Open Source Licensing Issues 151
msuzio writes "Web Techniques has a good editorial column this month on Open Source licensing issues. They focus on the difficulties in resolving both a single license (GPL, BSD, Apache), but also the deeper tangle of how to handle multiple licenses mixed into one project (a piece from GNU, a piece from Apache, etc). I think this issue will continue to dog efforts to bring together multiple open-source components, both in open-source and commercial projects using open-source."
Re:focus (Score:1)
Re:Gnu's Not Free... (Score:1)
Well, if anyone feel that they have lost their right to be enslaved, feel free to slave for me. I will be happy to enslave you all. In fact, now that I think of it, having a bunch of negroes (or white or whatever, I'm not racist) working for me with no pay, no rights whatsoever, and no obligation from me (I may have to feed you in order to keep you for more than a few weeks, however) sounds like a pretty good idea. Please, you have not lost your rights, I'll take you all.
Re:Is convergence a good and a practical thing? (Score:2)
OTOH, if you are a bit of a zealot and want all software to be FSF "free", by all means, promote the GPL.
Personally, I choose licenses based on what my goals are for a given project. If I'm writing something that I'd like to give to the community and involve community help in, I make it GPL. If I wanted to release a large commercial project (like, for example, a good TCP/IP stack), I'd probably make it a BSD-style license to encourage all vendors to use it.
The FSF version of that last sentence would probably be "license it under the GPL to force other vendors to use the GPL" but that's not my attitude -- better to convince with evidence than to coerce.
"A man convinced against his will
is of the same opinion still."
Take comfort... (Score:1)
Re:It's easy enough to obfuscate the source (Score:1)
Re:Gnu's Not Free... (Score:1)
That's not freedom, that's openness.
Re:The difference between BSD and GPL (Score:1)
--
Re: OT (Score:1)
There hasn't been a trial yet, and I have not seen even a fraction of the evidence. But if hundreds (where did you get that figure?) of people died as the result of an action by the CEO, then the full weight of the law needs to descend upon him. If this action where deliberate, then the death penalty might be warranted. A negligent action should mean alengthy jail term.
But what does this have to do with your joining the libertarian party? Since when has that party stopped demanding people be held accountable for their actions?
Re:I violate the GPL all of the time. (Score:2)
My understanding of the GPL (feel free to correct me) is that you have the right to; use and modify the code as you fit, not strings attatched. However, if you redistribute that code (for a fee or gratis), then that code must also be under the GPL, (you must provide source etc).
As I said I don't think there is a problem, "big financial" companies focus on their core business and will not become vendors of ANYTHING other than financial products.
If the apps you are working on are really good they may be sold on a one off basis to a software vendor to then resell. You can bet that a prospective buyer (unless they are complete idoits) will audit the source and find the GPL'd code. They will then come back and say "that's full of GPL code it's only worth 1/10th of the price, your trying to rip us off!". You will then have to explain to your boss why you've tarnished your companies name and wasted a lot of other peoples time.
On the other hand if you are distributing your code and in violation of the GPL is not the original authors you should be worried about it's your own company. Big companies are shit scared of being sued. If the legal dept. gets wind of what your doing I'd expect to see some major shit going down in your department, remember the legal dept. has infinately more clout than "IT" (who everyone hates anyway).
Re:Some thoughts (Score:1)
You couldn't do that unless everyone that contributed to your code gave you the copyright on their contributions. You can always turn your own code commercial, but you can't do what you want with other's code.
Okay, So Which Licence Should I Use? (Score:1)
In theory, I should release my source code to the public domain. That seems to be what this article is advocating. The problem with public domain, or the X11/new BSD licence, is many SlashDotters (partisans of the "Free Software" camp) will boycott my code because it isn't GPL'ed, and therefore "doesn't protect their rights" as a consumer. I don't personally know anyone who believes this, but I have corresponded with people holding this opinion.
If, on the other hand, I GPL my code, then partisans of the BSD camp will boycott the code because it is GPLed, and therefore can't be mixed with BSD or public domain code without "contaminating" it. I know lots of people who hold this opinion. Another problem with the GPL is that it seems to be incompatible with most other Open Source licences. According to gnu.org, the GPL is incompatible with 20 of 34 free software licences [gnu.org]. I don't want people to boycott my software for licence incompatibility reasons, I don't want the licence on my software to used as an excuse to perpetuate another KDE debacle.
It is probably impossible for me to find any way to distribute my software that won't lead to boycotts for ideological reasons. I have considered using a dual licence, BSD + GPL. Maybe that would lead to fewer boycotts, but maybe I would be boycotted by both the BSD and the GPL partisans. I'd be interested in hearing from people who boycott software for ideological reasons comment on this idea: would you boycott dual licence BSD + GPL software on the grounds of insufficient purity, or would it be okay to use it?
Ultimately, I have no control over ideological boycotts, so maybe I shouldn't worry about it. I do have control over licence incompatibility, though, so from this point of view, I should choose public domain, the new BSD licence, or a dual BSD + GPL as mentioned earlier. All of these choices would be compatible with any other open source/free software licence.
Re:Take comfort... (Score:1)
Such as?
This is a troll, right? I still like it. (Score:1)
At any rate, hopefully some people got the joke (or mataphor, or whatever). It's all about balancing (conflicting) rights and responsibilities. Every right for one person has a corresponding restriction for someone else. It is impossible to say that the GPL license or the BSD license is more free, they just strike different balances between the rights of the original developers, the users, and future developers. What you give up in one place is made up for somewhere else.
Alright, this argument is getting boring. I have to get back to work now....
Re:I violate the GPL all of the time. (Score:1)
You could *suspect* a certain piece of software to infringe, but you'd need to go to a judge and go through the process of forcing the court to subpoena the source code of the product and have experts look at the open source and closed source versions and decide whether it was a justified claim. Needless to day, most people working on open source software do not have the type of money that would be required to get that far in the legal process, especially when compared to large software companies.
