero General Public License, whose history you can read about here [gnu.org].
Parent
Surely they can't make too many changes... (Score:3, Insightful)
For existing code, a subsequent GPL revision can effectively only liberalise the usage rights - the user is free to choose to stick to the prior version. But oddly, perhaps this could could end up including "the right to restrict the use of modifications further" bec
What's taking so long? (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't wait to see drafts, but I do also want it done right, so that the new GPL is strong enough to shove right up Darl McBride's ass.
Hopefully good will come out of this. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hopefully good will come out of this. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hopefully good will come out of this. (Score:3, Insightful)
it is my understanding that using GPL code for inhouse tools without releasing source is acceptable
Correct.
but using GPL base code as part of a project sold to a customer is where the problems start.
It's only a problem if you are morally or contractually prohibited from releasing your source code. In this case, as you suspect, you won't be able to use GPL'd code.
One thing to keep in mind, of course, is that the GPL states that your source code must be "available". This doesn't mean that you need t
Re:Hopefully good will come out of this. (Score:5, Interesting)
found here [gnu.org]. So you really do have to advertise the fact your software uses GPL code.
Though I hardly think this is bad for companies as _they_ knew this upfront. If you want to dip into the community well, you better be prepared to put more back in. If that is to onerous then you have zero right to use it.
Parent
Re:Hopefully good will come out of this. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's why we have LGPL libraries. But I think your company misses the point of GPL. GPL'ed code is like public property, nobody should be able to deny others access to the code, and if you use this property you are obliged to contribute back to the community. Making it "optional" would mean a lot of greedy folks wouldn't do it at all, which is against the intent of the GPL.
Parent
Re:Hopefully good will come out of this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Hopefully good will come out of this. (Score:3, Insightful)
I understand the legal arguments, that as the library is linked in to the resulting binary it is *technically* a derivative work, I just don't happen to agree with them. As I understand it, if all you do is use the normal output of some GPLed code, then your code is not required to be GPLed. To me, the "nor
Re:Hopefully good will come out of this. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hopefully good will come out of this. (Score:3, Informative)
You aren't. But you are denying them access to the code of your own application, which is something you promised to supply at the time you used GPL code in your project. (If you didn't intend to make that promise, then you were simply breaking copyright law)
Re:Hopefully good will come out of this. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, because you're not selling the JPEG library itself (or if you are, your buyers are very stupid since they could've gotten it for free). Your customers are paying for the added value of the UI you wrote; why should I resent you selling it, just because it prereqs my free code?
If you are able to sell the UI, this implies it's not t
Re:Hopefully good will come out of this. (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Hopefully good will come out of this. (Score:3, Informative)
Several companies have released code under the GPL after being threatened with a lawsuit. But no Judge has ever stood up and said "Abide by the license! Release the source, or go to jail!" - to the best of my knowledge, no lawsuit has ever gotten that far before the parties choose to settle.
Re:Hopefully good will come out of this. (Score:3, Informative)
check out section 504(c) for clarification here [copyright.gov]. Notice it also has provisions based on "lost business", but they are seperate from the statutory ones.
If, for example, Microsoft used a nifty feature copied directly from the HURD (hahaha) in l
Re:Hopefully good will come out of this. (Score:5, Insightful)
My company's biggest complaint with GPL is anything developed using GPL libraries must be GPL and released.
Well, that's not even true. There is no need to release anything.
The GPL only states that if you choose to release (distribute) the code, it must be under the GPL.
Parent
Re:Hopefully good will come out of this. (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, that's one of the things that some people want to change, though I have no idea how they'll pull it off.
The current situation is this: You can start with some software that is available by the terms of GPL, and create a derived work. But instead of redistributing it to others, you can just make your derived work available as a service (for example, a web app). You don't distribute the software -
Re:Hopefully good will come out of this. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hopefully good will come out of this. (Score:5, Informative)
An LGPL'd library (e.g. libc) can be used by non GPL'd software so long as you provide the ability to upgrade the LGPL'd library (dynamically linking satisfies this condition, as does providing object files and a link script).
Both of the above assume that copyright actually applies (if, e.g., your work isn't legally a derived work of the GPL'd or LGPL'd code then things are rather different).
Parent
Re:Hopefully good will come out of this. (Score:3, Informative)
Bad example:
upgrades. (Score:5, Funny)
Eben announced his intentions to upgrade the GPL with a new processor, a better graphics card, and more memory. This will enable resource intensive software to use the GPL as well.
