Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
GNU is Not Unix Software Linux Your Rights Online

Revising the GPL 434

Posted by michael from the foundation-documents dept.
Exstatica writes "Finally, an update to that slightly outdated GPL (General Public License). This story discusses a few changes that the new GPL will include. Will the new GPL draw users to it, rather then using other licenses such as Apache's License or the Netscape Public License?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Revising the GPL More

Revising the GPL

Comments Filter:

  • ASL (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gtrubetskoy ( 734033 ) * on Thursday December 23, 2004 @11:33AM (#11168747)

    The recently released Apache Software License (ASL) 2.0 already includes a patent clause. To the best of my understanding the ASL does not have anything in it against patents per se, but ASL's patent clause is only triggered when actual patent litigation occurs. This, as well as an interpretation of the current GPL patent stance is explained in great detail here [apache.org].

    • Re:ASL (Score:5, Funny)

      by jolyonr ( 560227 ) on Thursday December 23, 2004 @11:34AM (#11168760) Homepage
      35/M/London

      • Re:ASL (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Yeah, it's funny, but badly offtopic too, which distracts us ADD /. readers from the very serious GPL - one of the most important topics to F/OSS communities.

        If you agree with me don't mod me up (just adds to the problem), mod parent offtopic.

      • Re:ASL (Score:4, Funny)

        by philkerr ( 180450 ) on Thursday December 23, 2004 @11:55AM (#11168957) Homepage
        Dont forget this is Slashdot, it should read:

        16/Yes Please!/Anywhere!!1one!

        /just kidding :)

    • Also, from the article...

      "Frank Bernstein, an attorney with Sughrue Mion, suggests Stallman look for inspiration to Apple Computer's Apple Public Source License and the Common Public License IBM often uses. Both grant a license to use patents covering the software, and when it comes to organizations that sue for patent infringement, both licenses terminate their rights to use and distribute the software."

  • Question (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mmport80 ( 588332 ) on Thursday December 23, 2004 @11:38AM (#11168784) Homepage
    AFAIK most GPL licensed software is governed by the current GPL license "or later". What is stopping anyone from writing their own GPL 3.0 license?? Does RMS have some sort of monopoly over the license or is it a community thing??? John.

    • Re:Question (Score:5, Informative)

      by BetterThanCaesar ( 625636 ) on Thursday December 23, 2004 @11:46AM (#11168857)

      This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

      • Re:Question (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Surt ( 22457 )
        Just to be clear then, that language says that I can use version 2 of the FSF license, or any later numbered version of my own design?

        Perfect!

      • Re:Question (Score:3, Interesting)

        by RickHunter ( 103108 )

        It's worth pointing out that software authors are not required to include that clause in the licensing for their software to use the GPL. I believe Linus, for example, explicitly removed it from the licensing blurbs for the Linux kernel.

    • Re:Questions (Score:3, Interesting)

      by gnalle ( 125916 )
      A few uninformed questions:

      Who is entitled to change the wording of the GPL.

      Is the FSF democractic in the sense that the GPL license could be hijacked, by enough people joinin the FSF?

      Could RMS in principle change the license to state that all the software belongs to him?

      Who would be entitled to make new versions of the GPL if the leaders of the FSF died tomorrow?

      Where should I look to learn more about this?

      • Yes. but the copyright holder does not have to accept the new license. So if some new license came out and something is wrong with it, then you simply don't have to choose to use it. But it's recommended that you remove the clause from the GPL that states that you will use the newest license in place of the one you distributed.

        For a project where there are multiple copyright holders it can be much more difficult to block a license revision.

  • To quote Linus Torvalds... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Jerk City Troll ( 661616 ) on Thursday December 23, 2004 @11:39AM (#11168792) Homepage

    Linus, in a recent interview [com.com], says:

    I really want a license to do just two things: make the code available to others, and make sure that improvements stay that way. That's really it. Nothing more, nothing less. Everything else is fluff.
    ...
    And the thing is, in my fuzzy "cannot plan his way out of a cardboard box" world, I don't worry too much about the next version of the GPL. I'm not a lawyer, I don't worry about the exact wording. In many ways, my only gripe with the GPL has been how many words it seems to need to say something very simple. That seems to be a common theme in any legal situation.