Also, there's the matter of these licenses never having been tested in court. RMS's lawyers can write any license they want, but until a judge has made a ruling in an infringment case, you can't say for sure whether or not the GPL (as an example) is even legally binding.
Personally, I think that license abuse is morally wrong, and also very dangerous (because there's always the off chance the company COULD get caught, and thus they might end up having to legally release the source code of their product. My guess, however, would be that most companies would be totally against using GPL code in their closed source products, but in mid-sized software shops some programmers probably sneak some GPLed code in anyway, as a way of making their jobs easier.
Re:Gnu's Not Free... (Score:2)
Perhaps some day, people will understand that enforcing freedom of assembly does not make people free to assemble. Freedom is not something which can be enforced, for if it is enforced, it is not freedom.
Perhaps some day, people will realize that trying to protect human rights does not make people free. Freedom is not something which can be forced, for if it is forced, it is not freedom.
Perhaps some day, people will realize that posting inanities in cool-sounding but meaningless slogans do not make those slogans true. Truth is not something which is meaningless, for if it is meaningless, it is not true.
Re:Copyleft is much of the reason for our success. (Score:3)
There would be no way to find out, but it would be interesting to know how many developers chose the GPL because a) they had to in order to use some other code, or b) because they thought they had to. In the case of the latter, I've seen enough posters here on Slashdot who think the GPL is the only approved Free Software license. And I have even received an email from someone asking me to GPL my otherwise BSD licensed code because "I will only use Free Software."
Otherwise, they'd be dupes, unpaid employees working for someone else
Oooh! A direct insult
Question about GPL license (Score:1)
What's your opinion?
Re:Gnu's Not Free... (Score:1)
Too much of government in this age is set up to protect people from themselves.
I won't go spouting off libertarian mantra at this point...
The GPL sets up rules from which it's impossible to escape. It does so in the name of freedom, to keep code from falling into the paws of capitalists. This restraint is in the name of freedom. How can a restraint be in the name of freedom? By enabling a bigger freedom. How, though, does the GPL make anything more free than public domain? Than BSD? It doesn't make the software free. It makes the coder happier, I guess.
-Nev
How to copyleft a program (Score:2)
Is tacking a Copyleft (GPL) in the header of your code a real way to protect it? Shouldn't it actually be copyrighted and released under the GPL, et al?
Correct. Code licensde under the GNU General Public License contains a comment at the top containing a copyright notice, a permission statement that places the program under GPL, a warranty disclaimer, and where to find a copy of the License. A shorter notice is commonly used in interactive programs' about boxes and in the "verbose" mode of command-line programs. For more information, read the end of the GNU GPL [gnu.org] to see how to apply the License to your own code.
Tetris on drugs, NES music, and GNOME vs. KDE Bingo [pineight.com].
Vorbis codec in Perl? (Score:1)
Tetris on drugs, NES music, and GNOME vs. KDE Bingo [pineight.com].
Use your common sense... (Score:5)
1) Use the license YOU want to use on your own projects. If you don't like copyleft licenses then don't use them. If you don't like unrestricted licenses then don't use them. Easy, isn't it? But by all means, don't go creating your own new license. There are enough good ones out there that it isn't necessary. There are still some licensing niches to fill in the OSS hierarchy, but I doubt your project fits that bill. The BSD, MIT, GPL, LGPL, MPL, QPL and Artistic licenses are sufficient to meet your needs.
2) Don't get religious over licensing. The well known licenses all have their place. As soon as you say "I will never use the BSD/GPL/QPL/whatever license" you will immediately run across a situation where you will need it. I am personally not fond of copyleft, but if I were to release a commercial open source product that faced competition, you can bet you bippy that I would seriously consider using the GPL. Likewise, don't let license bigotry get in the way of your helping out on other people's projects.
3) Assign your copyrights over to the author. Don't insist on holding on to the copyright for your bug fixes and minor contributions. That's so egotistical as to be stupid. You will get mentioned in the credits, so don't worry about it. You will make the author's life so much easier. If your are the original author or project maintainer, then insist that all copyrights be assigned to the you or the project. If you want your project to be "community based", then seriously consider assigning your copyright to the FSF, creating your own non-profit org, or placing it in the public domain. Do you really want the submitter of a five line bug fix to be in control of all licensing decisions from here on out?
(OT)Should have downmodded the followup. (Score:1)
Look at the link in the follow-up post. It's one of those that fills your screen with pop-up porn.
In this case, the follow-up should have been moderated down instead.
Tetris on drugs, NES music, and GNOME vs. KDE Bingo [pineight.com].
Re:Gnu's Not Free... (Score:1)
Pure FUD (Score:2)
The number of new open source licenses has exploded in recent years. Oddly, the amount of open source software has also exploded in recent years, which is not what you'd expect if multiple licenses were somehow a deterrent to development. Then the argument is always pushed into the future -- eventually, a diversity of licenses will choke open source. Yeah, right.
Let's put this in proper perspective: Compared to commercial software, the handful of open source licenses out there is barely worth noticing. Every software company, and frequently every individual commercial product, has its own license. There are literally tens of thousands of commercial software licenses out there right now, and yet commercial software is a multi-billion dollar industry, growing by leaps and bounds.
Free software licenses are an annoyance at worst. In cases where they prevent an existing package from being used, they end up spurring the development of a competing package. That may be a pain in the ass for developers, but it's a good thing for users.
--
Re:Gnu's Not Free... (Score:2)
I doubt that Roe v. Wade would be overturned; it would be such a PR nightmare that I would suspect it would bring about the demise of the GOP.
Re:Why hasn't someone linked to this? (Score:1)
Re:Thoughts about licence messes (Score:2)
And what a strange license that one is! Certainly you should not use it. Don't even contemplate it.
As for the 'clean room', I don't think that is necessary. You cannot copyright an algorithm. If you peer at their source code to see how they did something, it's legally okay (I am not a lawyer!). Just make doubly sure you don't implement it in the same way.
I'm increasingly of the opinion that life would be a lot simpler, and we would get a lot more innovation done, if the Intellectual Property laws (including copyright) were just scrapped.
