Moglen's Plans to Upgrade the GPL

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."

What's taking so long?

[IO ERROR]

This sums it up nicely:

Another change to the technical paradigm that the license must address is the issue of trusted computing and the threat it poses. "If I knew what the solution to the problem of trusted computing was, we would have a draft version of it in circulation by now," Moglen said. "There is also no belief now that the GPL violates the constitution or IP law, and we will not be held back by the actions of SCO [Group] and [its CEO] Darl McBride.

"I do not yet know what we will do in this regard, and we will have to choose among the options before involving others in the question of the license and its contents," Moglen said, promising that a document will be provided that gives the major rationale for the license choices made and the options considered.

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.

[nberardi]

Hopefully he will listen to many of the concerns of corporations and the GPL use with in. If they make a better GPL it will be awsome, because my company won't be so hesitant to use or develop anything under the GPL. My company's biggest complaint with GPL is anything developed using GPL libraries must be GPL and released. They just want to make money and contribute back when it's nessisary and important.

Re:I can't see this helping...

[Frymaster]

I'm worried that it will just add another 'compeletly separate' license

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.

Re:Hopefully good will come out of this.

[Xpilot]

My company's biggest complaint with GPL is anything developed using GPL libraries must be GPL and released.

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.

software patents

[dextr0us]

Wouldn't a liscence benefit some developers that is akin to a patent? You GPL your source, but then patent your binaries? That way, your binaries are still protected intelectual property, resalable, for a few years, and then are freely distributable?

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!

Re:Hopefully good will come out of this.

[Scarblac]

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.

Re:Hopefully good will come out of this.

[mopslik]

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 to include it with your product (although it would be nice!), you just have to provide it when asked. If nobody asks for it, you don't really have to advertise it.

Re:Hopefully good will come out of this.

[Nimrangul]

No, public domain is public property and noone can deny access to that code. GPL stuff is private stuff that is granted to the public under the condition that all works generated from it remains in the same position.

Re:I can't see this helping...

[grahamlee]

You're allowed to release your code under whatever licence you want, assuming you're the copyright holder. In fact, some people even release code under licences that don't yet exist, for instance I can interact with the emacs source under the terms of the GNU GPL version 2 or, at my discretion, any later version. Wow. The GPL3 could annoy a load of emacs developers, but I'd still be able to treat their code as if those are the terms I agreed to. Interesting...

Re:Hopefully good will come out of this.

[Tim C]

But that's not what's happening. If I use a GPLed library in an application, unmodified, then in what way am I denying people access to the code of that library by not GPLing the rest of the application?

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 "normal output" of a library is the result of making the API calls.

Re:software patents

[GigsVT]

You can't patent an implementation.

Surely they can't make too many changes...

[williamhb]

Remember clause 9 of the current GPL -- most GPL code either specifies "GPL version #.# or any later version", or does not specify a version at all in which case Clause 9 permits the user to choose any GPL version that has ever been published.

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" because of licence version creep. (See later in post for an example).

This is something that might be concerning to a whole raft of programmers who have released code under the GPL. Are Richard and Eben about to decide to "grant" rights to those pieces of code that the author never intended to grant? Or restrict rights, through version creep, they never intended to restrict?

Example 1 (version creep)...

Say I write package A, and release it under GPL 2. You are allowed to modify it and use it as a web service without being required to release your changes. But then a hypothetical GPL 3 is published which requires the publication of modified webservice code. No problem, you can still use GPL version 2. But then, someone integrates my package and some GPL version 3 code. The result has to be a GPL 3 package. But that means it is a modified version of my code which can no longer be modified for webservices without requiring the source code be published. It is a version of my GPL 2 code that does not have the full GPL 2 rights I released it under. Result: "That's not free!" I cry, and get very grumpy...

For anything other than extremely small changes to the GPL, version interoperability could get messy.

Example 2 (granting unintended rights - a bit of an extreme example)

A hypothetical GPL 4 is published which somehow allows integrating with non-Free code. A lot of people's business model (GPL is free, non-Free licence costs) gets instantly scuppered. The result is probably that the hapless company will attempt to invalidate all their GPL licences, claiming that they could not reasonably have expected the FSF to make this clause change, and therefore the modified licence is not valid. Result: lawyers at high noon.

For anything other than extremely small changes to the GPL, companies who have built their business around the GPL might start kicking up a stink...

Re:The Creator

[aug24]

Nah, that's exactly right. Cos an operating system doesn't include a desktop, a media player and <insert widget-of-the-week here>, it just does device and memory management. Linux is exactly that: an operating system.

See here [wikipedia.org]

Justin.

BSD: Do what thou wilt

[Anonymous Coward]

I always felt the GPL is too restrictive. I like the BSD license (Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.)