    What else is there to say?

    • Linus, in a recent interview, says: [...] I'm not a lawyer

      And that's why Linus isn't the guy who's writing the new GPL.

      He may be an excellent programmer, a visionary, or whatever else, but by his own words he is not a lawyer and not necessarily qualified to critique the GPL. I don't have anything whatsoever against Linus, and actually think he's a pretty spiffy guy, but this has nothing to do with him or his opinions.

      Would you look to him for nutritional advice, or suggestions on buying a car? If no

  • Finally... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by binderhead126 ( 809883 )
    The old GPL has several gray areas, hopefully the new GPL has more provisions. Updates that improve the quality are always a good thing. Add another kilo of force for the bullet train that is Open Source...

  • Thank you RMS. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 23, 2004 @11:41AM (#11168810)
    As much as you have been criticized for being an extremist in these matters, you deserve great credit for always being a visionary way ahead of his time. For example, how many people thought The Right To Read [gnu.org] was utter nonsense when you published it long before the DMCA.

    Thank you much for your vision and steadfastness in sticking to it.

    • Re:Thank you RMS. (Score:3, Funny)

      by jmv ( 93421 )
      ...a visionary way ahead of his time...

      Well, if he wasn't "ahead of his time", I think you could call him a historian ;-)

    • Re:Thank you RMS. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Bob9113 ( 14996 ) on Thursday December 23, 2004 @02:16PM (#11170513) Homepage
      As much as you have been criticized for being an extremist in these matters,

      I'd like to add my 2 cents:

      To the extent that you have been, thank you for being an extremist in these matters. We have visionary extremists on the other side of the argument (eg: Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison), so we need somebody who can articulate the extremist communist view. Many institutions in the world function best in a communist or socialist structure; for example, US military defense, which is funded according to ones ability and provided equally to all citizens(*). Given that information has a zero cost of reproduction, we have to at least have someone hypothesizing: "Communism may be more efficient in this case."

      * and occasionally provided to other countries, both willing and unwilling, haha. (it's a joke. laugh.)

  • The GPL/LGPL worries me.... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by braddock ( 78796 ) on Thursday December 23, 2004 @11:43AM (#11168837)
    1) The FSF can create different versions in the future, and everything under the old licenses is effectively retroactively dual-licensed. The FSF consists of little more than Richard Stallman. What happens when Stallman gets hit by a bus? Who controls the FSF (and through it GPL) then? How many millions would even partial control of the GPL be worth these days? Maybe loosen those "troublesome restrictions"?

    2) The LGPL is all based on object "linking". What the hell is the legal definition of "linking"? The idea of linking will become increasingly irrelevant in the future; it's like a 1980's OS-specific license.

    3) What happens to the legal status of GPL'ed projects when some company manages to retroactively claim a patent on some double click feature? At that point, does it not become illegal to distribute the software under the terms of the GPL? Won't that invalidate the whole license for that software package?

    Considering the billions and man-centuries now tied up in GPL'ed software, this all scares me.

    Braddock Gaskill
    • > 1) The FSF can create different versions in the
      > future, and everything under the old licenses is
      > effectively retroactively dual-licensed.

      ? Are you sure about that? If I release a piece of code under GPLv2, it's still going to have the GPLv2 license text in it after GPLv3 comes out. If I don't want to use GPLv3, I won't change the license text in my source.
      • If you copy verbatim the "include in your source" portion of the GPLv2, you'll find that it reads:

        This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
        modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
        as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2
        of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

        Many authors do copy verbatim this portion, and place their trust in the FSF that future licenses will not be bad things. Of course, it is the copyright holders' discretion

    • 1) The FSF can create different versions in the future, and everything under the old licenses is effectively retroactively dual-licensed. The FSF consists of little more than Richard Stallman. What happens when Stallman gets hit by a bus? Who controls the FSF (and through it GPL) then? How many millions would even partial control of the GPL be worth these days? Maybe loosen those "troublesome restrictions"?