Nice! (Score:3, Interesting)
Nice with some good news at the end of a work day. =)
You gotta love contradictions (Score:4, Interesting)
Obviously, both statement's can't be true at the same time. What's correct now? (And considering that the articles are from the same publication, doesn't anyone actually *check* what's written for factual accuracy before it goes live?)
Re:You gotta love contradictions (Score:4, Informative)
The GPL version "2.2" is the DEVELOPMENT VERSION, which Prof. Molgen submitted to RMS for debate. To my knowledge, no one is using it (I haven't even SEEN it yet). The latest PRODUCTION VERSION is version 2, dated in 1991, the version that almost all GPL software is currently licensed under.
Parent
One change I would like to see: (Score:5, Interesting)
If there are patent-encumbered parts in the program/derivative, we allow distribution ONLY if the patent is available for one and all to use royalty-free.
I would like to see it changed to:
If there are patent-encumbered parts in the program/derivative, we allow distribution ONLY if the patent is available royalty-free for ALL programs that follow any OSI-certified open source license.
Re:One change I would like to see: (Score:3, Interesting)
In other words, GPL should ALSO allow for patents that are (royalty-free) available ONLY to open source products. If enough such patents build up in the open source arsenal, vendors will have no choice but to either forego the entire patenting mania, or to use open source licensing when they use a patent from the open source arsenal.
already taken care of (Score:3, Informative)
The only part of the GPL itself that mentions patents is section 7 (note that if you can't cite a section number, what you're quoting is not part of the license itself). Section 7 merely tells you that if a patent license or court judgement make
software patents (Score:3, Insightful)
I think about 7 year old software, and some of it I could still use, and not have any piracy guilt. If i could get my hands on an older copy of After Effects, or any other 7 year old adobe product, i'd be set, and legal!
The Creator (Score:3, Informative)
From the eWeek article:
"Linus Torvalds, the creator of the Linux operating system"
Not [gnu.org] a good start for this process...
Mod eWeek -50 Flamebait
Re:The Creator (Score:3, Insightful)
See here [wikipedia.org]
Justin.
Web Services (Score:5, Interesting)
"I do not believe that we will be reach consensus on this front, so I believe the license will have to accommodate options as to the question of Web services, but this must be squared with the ideological pursuit of freedom," he said.
I thought that this was interesting. So if a change like this were made it would make the GPL similar to the initial versions of Apple's Public Source License. [apple.com] In the first versions of that license you were required to submit any source code changes you made even if you didn't redistribute the software and only used it internally. My understanding is that if you're a Web Services company and you use modified GPL software, you don't need to contribute back the modifications you've made as long as you don't redistribute your modified software to anyone.
I doubt that the GPL will ever adopt this requirement, but it's interesting that some in the community want this.
--
Join the Pyramid - Free Mini Mac [freeminimacs.com] | Free Flat Screens [freeflatscreens.com]
More on the APSL 2.0 (Score:3, Informative)
Regarding Services (Major Changes in Apple Public Source License 2.0):
1. Licensees will only be required to release source code of Modifications they "Externally Deploy" (new Section 1.4, and Sections 2.1, 2.2). "External Deployment" is defined to cover the external distribution of APSL'ed code or use of APSL'ed code to provide a service (
Re:Web Services (Score:3, Informative)
See, you don't have to agree to the GPL unless you do something which would be violate copyright if "All Rights Reserved" were the license.
Downloading and running a program doesn't violate copyright even if all rights were reserved, assuming the person you are getting it from is duly authorized to distribute it to you (lets assume they are).
Using the program internally and modifying it also fall outside the realm of copyright law.
Only distribution triggers copyright law res
Re:Web Services (Score:3, Interesting)
So what if I make a web service written with GPL software available to the public? It only sits on my servers, but anyone can make a SOAP request and get a response.
I'm not distributing a binary, but people can use the service. Do I have to make the code available?
As things like web services become bigger this becomes a more important question.
it really is simple (Score:3, Funny)
on Web Services (Score:5, Interesting)
The issue of Web services has to be considered, he said. Some in the community are calling for a strong copyleft license with code that is used and changed to be returned to all. Others want the opposite.
"I do not believe that we will be reach consensus on this front, so I believe the license will have to accommodate options as to the question of Web services, but this must be squared with the ideological pursuit of freedom," he said.