It wouldn't make much of a difference. Most proprietary licenses, including the MSEULA, are not based on copyright or any other intellectual property. They are based on contract law instead. That's why they're called "agreements".
Re:Some thoughts (Score:2)
WHY ARE YOU COPYING CODE IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BE ENCUMBERED BY SOMEONE ELSE'S LICENSE? If you don't like my license, DON'T USE MY CODE! Why is this so hard to understand?
The Public Domain (Score:1)
Thanks for all the comments on the article in Web Techniques (even the flames).
One point of the article [webtechniques.com] that seems to have been largely missed here on Slashdot and in the comments sent to my personal e-mail (bret at lextext dot com), was in regard to whether there is a role to be played by the public domain in open or free software development (or any other creative endeavor for that matter), as I think we as a society benefit from a richly endowed public domain
The primary point in the article was not that we should find ways to make competing licenses compatible, but to ask whether there would come a time at which it might be appropriate to drop the "copyleft' and GPL-style licenses altogether. It could be that the answer is no, and that there are good reasons that the answer is no , but I thought it was a fair question to ask. Self-perpetuation of the movement, one of the prime reasons for a copyleft license, may no longer be threatened by dropping the license.
I appreciate the notion, expressed here and elsewhere, that there's no free speech without an enforcement mechanism and the obvious analogy to the enforcement capabilities made possible by copyleft licenses. But if there is a community of developers dedicated to contributing to the public domain, there is no regulatory force (like the state, in the free speech analogy) that is going to prevent that. Only market forces, greed and sloth, stand in the way of perpetuating and growing the public domain. Are those factors sufficiently great to warrant building in an enforcement mechanism? Are there concerns that I'm missing that warrant maintaining the licensing restrictions? If there are legitimate concerns justifying maintaining copleft licenses, might those concerns be outweighed by the potential benefits in dropping all barriers to collaboration?
These are issues that obviously can't be solved in a 2000 word column, but by raising them I hoped to get the kind of feedback that I've seen here. Thanks for that. Any additional comments on the ideas raised in my column and underscored above would be most welcome.
-- Bret
Re:Copyleft is much of the reason for our success. (Score:2)
Well, people have been able to make money with my code under the GPL rules. But I never would have contributed that code without the GPL. And I care little about the copy on my hard drive. The point is the copies in other people's hands, and that's where the GPL protections are important. We would never have gotten free software into so many people's hands with different rules.
Bruce
Gnu's Not Free... (Score:4)
-Nev
Re:I would most like to see licenses be simplified (Score:2)
The GPL doesn't guarantee this. For instance, look at clause 9. Sure, we all think the FSF are a bunch of great guys who would never dick around with anyone. Except if I was, say, Apple, releasing my source code I can't think of a single reason why I would give the FSF that kind of power.
focus (Score:2)
Re:Gnu's Not Free... (Score:2)
I'm not attempting to start a flame, and I am not asking for a legal opinion (and IANAL), BUT...and I'm just picking a nit here, but maybe not such a tiny nit...I just haven't seen this addressed before:
My understanding, from reading RMS's and other's comments at various times, is that the GPL and its protection of code is based on copyright law...copyrights are limited in time...after which, the "protected work" enters the public domain.
Doesn't this mean that the GPL is a time limited (granted, for a very long time in computing terms...) monopoly, not something that extends "for ever" as some of these comments have been stating? And how does that interact with requirements that derived works be under GPL? How much does derived code have to differ in order to become independently copyrightable (clearly, changing a single character is not enough as you can easily see from literary publications!) ?
I realize that this isn't a near term concern, but I am just curious what others have think about this issue....
Re:Some thoughts (Score:2)
It is too up to the original author. I can license my code under the GPL, then turn around and offer the exact same code under different terms. I can't prevent the other people from taking the GPLed code instead, but they'll have to live with the limits placed on the code by the GPL. Being the copyright holder, I can do pretty much whatever I want with it within the limits of copyright law.
The only real limit the GPL places on my power is that I cannot tell people "you can't use the GPLed version anymore, give it back".
The KDE/Qt thing was, if you look beyond all the hype, basically RMS telling the KDE guys that there could be some problems with this code at some point in the future. At least, that's the impression I got by reading things.
-RickHunter
Re:Gnu's Not Free... (Score:1)
In theory you're probably right. Since the GPL grants specific exemptions to traditional copyright restrictions, hackers will no longer need the rights granted by the GPL to hack the code after the copyright expires. In practice, though, that's not likely to make much difference. For one thing, copyright has been continually extended to the point that there's serious reason to think that it will never actually expire. More practically, though, modifications to the code are under copyright from the time that they're written, not the time that the original code was written. That means that when the copyright expires, you only get the non-GPL right to the oldest, cruftiest parts of the code. The new stuff that's likely to make any difference to the computer on your desk rather than one in a museum will still be under copyright.
Re:Okay, So Which Licence Should I Use? (Score:2)
And if anybody has a problem with you making your code available to anyone who wants it -- tell them to go fuck themselves. We're programmers, not missionaires for their religion, we want people to use our code and if they have a problem with that, well it's their problem not ours.
At least, that's what I think. I could be wrong.
Re: Stealing source [Question about GPL license] (Score:1)
It's easy enough to obfuscate the source (Score:1)
What are the odds of finding a judge fluent enough in assembly to appriciate that?
What about legal legitimacy? (Score:3)
This area brings a lot of ambiguity. What is the legitimacy of the Open Source licenses on a global level?
It seems that while the licenses are worded well and seem legally sound they depend a lot on good faith on the part of the user/company using the code.
-1 offtopic (Score:1)
Re:Gnu's Not Free... (Score:1)
That's horribly flawed logic. It's worse than the logic that people kill people with guns, so let's ban guns. Or cars make car accidents possible, so let's ban people.
Re:Gnu's Not Free... (Score:3)
Freedom is something which can be enforced, and if it is enforced, it will always be freedom.