      And by that I assume you mean BSD-like or so. Think more evil. "Licenced to [Corporation] to do what
    • What happens when Stallman gets hit by a bus?

      We just go and restore the most recent version from CVS of course!
    • 2) The LGPL is all based on object "linking". What the hell is the legal definition of "linking"? The idea of linking will become increasingly irrelevant in the future; it's like a 1980's OS-specific license.

      To me, the definition of "linking" in this case is one where you compile the LGPL'd project into an external library, and with no changes access it as an external library. Once you start compiling it into your binary directly, I wouldn't consider it linking, but some may.

      Of course, things get compl

    • 1) The FSF can create different versions in the future, and everything under the old licenses is effectively retroactively dual-licensed.

      Some projects specify "version X alone", though the FSF recommends "version X or later" for the explicitly-stated purpose of making retroactive dual-licensing work.

      The FSF consists of little more than Richard Stallman.

      This seems debatable. Someone with concrete evidence want to weigh in?

      What happens when Stallman gets hit by a bus? Who controls the FSF (

      • Re: your link.

        The first issue is they're saying "What we meant" rather than "What we said". The LGPL does contain a bunch of legal language specific to C-style linking, which might not be good enough in a legal dispute over a Java program.

        But the real problem with the LGPL is this:

        It has always been the FSF's position that dynamically linking applications to libraries creates a single work derived from both the library code and the application code.

        The problem with this position, if held up, it would

        • Re:The GPL/LGPL worries me.... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by ComputerSlicer23 ( 516509 ) on Thursday December 23, 2004 @01:49PM (#11170238)
          For example, Emacs for Windows dynamaically links to Windows DLLs.

          I'd have to refer you to LGPL section 6:

          For an executable, the required form of the "work that uses the Library" must include any data and utility programs needed for reproducing the executable from it. However, as a
          special exception, the materials to be distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

          Bold emphasis is mine. There's nothing wrong with linking to the facilities given to you by the OS or complier, if they are part of the standard distribution of the OS/runtime environment.

          You are just not reading all the details of a legal document. That's always a mistake. Always read the fine print on those.... *grin*.

          Kirby

    • Re:The GPL/LGPL worries me.... (Score:4, Informative)

      by iabervon ( 1971 ) on Thursday December 23, 2004 @01:29PM (#11170027) Homepage Journal
      There is nothing in the GPL 2.0 which allows future versions to be used. The FSF (in the non-license portion of the GPL document) suggests licensing your work under "the GPL v2.0 or any later version published by the FSF", but there's no reason you have to do this. In particular, the Linux kernel is mostly under only the GPL v2.0 (portions of it are available under other licenses as well). Linus did it this way primarily because of the concerns you raise.

      The LGPL can be explained without the term "linking": you can distribute a non-(L)GPL binary so long as it is possible to replace any LGPL portions without needing to do anything that the recipient can't do. If anything, it is static linking which will disappear, making the LGPL easier to follow (if you change the portions you got from somewhere else, you have to release these changes).

      When some company manages to claim a patent on a feature of any software, regardless of the license, it becomes illegal to distribute it. The GPL is not special in this respect. Patents are not an issue for the GPL, which is a copyright license. They are, however, an issue for Free Software, because there's another entity which might restrict your freedom, and it's a thornier issue, because the holder of a patent is less likely to have needed to agree to a license than the holder of a copyright (since copyrights are often on derived works of some sort).

  • Improvements are good. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Chris Burke ( 6130 ) on Thursday December 23, 2004 @11:48AM (#11168873) Homepage
    That's why Version 2 says you can distribute under any later version of the GPL.

    That was a good article, but as always the "viral" thing is nonsense. I can understand them bringing it up, but why do they always say "raising the specter that the inadvertent or surreptitious inclusion of GPL code in a proprietary product would require the release of all source code under the GPL" without adding the obvious "OR stop using and distributing the GPL code"? Oh well. Maybe clarifying this aspect is also something that Version 3 can do.