This is *very* interesting. There is an enormous engine of online services that is running as a for-profit enterprise using GPL software. phpBB, OSCommerce, and more are provided commercially, quite possibly with modifications.
This means that in the new GPL, there will be a GNU-supported variant which requires a web service provider running a modified version of GPL software *as a web service* to release the source code to any changes they made. I'd love to hear major projects weigh in on their opinion. Would future phpBB/mysqladmin/OSC versions use this variant, or would they opt to allow non-released versions which ran only as web services to remain in the hands of the modifiers?
It will be interesting, too, because there may be disputes over what exactly is covered. For example, phpBB distributes a lot of *.php scripts, but they also have a slew of materials like SQL Schemas and
Morever, web services are very technically different because so many are written in interpreted languages. You can't modify Apache without compiling it. But with phpBB, you can open up a file, make a tweak, and it instantly takes effect on a live site. If you pre-install a GPL web service for your customer as a provider, how do you then make sure they're apprised of the license terms and don't inadvertantly commit themselves to a source code release because they edited some file in an application you installed for them?
I can say I'll certainly be watching this development with great interest.
That's one possibility (Score:3, Interesting)
Future versions of the GPL (Score:3, Insightful)
I think any lawyer would never advise you to agree to something whereby you accept any future versions.
Re:Future versions of the GPL (Score:3, Informative)
Extreme GPL (Score:4, Interesting)
Not all software should be under the Extreme GPL, but the option should be available to developers who want it.
Reframing GPL authorship to move away from freedom (Score:5, Informative)
We ought to have discussion about the GNU General Public License (GPL) v3. The GPLv2 is an important license, the most widely used free software license. We should have critical discussions to help make the GPLv3 better, and of course defining "better" requires understanding the goals of the license.
But there's a profound unfairness in the two articles linked to here. They are filed in the "Linux & Open Source" section on the eWeek website, and not by accident. The GPL was initially written well before either the Linux kernel or the open source movement began and it was written to serve the purpose of furthering software freedom (an issue the open source movement does not want to talk about because it gets in the way of making their pitch to business, this movement's main audience, on "solid pragmatic grounds rather than ideological tub-thumping", as their FAQ says. This name-calling is starkly less insightful than the analysis the Free Software Foundation offers about the open source movement [gnu.org]). So, there is simple miscrediting going on here, but it's also ironic that is no "GNU/Linux & Free Software" section at this website. Such a section would be far more accurate for describing stories about the most widely used and most important free software license.
When version 3 of the GNU GPL is released, it will be the first version to come out that had a chance of being edited by someone involved in the open source movement. As far as I can tell, nobody from the open source movement has had a hand in revising any version of the GPL. The GPL was written by people from the FSF (and the listed author is the FSF). Yet the GPL is routinely cited as an open source license by proponents of that movement, essentially taking credit for work that nobody in that movement did.
The Linux kernel is but one program in a complete GNU/Linux system. It's ironic that this license is so pivotal to the development of the GNU/Linux OS but GNU can't get just a share of the credit [gnu.org].
Of the two men featured in articles which are linked to in this Slashdot thread, one is an authority on the GPL and a co-author of the GPL, the other is someone who exhibits no significant insight into how the free software community came to be or what the GPL is here to accomplish. I'm grateful that Linus Torvalds began the Linux kernel and continues to work on the most widely used fork of that kernel, but this is not about the technical inner workings of the Linux kernel, where Linus Torvalds is unquestionably an authority on the matter. Torvalds is no authority on the GPL or software freedom in general. If you point your friends to these two articles, please don't give Moglen and Torvalds equal billing here. Equal billing would either diminish the attention we should pay to Moglen's comments on this matter or give Torvald's comments more attention than he deserves on this topic.
Re:Acronym (Score:4, Informative)
GPL = General Public License (GNU)
and
GNU = Gnu's Not Unix
Parent
Re:Interesting thing about the GPL (Score:4, Informative)
*feeds the troll*
If you use GPL, FSF can arbitrarily change the GPL to anything they want at anytime.
From the GPL:
9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time... Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
Parent
But wait, there's more! (Score:4, Insightful)
I assume that anything that gets released with source will have that source tweaked by someone to fix some bug somewhere.
I want those bugfixes to make their way back into the "general release" source. A bug fixed by one should be a bug fixed for all.
So for me at least, it's not that I'm afraid of the program being "stolen", but rather that I want to encourage the bugfixes to come back to me, and not be locked up in a box somewhere.
DG
Parent