Why are people afraid of the BSD license? Is it because they can't stand to see their code used by someone else in a proprietary product?

Re:Hopefully good will come out of this.

[TargetBoy]

If you write a JPEG library and give it to me for free, would it be fair for me to write a JPEG utility using it and sell it, given that basically all I wrote was a UI?

You assume that writing the JPEG library is the HARD part. From what I have seen, crafting a well throught out and easy to use GUI is the truly hard part.

IMHO, GPL sofware would be FAR more attractive and accepted if the viral license didn't apply to library calls in the least. Think of it as a gateway to broader use of the GPL in business. Once the suits get comfortable with the idea that the GPL is compatible with capitalism, it will be far easier to sell the idea of having a GPL'd piece of software as a loss leader for another product or service.

Re:Hopefully good will come out of this.

[Vince Mo'aluka]

if you use this property you are obliged to contribute back to the community

You certainly are not. You are only obliged to provide source code IF you decide to distribute your modifications.

Future versions of the GPL

[caluml]

I dislike it when projects say "This is under the GPL v2, or any subsequent version." Imagine if an evil company bought out the rights to create the GPL (could it happen?), and released a GPL v99 that said whatever they wanted.
I think any lawyer would never advise you to agree to something whereby you accept any future versions.

Re:I can't see this helping...

[Rick the Red]

I see the opposite happening, too. Quite a few projects with that "any later version" clause may come to regret it. They've effectively agreed to this "major revision" sight unseen.

Re:Hopefully good will come out of this.

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you write a JPEG library and give it to me for free, would it be fair for me to write a JPEG utility using it and sell it, given that basically all I wrote was a UI?"

This is whats wrong with the geeks today.

In the past, a lot of us wrote code and put it out and were happy it was used at all. We were happy that others incorporated it into their works. I know as a 16 year old programmer -- I was happy to see that a commercial company was interested in code I gave out and that they used it (that was a lifetime ago).

There was nothing unfair about it. They made money. They took the time to develop this into something big. If I was so f'n worried about it, I wouldn't have put it out there in the first place.

I gotta say, the computer world has changed quite a bit in the last 10 years. The whole GPL thing has made the little guy a whiney bitch instead of someone that wants to enjoy what he's doing. And now you scream about fair. Its not fair!!! Not fair is when your sister keeps poking you in the backseat of your parents station wagon, but dad only yells at you when you hit her back. Thats not fair. Grow the fuck up and stop being a child. Nooooooot Faaaaaaaaaiiiiiirrrrrr. Wah.

This is probably why some of us prefer BSD or even public domain over GPL'd works. We like our thanks we get, but if we don't get it we aren't left any less off because we didn't.

This is also why I disagree with Mr. Torvalds on this subject -- he makes it sound like GPL is about politics. I tend to believe its a bunch of whiny smelly nerds that are pissed off the pretty people got a fairer shake at life.

For the record, this is not an attempt at trolling. But as it goes against the group think here it will be modded up. But since I claim that it will be modded up, it will be modded down. Fuck. Now we get into the vicious cycle bit as I get into overexplaining it. Someone mod this up and then someone please mod this down. Repeat.

AC

Re:Hopefully good will come out of this.

[Mad Bad Rabbit]

If you write a JPEG library and give it to me for free, would it be fair for me to write a JPEG utility using it and sell it, given that basically all I wrote was a UI?

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 trivial to write. Otherwise, customers would have written their own instead of paying for yours; or I would have whipped up a free one and included it with the library. So, it seems fair for you to be able to charge for it, if you feel the need to do so.

Re:on Web Services - ASP Loophole?

[waterwheel]

I believe this is known as the ASP loophole?

Your phpbb case is a good case in point. There are lots of folks who take GPL'ed software, modify it and charge a fee for it. As long as you're only distributing the output from the program (i.e. the web page) and not the code itself you're within the limits of the GPL.

I believe this model is very widely used. Disallowing this type of use in the GPL is going to have a lot of far reaching repercussions. Plenty of companies won't have an OSS solution to use as the base for mods. ASP's won't use it because of this, and many companies won't use it because they'd be forced to provide their paid work to their competitors.

End result, a dramatic decline in the use of OSS software. This is A Bad Thing.

(in short, the ideology of forcing release of code in some instances will in effect smother many aspects of opensource due to the reality of how it's used).

Patents & the GPL

[polyp2000]

One of the suggestions is that the new GPL should address patent concerns. While one half of me thinks this should be addressed - the other half thinks that doing this might show an acceptance and recognition of software patents by this chunk of the Open Source community. This could be a dangerous thing to do.

Re:Extreme GPL

[Dwonis]

What for? That pretty much goes against the whole concept of free software [fsf.org].

But wait, there's more!

[DG]

I don't know about you, but I've never written a perfect program.

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