Yes, there's a difference between "force" and "enforce". You are never forced to follow the GPL, only if you accept GPL software to begin with. The original developer granted you freedom to begin with under the promise that you will also give that freedom away to others as it was given to you. This is what the GPL enforces, it does not force you to do anything else. To me that is very fair. You can't blame the original author for wanting his work to remain free. If you didn't like that, you shouldn't have accepted it in the first place. You're not forced to use or modify GPL software at all.
Re:Is convergence a good and a practical thing? (Score:1)
Re:What about legal legitimacy? (Score:1)
It already is. All original works are copyrighted by default. If you want to get formal about it just include the single line "Copyright 2000 by me".
Its about the SPIRIT of the law, not the LETTER (Score:2)
As usual the only ones to profit are the greedy lawyers. Geeks like us are made to suffer all the jumping through hoops that go with restrictive licesnes.
More legal information can be found by searching for 'licensing' and 'software' on google.
Re:It's easy enough to obfuscate the source (Score:2)
On the plaintiff's side, just write your code so that the compiled result creates a distinctive pattern easily found by grepping the output of strings.
That way, the baddies will at least have to spend some time looking your code over before they steal it.
--
Re:Take comfort... (Score:1)
Re:Some thoughts (Score:1)
Re:Gnu's Not Free... (Score:1)
Re:I would most like to see licenses be simplified (Score:2)
Re:Almost (Score:2)
Re:OT meaningless (Score:1)
You just proved his point.
Re:Is convergence a good and a practical thing? (Score:1)
Next you get into some crap about TCP/IP. You misinterpreted Mike's statement here. He said he'd release an actual, working TCP/IP stack, not a standard or RFC, with the BSD license. This encourages vendors to use his completely free stack, which can help with compatibility for new standards, ensuring all systems use similar code.
And don't get me started about your sig...
Re:Is convergence a good and a practical thing? (Score:2)
How many official FSF people wouldn't push a company to use GPL'd solutions? Not hand it to them and smile, saying "here, isn't it wonderful?" but "you _should_ use this
Re:Mix GPL/BSD/SPL...and put it on Cnutell/freenet (Score:1)
Ok, that was a bad rhyme, but the point is, short of public domain, BSD has the most permisive license I can think of. Basically, leave a copyright statement up and you're done. No need to mix and match.
The GPL requires you to publicize your work. (Score:1)
The Laffer Curve. (Score:2)
There must be a Laffer Curve [bized.ac.uk] for software.
Now, if everything were copyleft (a Free Software advocate's dream) we'd be all the way over to the right of the curve. Likewise, if nobody had ever shared source, achievements in computer science would be very limited. We'd be all the way over to the left of the curve.
As usual, the truth is in the middle. I dislike Copyleft because it has a tendency to push us farther and farther to the right on this graph. Eventually, it may reduce the output of useful code. Despite what FSF advocates say, reducing useful output does *not* enhance freedom.
What we really need are some useful measurements of output and utility in the software industry. Maybe someday we will even be able to establish an optimum ammount of time that should be spent contributing to Open Source. However, it is likely to remain a political issue for the foreseable future--just like taxation.
Re:Gnu's Not Free... (Score:1)
The GPL would not be necessary if it wasn't for copyright law.
Equivalence classes. (Score:4)
To paraphrase another poster, decide in advance which equivalence class you want your code to be in. That tells you which license to use.
Notice that this is not notably different from proprietary software. All of Sun's secret code falls into an equivalence class separate from all of Microsoft's, and there's no a priori reason to expect that you can freely combine the two.
What I don't get is why so many people hear "open source" and think they have an intrinsic right to use the code however they please. If you use code under a license, you are bound by that license just as surely as you are bound by the controls on code coming out of Sun and Microsoft.
Granted, this forces a duplication of effort between equivalence classes. If you are working in Class A and need a widget that is only available in Class B, you have to re-implement it in your own class.
Still, the mere existence of the "open" classes has been a huge boon to code reuse, and as Open Source catches on, the number of members of each class continues to grow phenomenally. Regardless of which "open" class you release your code into, you are participating in a sharability far beyond anything you can participate in with proprietary code.
So pick a class that's large and growing, and that has a license that suits your ideals, and go with it. But don't waste your time whingeing about not being able to steal stuff out of the other classes. A license is a license, and you should take it seriously. No one promised you unrestricted access to anything you might happen to want. You might as well complain about not being able to use Microsoft's source code in your own project.
--
Re:Gnu's Not Free... (Score:3)
Perhaps some day people will understand that the Open Source movement would never have gotten off the ground without that hard-nosedly idealistic RMS and his overly picky GPL.
Of a certainty, we wouldn't be here arguing about licenses on Slashdot.
--
Re:Gnu's Not Free... (Score:2)
That would be "true" freedom; but for obvious reasons (everyone would go one way) it doesn't work in the software world.
Some thoughts (Score:5)
I used to use the GPL for my software because I liked the idea of having control over my code. But two points came up during the KDE/QPL dispute that made me change my mind.
1) The idea that free software should only be reused in free software is attractive. But the viral nature of the GPL means that a line of code that is copied from one project to another contaminates other code that might be used in a third project. That's the intent of the GPL - to eventually encumber the entire free software pool. To me, it's distasteful that a line or two of code ties the hands of developers who have written a huge project of their own and who may never have seen a line from the original GPL project.
2) And it's not even up to the original author. IIRC, there was no case where an author of GPL code objected to its use in KDE. (RMS's "forgiveness" notwithstanding.) As soon as the words "GPL violation" are used, the Slashdot/Technocrat/FSF lynch mob heads out, apparently in the belief that since they're Members Of The Community, they somehow get to act as the aggrieved party. I'd prefer to keep control of my code, but I'd rather see it wind up in Windows than have it used to ruin a well-intentioned project.
Painfully True (Score:3)
Case in point: If Linux were actually free software, not locked in GPL, MSFT could cull whatthey desired fromit to include in Windows without having to open Windows up.
There is the critical distinction: Free, as long as you do .... means it IS NOT FREE. It has a price, therefore it is not free.