    It sounds like clarification is mostly what the GPL needs. It's not so hard to understand now, as long as you aren't afraid of it, but certainly things like what "derivative works" means could be made more clear.

    The patent issue surely could use more clarity. I'm not sure I like the idea of a mutual-defense patent clause. That might be scary for a corporation simply because there is so much free software that they are using. If they had a patent issue with GIMP to pick a random example, would they have to stop using Linux? Probably shouldn't deploy Linux then...

    Certainly making it explicit that releasing code under the GPL that may be protected by one of your patents is also a grant to use the patent is a good, necessary change. Software patents are bad enough (may they die, and soon); we definitely don't want people to be able to directly sabotage free software by putting their own patented ideas into it and then attacking.

    Anyway, life goes on, the GPL continues, and the inevitable victory of freedom (in software) gets another day closer.

  • A little too far? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by FictionPimp ( 712802 ) on Thursday December 23, 2004 @11:51AM (#11168914) Homepage
    An area of investigation is getting GPL software to run on devices such as TiVo's digital video recorders, which use a specific version of Linux but won't run modified versions. But prohibitions on modifications violates the spirit of the GPL. "This is not what free software is supposed to be," Stallman said.

    What the hell is wrong with that. I make some hardware, I put linux on it. I say here's my code, feel free to read it, to tell me what you think might need updating, and feel free to make your own, but my hardware will only run my version of the sofware. Thats freedom to me. If you keep putting stupid restrictions like this on the GPL eventually it will be too much work to release your code as gpl. It will be, will some random guy's hack work on my hardware device, did I comply with subset by law 005 that says on mondays of every 3rd month the software should auto display a list of all devs who worked on the code and automatically download the source.

    To me, this is loosing sight of what freedom is about. Yes you must protect the rights of the people who worked on the code so some company can't snatch it up and not give back, but when you start talking about imposing restrictions on hardware your taking it too far. As long as the company gives you an easy way to get their source they are giving back to the community any changes they made, that should be good enough.

    • Re:A little too far? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by arkanes ( 521690 ) <arkanes.gmail@com> on Thursday December 23, 2004 @11:59AM (#11169005) Homepage
      You're actually totally confused about who the GPL is trying to protect and what the freedom is about. It's about the freedom for the end user (say, me) to have and modify the source for for the software I use. I don't know if Tivo actively attempts to prevent modified versions of Linux from being run on it's hardware but if so I agree that it's a violation of the spirit of the GPL. The reason I'm getting the source is because, as a user of the product, I want the freedom to modify it. The GPL is only incidently about protecting the programmer, the primary beneficiary is the end user.
    • I think you still don't have a clue about what GPL is all about.
      The Berne convention states that everything made by a perticular person is protected automaticly by the most strict copyright rules out there.
      This means if I make a app and copyright it this way than I can demand every little futile rule and even rule people out from using my software, let alone change it.
      This all on a take it or leave it basis.

      The GPL is a grant, not more or less than that, for users to use, like in running the program to do

    • What the hell is wrong with that. I make some hardware, I put linux on it. I say here's my code, feel free to read it, to tell me what you think might need updating, and feel free to make your own, but my hardware will only run my version of the sofware.

      Would you be happy if Microsoft let you read the Windows source code but then strong-armed PC manufacturers into only letting you run the latest version of Windows? Do you think Stallman's idea was to let you look at pretty code all day? Software doesn't

  • I wish they would define "derivative work" better (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chemisor ( 97276 ) on Thursday December 23, 2004 @11:58AM (#11168991)
    In my opinion, most GPL problems are caused by an inadequate definition of the term "derivative work". When the GPL was first written, most applications were entirely monolithic and had few dependencies on other code. These days nearly all large projects are full of components, loaded or linked to in a variety of ways, and the present wording of the GPL prohibits any contact of such nature between GPL and proprietary parts.

