Moglen's Plans to Upgrade the GPL 411
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."
I can't see this helping... (Score:3, Interesting)
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?)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
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]
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.
Re:Hopefully good will come out of this. (Score:2, Interesting)
How could monetary damages be computed? For illegal use of a commercial product, the damages could be some multiple of the license fees that should have been paid, but GPL'ed software has no monetary cost.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hopefully good will come out of this. (Score:1, Interesting)
And I don't happen to agree that the simple act of using a program is making a copy and should be controlled by copyright, but that's what has been decided.
Hey you, you are copying my work from your hard drive to ram. That is illegal, only I have rights to make copies of my work.
Never mind that I sold it to you to be used and you boght it to use it. As a matter of fact, you have already made one illegal copy by moving it from the CD I sold it to you on to your hard drive. Now you want to make another illegal copy everytime you want to use it! Tell you what, I will license those copies if you agree to this whacked EULA. Never mind your first sale rights. You can sell the CD if you want. Better get rid of those illegal copies though or I am comming for you.
A Nony Mouse
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.
they care when it is too late (Score:2, Interesting)
The key would be to make it understandable by non-laywer type people. Then it would start being used more. Also, when it comes out, there should be compairisons, not only to the previous version, but to other popular ones out there. That way a person fully knows what options are out there.
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.
anything developed using GPL libraries (Score:2, Interesting)
That's two piles of shit.
1: You only have to offer source code to the people you give binaries to, now if that's within your company then you don't have to release to anyone else.
2: Lets say I develop against ATI's opengl implementation and dynamically link against the library and I distribute the application closed source, then a user is using MESA a GPL version of opengl to the runtime linker links my application against a GPL library.
This does not mean that your application has to be GPL'd.
In short, because a dynamic linked application doesn't include any part of the GPL'd code the GPL can't cover your application. This is because GPL is based on copyright and not EULA and copyright can only be enforced if you actually include a copy of something.
On the same basis I can create a patch against a GPL application that contains none of the original application, I own sole copyright on my patch and it does not have to be GPL'd until it is included in a copy of GPL source code that is released (releasing the software to myself doesn't count).
Re:Where is the beef? (Score:2, Interesting)
One interesting thing to note is that he requests feedback. The FSF wants your feedback! Actually, i think they also want open debates / discussion.
One way for feedback is the Software Freedom Law Center [softwarefreedom.org] recently launched [groklaw.net]. On board are e.g. Moglen (FSF) and Lessig (OSI), among others, and they provide free (beer) license defense, litigation support for FOSS licenses. I think they'll also appreciate your feedback.
Quote:
PJ of Groklaw also writes:
Feedback, especially when constructive, is important! Even if you dislike politics, visions, law/licensing this is still very important to the GPL, the FSF and the FOSS community and their developers, contributors and last but not least users!
Re:Web Services (Score:2, Interesting)
Right now, the only safe solution for users ("safe" in terms of having a guarantee that freedom of maintenance is available) is to avoid using services (whether they are GPLed code or not) the same way you'd avoid running proprietary code.
This is an undesirable situation, and I guess some people think they can fix it by changing the GPL. IMHO, it's not quite so bad. You just need to stay conscious of when you're using someone else's service, remote procedure calls, etc. Web browsers have created a seductive illusion that one needs to be always aware of.
Well. (Score:1, Interesting)
The GPL needs some serious overhauling, or rather the LGPL needs some more libreal use and the GPL use curtailed to make Linux a usable development platform. But whatever happens RMS should be the last person doing it. He screwed it up royally the first time and his entire insantly rabid anti-commercial stance means that he is in no position to do Linux any good by redoing any part of the GPL. The GPL currently kleeps most really good sofwtare away from Linux, it's the exact opposite of what Linux needs. Most people USE their computers to accomplish tasks, the computer is not ususaly the task in itself.
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.
That's one possibility (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Web Services (Score:2, Interesting)
Especialy where private means more than just myself.
Re:Web Services (Score:2, Interesting)
As I said in the other reply on this thread, if you bought a reference book for your company to use, modified it, added pages, ripped pages out, etc, and used it internally, none of that would trigger any copyright protections.
If you Xeroxed the book 50 times to sit on everyone's desk, that almost surely would.
Now, with a GPLed program, the cost is usually zero. You can download and install as many copies as you want for free, and all of them would be legal.
Here's the tricky part. There is no difference if you download the software 50 times to put on each person's desktop, and then patch that each copy with your modifications, than it is to just distribute your modified version within the company.
Since there is a lack of a practical difference there, and the first case is strongly analogous of buying 50 copies of the paper reference manual and modifying all 50 copies to read the same and handing them out, I think it is safe to say that at least in the "zero cost" GPL case, copyright law can't apply to internal modification and distribution.
If you were to purchase exactly one copy of the GPL software for money, however, that would be a different story, the analogy no longer holds, since it's not the same as getting 50 copies from your authorized distributer, that would cost more money. And you would have to agree to the GPL to distribute it otherwise.
Re:BSD: Do what thou wilt (Score:3, Interesting)
Add a "patent shredder" to GPL (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.pagesmiths.com/category-ip.html [pagesmiths.com]