Now, I am not talking free as in beer, but free as in first amendment (which we no longer even have in the states as long as I cannot call the state capitol and tell them I have planted 2000lbs f eplosives there and have it be legal).
No one wants freedom, we don't trust it. We all want to call our desires freedom because it sounds nice, and it might be a prettier prison, but they are very rarely, if ever, actually desires for freedom.
The GPL is a actually a much more restrive, if prettier, prison than regular proprietary source code. The reason being that with proprietary code the potential exists for it to become actually, truly free. With the GPL it is locked into the GPL in perpetuity. It is like releasing someone in the US from jail, telling them they are free, and letting em walk away. They look, feel, and think they are free, but if they try to exercise that freedom, by say smoking some bud, beating up and old lady, or calling the white house and claiming to be a sniper looking at the door at that very moment, then they find out how little freedom they have. You cannot do what you want, you are not free. You merely have a more comfy, better disguised enclosure.
Frums
Re:Is convergence a good and a practical thing? (Score:2)
And therein lies the misconception. The FSF doesn't aspire to make everyone use FSF solutions; they aspire to let everyone use FSF solutions.
If you want to coerce everyone into using your solution, you do that with a monopoly rather than a license.
The thing about TCP/IP isn't the choice of whose source code you use, but rather adherence to a standard. The GPL has nothing to do with standards, and since the FSF is adamantly against software patents, widespread use of the GPL implementation of something like a communications protocol will not prevent others from producing their own implementations of the same thing according to the same standard.
--
Question about etiquette (Score:2)
If I take a piece of GPL'd code that has the usual header and the lineand then I incorporate portions of that code into my project (possibly with substantial modifications), what is the etiquette for the new copyright specification?
Do I leave his name on it? Do I replace his with mine? Do I append my name to his, to create a list of copyright holders?
The latter would seem to be most proper, and would create an interesting documented pedigree for the work, but it would surely become unwieldy after the code had been handed around through 50 authors.
--
I would most like to see licenses be simplified (Score:5)
1. BSD - license of choice for authors who beleive that anyone should be able to do whatever they want with free software they create.
2. GPL - license for authors who wish to garantee that all dirivative works based on their code also be relesed under the same free software license.
3. LGPL - license for people who wish to allow diferently licensed software to be linked against their code, otherwise similar to GPL
4. GPL/dual-license (e.g. qt, new mozilla license) - software licensed under GPL, but with declared provision for use not normally allowed by the GPL. This scheme works well for authors who wish to support free software, but also want to add flexibitity in licensing, and even a possible profit stream.
I can't posibly think of reason anyone whould want to use a license such as the artistic license, or a custom license, other than to be perverse, and confusing.
Re:Gnu's Not Free... (Score:2)
Except that "paths not taken" don't actually get you there. There's a huge difference between "could have" and "did".
And speaking of potentials, I'm not entirely convinced that the others actually "could have". I'm not sure that the GPL isn't inherently better, at least for the purposes of starting the revolution. If appeals to a specific type of idealism, and I think it is the people who harbored that specific type of idealism who made OSS what it is today.
Among the less idealistic, the trend has been towards attitudes like that of Bill Gates (starting way back when), and like those at Sun and AOL, who even now feel impelled to create new "me too" licenses that let them attach a few strings, rather than contributing their code to one of the established pools of sharable code.
Yes, the BSD license has been around for a while. But did it start a revolution? I think the idealistic nature of the GPL has everything to do with how things have turned out.
--
Re:Gnu's Not Free... (Score:2)
Actually, the restrictions are not there to hamper capitalists. The FSF openly advocates [gnu.org] selling software for as much money as people will pay you for it. The restrictions are there to prevent people from distributing modified code without making the modifications available. Red Hat, Mandrake, Caldera, etc. would vigorously argue with your assertion that the GPL prevents capitalists from making money from software!
By ensuring that changes remain public. Code that is put in the public domain or BSD licenced can be absorbed into non-free projects without making any changes publically available, and frequently has been. The GPL essentially says that the right to see and further modify code is more important than the right to keep modifications private. (Note, though, that the GPL does allow private modifications so long as they are private; it only prevents distribution of modified binaries without the modified sources.) IMHO, that's a reasonable assertion, especially considering the way that those who aren't interested in sharing have taken advantage of those who are in the past. This is a legitimate point of contention, but I think that experience is on the side of the GPL.
Re:What about legal legitimacy? (Score:3)
As soon as the work is created it is copyrighted by the author. By tacking the GPL to ALL of your source files grant additional rights (along with some responsibilites) to the user of the code. This provides no more or less protection than any other license. The real protection would be in the enforcement of the license. This is why many have transferred copyright of there GPL code to the FSF. Only the owner of a copyright is able to enforce it and the FSF probably has more legal resources than you or I.
in the end, everything's forced (Score:3)
You don't understand that in order to have freedom and not anarchy, everyone needs to give away certain rights: for example, the right to hurt other people. The GPL is a means to do just that.
BTW, this is a pretty basic topic in political philosophy, eg. Jean-Jacques Rousseau expressed his views on it in his work "The Social Contract".
Re:Gnu's Not Free... (Score:4)
This is an argument that I find as perplexing as it is pervasive. Who's being forced to do what?
If you don't like the GPL, don't use it. Nobody can force you to use it. Publish your work as freeware, or proprietary software for that matter. Nobody's going to stop you. However, you should expect that people who care about their freedom won't use your product.
Now where is the element of force that the anti-GNU libertarians get their knickers in a twist over? Presumably it's the so-called viral aspect of the GPL, the requirement that free software can only beget more free software. If I, as a software author, distribute my work under the GPL, I have violated your freedom to take my work and use it to make a proprietary work. Therefore free software is the enemy of freedom, QED.
Of course this is just semantics. In the real world most would accept that it's ridiculous to speak of the sanctity of, for instance, the freedom to enslave. Freedom of action is rarely an absolute good, but must be judged in the context in which the action is taken, and with regard to consequenses. As RMS says, "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose."