    The LGPL does allow linking, and I see it as a much fairer license because it lets your code stay open, but does not prevent other people from licensing their own code differently. I think that the OSS community will get considerable benefit by allowing proprietary software to mingle with the free, as it allows the former to gradually convert to the latter rather than in one painful jump as the GPL requires. This way a company can still make money from its software for a while and then release the code when the work is paid for.
    • "Derivative works" as referred to be the GPL must by necessity refer to the same notion of derivative work as referred to in the copyright act.

      So the way to tell if your project is a derivative work or not is to determine whether or not, without having received permission to distribute the code at all, distributing your modified version of the work would constitute copyright infringement.

      An example of a derivative work that wouldn't be affected by copyright is one where only basic ideas may have been co

      • Re:I wish they would define "derivative work" bett (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Chemisor ( 97276 ) on Thursday December 23, 2004 @12:40PM (#11169447)
        > So the way to tell if your project is a derivative
        > work or not is to determine whether or not,
        > without having received permission to distribute
        > the code at all, distributing your modified
        > version of the work would constitute copyright infringement.

        This is not very helpful either. To give you a concrete example: suppose I take a GPLd spellcheck software, make modifications to it and embed it into my proprietary word processor. Recognizing that the spellcheck code was not originally written by me and that my modifications form only a small portion of the code, I would release the spellcheck module modifications under the GPL as required. But consider the word processor, which is still proprietary. Under the terms of the GPL, the word processor will now be considered a derivative work, even though it only links to the spellcheck module and contains only my own code. (This is indeed the intent of the FSF, as they explicitly state it in their rationale for using GPL for some libraries)

        The copyright law does not provide for such a circumstance since it only applies to modifications made to the original work. It is because of situations like this that GPL is called "viral". I would call this theft, since it forces me to adopt GPL for my own code. The usual counterargument of "then don't use GPL code" is fine with me, and therefore I don't use any, but I think the GPL fanatics hurt themselves more than anyone else by this. If they were truly interested in having their code used, they would have licensed it under LGPL.
        • The usual counterargument of "then don't use GPL code" is fine with me, and therefore I don't use any, but I think the GPL fanatics hurt themselves more than anyone else by this. If they were truly interested in having their code used, they would have licensed it under LGPL.

          The GPL is not and never was about having code used, or even about providing technically good code. It is about pushing an agenda. That agenda is that all software must be `free' (for a given value of free, defined by RMS). If you

        • Re:I wish they would define "derivative work" bett (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Thursday December 23, 2004 @03:47PM (#11171364) Homepage
          The copyright law does not provide for such a circumstance since it only applies to modifications made to the original work.

          Let's say these are pages in a tech manual. You write some additional pages, and publish a manual 2.0 which contain the same original unmodified pages. Will a permission to print the original manual be sufficent under copyright law? No. It is a derivate work, even if the original work is unmodified. Absorbing it into a greater work *is* a modification.

          As for the rest, the GPL is an offer. If you provide your code under the GPL, you can use ours. Your wording of it makes me want to reach for the "-1, Flamebait" or "-1, Troll" button. It is not designed for maximum use. If it were, it'd be BSD licenced or public domain (which is even freer than the LGPL).

          It asks for something in return. To use business terms, let's call it a cross-licensing agreement, if it makes you feel better. Is that theft too? Do you have some natural right to use someone else's source code? Hint: Ask Microsoft if you can have a copy of theirs. You have misunderstood the goal of the GPL. The GPL "fanatics" are not hurting themselves, because the goal is not to maximize use but to promote the freedoms of the GPL.

          Kjella

        • NO ONE FORCED YOU TO USE GPL'd CODE (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Omega ( 1602 ) on Thursday December 23, 2004 @04:53PM (#11172062) Homepage
          I love it when someone complains that the GPL "forced" them to open their source code. The GPL's not coming to your house, banging down your door and saying "OPEN SOURCE YOUR CODE!" The GPL simply says, you may NOT use GPL'd code in your code if your code is NOT GPL compatible.

          You don't have to use a GPL'd spell checker in your word processor. Write your own friggin' spell checker! What's so viral about that?

  • For example, some would like to see clarifications that could help reduce the threat that using GPL software could entangle users in patent litigation. And the GPL could be better adapted to recent industry initiatives such as building sophisticated Web services on the Internet and boosting security through trusted computing methods.