Now as a software author, I must make my decision on how to distribute the product of my labour in the same way, recognising that peoples' interests conflict, and that the protection of certain freedoms depend on the restriction of others. In other words, I must make an ethical decision based on an evaluation of which freedoms are the most valuable. Let's assume I find proprietary software harmful to society as a whole. I can choose to protect the freedom of those who may wish to base proprietary software on my work, or I can restrict that freedom, in the interests of enhancing the freedom of others.
Another way of looking at it is that of Henry David Thoreau (who as far as I know was not a hacker):
In other words, no matter how objectionable I find proprietary software, I may be justified in thinking that what Bill Gates chooses to do is no business of mine. However, it is important that I ensure that my work is not used to further a harmful enterprise.
The freedom to determine what you work for (or indeed against) is a fundamental good, and a prerequisite for being a full human being, as opposed to a machine. It's curious that people who are outraged by the limitations on their freedom imposed by the GPL, are not at all bothered by the impositions of, for instance, a standard employment contract, which are without question an order of magnitude greater.
Re:GPL asserts software's rights by limiting yours (Score:2)
Brian Behlendorf: GPL and APL finally compatible? (Score:3)
Re:I Want one more license scheme (Score:3)
This is much harder than you think, and probably impossible in the long run. Why? Because some of the licenses that your code might wind up in (like the BSD license) are specifically designed to allow incorporation of their source into non-free projects. Once your code was put into a BSD licensed project, it could then be transfered into a proprietary one. To protect your intent, they'd have to relicense the part of their project that incorporated your code under a different style of license, which specifically undermines your goal of letting your code play friendly with everyone else. It's just not possible to have code that's useable by any free software project but not by a proprietary one.
Re:Gnu's Not Free... (Score:2)
How, though, does the GPL make anything more free than public domain?
Public domain doesn't encourage people to make their code Free. It encourages them to use it uncredited in their very non-Free software.
At one time, all software was free, and programmers freely modified it and returned the changes to the community. Then commercial software houses entered the programmer's domain and essentially told them: "We will take your work and use it to our benefit, but you are not welcome to our work". GPL is the programmer's way of saying: "If you're not going to share, you'll have to leave".
Re:Gnu's Not Free... (Score:2)
You're right that the GPL doesn't make code free. Code is made free when its author(s) decide to make it free. What the GPL does is to keep code free. Once code is GPLed, it can't be taken back and put into a completely unfree box. Given the number of times that free software has been made non-free in the past, though, I think that GPL advocates have a good argument that strong protection is needed.
Re:Gnu's Not Free... (Score:3)
On the contrary, to obtain and maintain freedom, be it in software, in the personal domain, or whatever, one must be prepared to use force. Why? Because there are other people or entities who, under the guise of I'll do this and that for you, don't you worry about this, I'll handle it or Tell me where you live, I'll send you lotsa free stuff... would take a bit here, and a bit there, of your freedom away.
To be free is to be responsible; it's not easy, it's not comfy, and it's not nice; but then, you have the personal, private satisfaction, that you acted responsibly, intelligently, and according to your own interests and thoughts.
BEFORE everyone and {his,her,it's} {dog,cat,gerbil} starts tossing what you're saying is that I can use my freedom to do such-and-such (ugly) things to other people, well, they're free to take retribution on your asses also. Remember: responsibly, intelligently. Which means survival also. So, don't go pissing off a bear or something. Or, if you're stupid enough to want to go piss off a bear, PLEASE do so, the world is already overly populated with stupid people, you'll do us all a favor.
-elf
Re:Copyleft is much of the reason for our success. (Score:2)
One way to make them free is to post I sign telling the whole world, or just the passerbys, that the apples are free and to take as much as they want.
Another way is to add a license to that sign telling everyone that anything they make with the apples must also be free. Then I would go out and sue everyone who sold apple pies made with my apples. How dare they!
As bad as that analogy is, the point is that attaching strings to your code does not make it any more free than without them.
I'm not ragging on the GPL. I've seen enough bad licenses to know that it is a very good license. But what ticks me off are folks that think anything else is just for "dupes". I know scores of folks who use BSD or MIT like licenses. Jordan Hubbard, Theo De Raadt, Brian Behlendorf, David Dawes, et al. They certainly are not dupes.
Would Apache and Xfree86 have done any better if they were under the GPL? I don't think so.
Interesting viewpoint on open source -- from 1969 (Score:2)
This might be a bit off-topic, but I think it's important that we examine our reasons (and the feelings that underpin them) for wanting software to be free.
The following was written by a musician (thus the reference to harmony) but it shows that the idea of shared software was around long before GNU:
I think that many programmers instinctively feel the way that Cage did, and are distressed that others choose to hoard software, whatever the reason. Cage was an unusual artist ("Thank God!" some folks would say), but I think he was of like mind to many creative programmers. He did not feel diminished when other people borrowed from his work. Other artists had problems with this, but it was at the heart of the "how" and "why" of his creations (and the reason why most of them were, in one form or another, collaborations).
Likewise, programmers who feel that sharing leads to increase and not to diminishment meet the same sort of resistance from those who feel that other considerations predominate. And I suspect that this difference is deeper than mere opinion. Small children understand quite well that sharing must work both ways: I'll share with you, but only if you share with me. The GPL casts this simple, bone-deep feeling in the form of a software license. I'll let you decide whether the feeling remains a fundamental one in this context, or a childish one -- and whether the difference in outlook between those who espouse it and those who oppose it is too broad a gap to bridge.
Re:It's easy enough to obfuscate the source (Score:5)
Re:What about legal legitimacy? (Score:2)
This area brings a lot of ambiguity. What is the legitmacy of locks on a global level?
Its seems that while the lock is well built, and appears sound, locks depend a lot on the good faith on the part of the people using the door.
Re:Question about etiquette (Score:2)
By including his code in yours, you have created a work that belongs to you but is derived from his. You both have various rights to it. You must keep his copyright notice intact.
If his code is a separate file, just don't change anything in it and you will be fine. Otherwise include his copyright in a comment above his code. It is not required in some cases to include his copyright in your documentation or README, but it is the polite thing to do. Something along the order of "Portions of this program Copyright by J. Random Hacker" is fine.
it would surely become unwieldy after the code had been handed around through 50 authors.
Look at the Linux source code
I recommend (as a layman) all contributors assign their copyrights to the project copyright holder if they are specifically contributing to the project. (of course, if you are borrowing code from elsewhere you won't be able to do it) When it comes time to change the licensing (from GPLv2 to GPLv3), you won't have to get a hundred hackers to agree. Even tiny NASM with only two copyright holders can't agree on the licensing.
Re:Gnu's Not Free... (Score:4)
This may be a new concept to you, but when some people write software on their spare time and let people all over the world use it, they might do it of the reason that it remaining free will help them improve the software in the future. They want the software to be able to cycle in a circle of development, improving over time to the benefit of everybody. They want contributions to remain open so that they can incorporate all improvements done by others back in their original tree. This makes the software evolve, merely by people using other's people work, hack it according to their needs, and putting their changes back online.
If the license does not enforce freedom, this chain is broken. The original author writes a piece of software, a company finds this software and adds lots of interesting features and turns it into a closed-source product. Will the original software ever be able to use those additions? No. Will the freedom that the software initially had, and the closed-source company used, be of any benefit to all others, ever? No.
The GPL is about helping software improve by keeping it free, as the freedom was what made the code happen in the first place.
Imagine the possibilities: I can write software and give it away, but STILL keep it myself!!
Maybe I didn't write it just for me and just for a particular moment in time, but I actually use the stuff and want to improve it, and want the rest of the world to also benefit from all improvements. Now if the rest of the world does not allow me to use their improvements of my software, how can I possibly add all improvements? How can anyone be able to use any improvements at all except their own?
Your argument just doesn't make any sense. If MS were to use some of the Linux kernel in Windows, the Linux kernel would still be free to use how ever you wanted? What would anyone lose by MS using Linux w/o releaseing their code changes?
Believe it or not, but as much as I dislike Microsoft, I do believe they can also do good stuff. Now if they fixed bugs in my code I had spent months trying to fix, or added features, but they didn't release their changes, yes, I would lose. I would lose the possibility to improve my software to everyone's benefit because of some company's refusal to let the improvements benefit anybody but themselves. So in other words, they used the freedom I provided them with to use my stuff and do improvements, but they won't give me any freedom back in return to use those changes, and let everyone benefit.
The GPL exists exactly of this purpose - to help code remain free, to everyone's benefit.
Copyleft is much of the reason for our success. (Score:5)
Linux is probably the first real kernel written by volunteers - BSD was written by people working on a government grant, and is derivative of ATT Unix, although later modifications are contributed by volunteers. Why do those volunteers feel good about writing free code? Because abuses are prohibited by the license. Otherwise, they'd be dupes, unpaid employees working for someone else who makes all of the money on a product and puts economic locks on that product using proprietary software, cutting out the free contributor. In that case, the free code would actually be weakening the free software movement by playing into the abuser's hands. That's why more developers choose the GPL. And it's the developers who matter here - no code? Then there's little prospect for users.
The choice is simple here, at least for me. I write BSD-licensed code when someone else is paying me to do so and they insist on the BSD license. I write LGPL or GPL-licensed code the rest of the time, and I feel good about that it's doing for the free software movement.
Thanks
Bruce
Re:Gnu's Not Free... (Score:4)
Thanks
Bruce
Slavery and Freedom (Score:2)
Arguments like yours are exactly why I dislike the GPL and RMS's attempts to use his position in the community to unduly influence (some would say force) people to GPL their programs if released under competing "Open Source" as opposed to "Free Software" licenses.
The situation of blacks in the southern U.S. was practically unchanged for decades after they were "freed". They couldn't vote, own property, obtain a decent education, live in safety, obtain bank loans, or do several other things that most "free" white people take for granted. There are many who believe that in several parts of the U.S., black people are still second class citizens that can be killed by the police with impunity and are undeserving of basic human rights. Would this situation have been averted if instead of the South being forced to free the slaves by "those damned Yankees", the south reached a collective epiphany and realized that slavery was evil, willingly freed the slave and welcomed them into society? Maybe, maybe not. I personally think that in the long run it would have been better if the slaves were willingly freed instead of forcibly liberated.
As to what this has to do with Free Software and Open Source, I believe that if the GPL wins out because it was forced on the community instead of because the community and the software industry as a whole wants to use it, less will benefit. Some versions of Windows currently uses a TCP/IP stack obtained from *BSD which is only possible due to the nature of the BSD license. Windows would never have benefitted from BSDs superior TCP/IP stack if it was GPLed because microsoft would have never used GPLed code in their OS and risk having to GPL Windows.
The way I see it is if all Open Source software is GPLed without it being the will of the people we will see more stealing of GPLed code in closed source products, less involvement by people who are technically adept but also apolitical such as nyself and others who support the BSD style licenses, and less adoption of Open Source software by closed source companies.
Basically I'm trying to say; You can't force people to be good, kind-hearted and generous, and any attempts to do so are usually met with hostility and resentment.
Disclaimer: I am a black youth who lives in the southern U.S.
Grabel's Law
Thoughts about licence messes (Score:3)
Now I need to add file upload capability; there is a file upload component [servlets.com] out there, but the license [servlets.com] is weird and definitely not compatible with what I'm doing. So I'm going to have to reinvent that wheel, and I'm going to have to do it 'clean room' even though I know that there are a lot of tricky little tweaks which someone else has already sorted out...
There's no doubt that open source licensing is a bit of a mess. I've a great deal of respect for RMS; we wouldn't be anywhere like where we are now without him. But at the same time after a lot of thought I've decided that the BSD-style licence is best for what I'm doing, because I want my work to be useful to the widest possible number of people and that explicitly includes people working in shops where they aren't realistically going to be allowed to publish their mods.