    OK, patent clauses are probably a good thing. A number of Open Source licenses are adding them. I also understand the need to define linking a bit better; is coupling applic

  • GPL intentionally drives a wedge between the open and closed source communities. However it doesn't have to be that way. If your main purpose is to encourage open source, including making the source to any modifications available, then EPL [opensource.org] already provides that. Unlike GPL, it does not put restrictions on the other code and licences with which it can be used.

    • Re:Fundamental problem won't be addressed (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Uh, that's not a problem, but the key feature.

      Lots and lots and lots of other licenses (including the oldest of all - releasing something as public domain) - let you show people source.

      The benefit of the GPL is that you can't put one little critical component in your proprietary license and get rich of of all the GPL developers whose work you are stealing.

    • GPL intentionally drives a wedge between the open and closed source communities.

      I realize that success has many parents and failure dies an orphan, and the GPL is clearly successful in spreading software freedom (it is also the most widely used free software license), but these differences are real and should not be ignored because they conflict with one's mistaken view that what we're seeing today started with the open source movement (and therefore should be framed exclusively in light of that move

  • What does this mean? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Chupa ( 17993 )
    The next version likely will have a mechanism for dealing with GPL software that has been modified and that runs on publicly accessible computers. Today, a programmer who wanted his or her GPL software to run in this public fashion could insert a programming command that would let the public download a version of the software if it's been modified. However, with the current GPL, the organization running the software could simply remove that section of the code. Stallman is considering a provision that would

  • Patents (Score:2, Interesting)

    by DimGeo ( 694000 )
    Quoting Bruce Perens from the article:

    I would like to see the next issue of the GPL include a mutual-defense clause regarding patents, such that if you enforce a patent against any free software, your rights to use free software terminate

    I would love to see that happen. Aren't there other licenses beside the GPL that are considered "free software" licenses? I think that clause should mention them all, one by one, specifically.

    Let us run this patenting the obvious nonsense into the ground now before it

  • There is no text in the license itself that requires you to use "all later versions". That said, nearly everyone just copy-pastes the default "how to use this license" text which does include that language. I know when I write stuff, I remove it. To do otherwise would put too much faith in RMS and the FSF (although I like them both) for me to be comfortable with.

  • Definition of sourcecode of graphics files. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by gnalle ( 125916 ) on Thursday December 23, 2004 @12:15PM (#11169159)
    Suppose I use a layered gimp file to create a png-file, for a GPL'ed program. Does the license require me to distribute the layered gimp file along with my binaries? What is a "preferred form of the work for making modifications to it"? Perhaps the answer to this question will be clarified in the upcoming version of the license. (See prior discussion [google.com] on linux.debian.legal).
    • The GPL is only a license on the program not your works and creations. The code you write belongs to you can be compiled by GCC, a GPL-ed suite of tools. This does not mean the binaries produced are suddenly GPLed nor do you need to distribute the GCC compiler with your code or binaries.

      This is one of the big misconceptions of the GPL. That some how everything it touches makes it GPL. If you are an end user and aren't looking at modifying the code then the GPL has no impact on your activities.
    • I certainly hope so, and I would say: if that's the file *you* modify when modifying the image, then that's the file you should distribute. That would seem to me to be what it implies. Certainly that's the spirit of the GPL.
  • The GPL favors huge organizations over small organizations. If you are a Hewlett-Packard or Defense Department, you can modify and internally distribute code to your heart's content without ever reciprocating the open source community.

    The Reciprocal Public License [opensource.org] doesn't let the bureaucrats get away with that.

    I don't know why Stallman is such a sucker for huge bureaucracies. Maybe he is a red.