I'm increasingly of the opinion that life would be a lot simpler, and we would get a lot more innovation done, if the Intellectual Property laws (including copyright) were just scrapped. And yes, I do earn my living doing this.
Pretend RMS accuses MS of stealing code (Score:2)
There's the flaw in that argument.
A good source for Licensing Information (Score:3)
They have detailed information on all the licenses currently used, the conflicts between them and describe suitable business models for each. I mention it because my friend, Jane, works there ;) It is suited perfectly to this issue.
KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
Re:Some thoughts (Score:2)
Why hasn't someone linked to this? (Score:2)
He adds a small amount of his own editorializing; however, he limits his comments primarily to the free / not free axis of each license, the onerous and difficult clauses in other licenses, and the legal looseness of some licenses. He refrains from making any value judgement on the non-copyleft nature of the BSD-type license, so most of you can probably read the entire page without getting your underwear in a bunch.
It's fun to bash RMS, but he at least understands the issues, unlike the guy that wrote that wrote that article in webtechniques. Why did slashdot post this article in the first place?
Multiple authors (e.g. Mozilla) are one difficulty (Score:2)
One problem is that many software packages have a large number of authors, and it can be hard to track them all down and coordinate legal permission for an exception. Just witness the hassles that the Mozilla [mozilla.org] project is having to go through to relicense the code under the GPL [mozilla.org] (although things like this can be done, with perseverence). (It would have been much easier if they had taken RMS's advice [gnu.org] and made the NPL/MPL GPL-compatible to begin with.)
(This is another advantage to the FSF's policy of copyright assignment [gnu.org]: there is only a single copyright holder to deal with in case of problems.)
Re:Some thoughts (Score:2)
I think the quality of the articles has something to do with it, but I also strongly suspect the moderation system of being fundamentally flawed. By following various obscure links, I've noticed several discussions of it that indicate that Rob has resorted to trying to stomp on abusers by hand rather than tweaking the logic of the system to prevent abuse.
I understand why Rob might do this. It's very difficult to prevent ever more subtle abuses of a system by fixing the system. But, when you start acting in that arbitrary kind of way, that change starts having a deleterious effect that slowly creeps through the entire system. I think that's actually what we're seeing.
I have noticed a pronounced downturn in article quality as well though, and I'm not sure about the reasons for this.
Re:Slavery and Freedom (Score:2)
Sure blacks went from being property to being animals to being the second class citizens that they are today but don't think for a minute that each step in the middle wasn't a step forward. Your argument that only if blacks stayed property for a unknown number of years they would have avoided lynchings and terror is just assinine.
Please let us know by what historical measure or evidence you contend that blacks would be better off today if slavery persisted for a number of years more?
You can't force people to be good but you sure as hell can punish them severely for being evil. If the society decides that slavery is evil and immoral then it has an OBLIGATION to wipe it out. Even though we can't stop people from wanting kill, raping, molesting children, stealing etc we still punish them when they do it. What should we do just let the criminals free till they come to an epipheny about their evil ways?
GPL asserts software's rights by limiting yours (Score:2)
It has been said that software released under the GNU GPL is not in fact free-as-in-speech [slashdot.org] because the GPL curtails the freedom of programmers. This perspective is confused: the GNU GPL does indeed liberate the software precisely because it restricts the freedom of its developers.
The GPL establishes a new legal entity (the software) and defines its rights; that is, it describes what licensees may and may not do to the software, and further describes the obligations that they incur as a result of doing certain things to the software.
Now, the GNU GPL does not curtail the rights of the copyright holder (which include freedom) and in fact relies on the enforceability of said licensor rights; however, the GNU GPL does curtail the rights of users and developers of the software who do not hold a copyright on the entire work.
It has also been said that one's freedom ends where another's begins; according to that perspective, which is widely held even by those who object to the GNU GPL, curtailing of the freedom of developers is perfectly legitimate in the context of the GPL's goals, which include protecting the rights of software. However, while limiting freedom to guarantee freedom is probably a defensible proposition, the above argument in defense of the GPL is only tenable if one assumes that software can have unassailable rights. I propose that things do not have rights -- people have rights.
If you believe in the primacy of people's rights, it is perfectly legitimate to object to the GNU GPL; in fact, some radical libertarians believe that the very notion of copyright (and, by extension, copyleft) is flawed. In any case, this Slashdot discussion is motivated by the fact that there are talented programmers who choose to release their software under licenses that limit the freedom of people in various unpleasant ways.
When source code is released under a suitably permissive license or into the public domain, developers are free to recombine it at will, which is a Good Thing. Of course, some people choose to withhold their (modified) source code, but we should respect their right to do that because they, and not the programs, are free -- and that is a good thing.
Re:I can already see the answer (Score:2)
>
In that case: "Oh, glad you found it back. Having lost it was a big problem for us"
Be serious. See the huge load of evident bullshit that Bill Gates or the RIAA/MPAA heads told to the us courts. In the antitrust case, M$ falsificated shitloads of evidence, from the faked 'Remove-explorer-from-Windows video tape' to the 'sorry-we-count-licenses-of-windows-solds-to-eom-
Wanna laugh ? Re-read 'http://www.2600.com/dvd/docs/2000/0606-valenti.t
Cheers,
--fred
Re:My new licensing scheme and an RMS rant... (Score:2)
So it's to be a one-way street, then? Companies that wish to sell proprietary software should be able to benefit from the efforts of the free software community without giving anything back in return? That's a distinctly one-sided kind of "freedom".
The GPL isn't forcing anyone to do anything. It's simply saying "If you want to use my code, you have use it under the same conditions I am".
Re:Gnu's Not Free... (Score:2)
You might need to use force to defend your freedom, as a counter to someone else's force, but as soon as you initiate the force you are removing someone's freedom.
Contrary to your braindead civic's teacher, freedom does not mean the ability to do anything and everything you want, thus necessitating its limit. Rather, freedom is the ability to do anything and everything you want so long as it does not restrict anyone else from doing the same. Big difference.
Comment removed (Score:3)