    • That's not a problem, it's a feature. The GPL is meant to be a true license in that it doesn't restrict any of the end-user's rights, only give them more rights (subject to some conditions). Why shouldn't my company be able to have their own internal, *private* version of a program? And all the employees using the program have access to the GPLed source, so if the program's good and the company's big enough, one of them will make a copy public.
    • Actually, ANY company can modify and internally distribute GPL'd code without giving it back to the open source community, not just large ones.
  • opensource.org/licenses/ [opensource.org] (thought the new GPL doesn't seem to be up there yet). personally i like The MIT License [opensource.org]. the shorter the better ;)

  • monoculture (Score:3, Insightful)

    by epine ( 68316 ) on Thursday December 23, 2004 @12:35PM (#11169395)

    If there's anything I dislike more than Microsoft it's monoculture. Why do so many members of the GPL camp attempt to position the GPL as the monoculture of open source? I belive in open source first of all, and free software as well, within limits.

    Instead of asking whether the new GPL will become the next Super Mrs Pacman, why don't we instead ask whether these changes to the GPL makes the GPL better suited to the projects it serves?

    In my view, the GPL serves best for platform initiatives, such as Linux. I prefer the BSD license for protocols and standards, such as the TCP/IP stack, which have no purpose unless everyone adopts a compatible implementation, on both sides of the fence.

  • Two things I want to see added to the GPL (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Quattro Vezina ( 714892 ) on Thursday December 23, 2004 @01:06PM (#11169741) Journal
    Here's what I'd love to see in GPL v3:

    1) By accepting the GPL, you agree to irrevocably forfeit any patent that the software might possibly infringe on.

    2) There is to be One GPL to cover all software written under the GPL. In other words, ``acceptance of this license is considered acceptance of this license for each and every work licensed under the GPL''. Same goes for violating it--if you violate the GPL, you've just violated the GPL for each and every work licensed under it.

  • Hopefully patent provision is not overbroad (Score:3, Insightful)

    by iamacat ( 583406 ) on Thursday December 23, 2004 @01:19PM (#11169921)
    Otherwise it can be used to write a piece of GPLed software whose main purpose is to infringe patents of some company and then get a free license from them because they are using another, unrelated piece of GPLed software - that they wrote themselves!

    Also, consider a corporate merger. Company B might have used a piece of GPLed software that infringes on patents of company A and it would take some time to discover and replace it if the combined company doesn't intend to make the patent public.

    Oh, I would very much like software patents to go away. But at this point, companies would rather avoid using - and contributing to - GPLed software completely than risk loss of their patents in an unpredictable fashion.
  • if you'd like to see what RMS was thinking on this subject four years ago, see these two articles:

    http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=00/11/01/1 636202 [newsforge.com]

    http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=00/12/14/1 910252 [newsforge.com]

  • Two things (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PenguiN42 ( 86863 ) <taylork@alumBALDWIN.mit.edu minus author> on Thursday December 23, 2004 @04:22PM (#11171708) Journal
    1) I start to get worried when an implementation of a nice clean idea (such as Free Software) starts getting bogged down in special cases and exceptions. The philosopher in me wants to distill it down to first principles. The programmer in me wants to refactor and see how things can be more cleanly generalized. Special cases are often bad, and reflect a fundamental flaw in the general coverage of an idea (for example, whether you agree with its intention or not, the Assault Weapons Ban was a pretty Bad law, due to the fact that it almost entirely was based on special cases and exceptions with no general definition of what constitutes an "assault weapon.")

    The GPL's need to make an exception for linking with OS libraries, for instance, therefore bothers my sensibilities. And Stallman's thoughts of adding clauses to the GPL so you are forbidden from removing certain kinds of features ("remote download of modified versions" or whatnot) knocks my sensibilities completely over, as do thoughts of restrictions on where the GPL software can be used (can't use them on hardware that only runs a specific version!).

    2) "I'm trying to stop people from creating new licenses," Fink said. "To the extent we can create a license that has a broader buy-in, that stops proliferation of more licenses, that to me is goodness."

    Uhm, what? No! Variety is the spice of life, and it's up to the creator of the copyright to decide which license they want to put on their work. You cannot "stop" them from creating, or using, new licenses, and you should not want to or try to, either! That to me is badness. What's the point of license homogeneity?

Slashdot Top Deals

"The great question... which I have not been able to answer... is, `What does woman want?'" -- Sigmund Freud

Close