data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/efdcf/efdcff1f1b26a5ab09db0443ef2829c79d658e15" alt="GNU is Not Unix GNU is Not Unix"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/114a3/114a3ad76461bddbf2afa583782f630551f7277a" alt="Software Software"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/87aff/87affa045ab7f9eb297408bf8d8594376980f72b" alt="Linux Linux"
GPL v3 Coming Out in 2007? 233
gentoo1337 writes "Eben Moglen of the FSF speaks out in this ZDNet article, noting that GPL v3 may be publicly drafted in early 2006, and in force one year later. The process is very sensitive (noting concerns of forking in the Linux world), but Eben Moglen is optimistic: 'When it's all over, people are going to say, "All that talking for just that much change?" [...] We will do no harm. If we think (some change) may have any unintended consequences, we will not recommend making it.' Controversies aside, there is some good news -- Richard Stallman aims to 'lower barriers that today prevent the mixing of software covered by the GPL and other licenses.' The earlier Slashdot discussion contains complementary info about the intentions of FSF."
Analysis Paralysis? (Score:4, Insightful)
ESR? Heh. (Score:3, Funny)
I'm waiting for GPL Episode IV: A Gnu Hope. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Analysis Paralysis? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Analysis Paralysis? (Score:3, Insightful)
If they contribute their changes back to the main trunk, they'll (probably) be able bene
Re:Analysis Paralysis? (Score:2)
Most companies will simply walk away from code that has licensing issues. Who's contributing to the GPL codebase then?
licence free software (Score:2, Interesting)
Public Domain (Score:2)
Re:Analysis Paralysis? (Score:4, Informative)
You don't need any license to use a GPL'd program. You only need a license if you want to redistribute it.
The reason you need the license to redistribute the computer program is because copyright law says you have no right to do so otherwise.
Re:Analysis Paralysis? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Analysis Paralysis? (Score:2)
Re:Analysis Paralysis? (Score:2)
Second, you need a licence for other peoples work because without it you have NO legal rights to distribute it. The GPL only gives more than what is stated in law. It should not be mistaken for an EULA which always takes away rights from the user, and mostly are not about distribution but use of the software.
Version conflicts? (Score:4, Interesting)
P.S. This is a real question, not a flamebait or troll...
Re:Version conflicts? (Score:3, Insightful)
The Linux kernel is a notable exception to this.
Re:Version conflicts? (Score:2, Insightful)
Like "permission to use the author's power tools on odd weekends"?
Re:Version conflicts? (Score:2)
This is why I don't quite get the "or later" clause. Sure it adds flexibility, but it basically trusts that the FSF won't do anything you're significantly unhappy with in future versions of the license.
Tying it down to one version, and saying that a later version of the GPL can be applied *provided the original author agrees* might work, but
Re:Version conflicts? (Score:3, Interesting)
This is necessary because the period of copyright keeps increasing and more than 90 years is far too long to wait to change a license in the world of software.
Re:Version conflicts? (Score:2)
Re:Version conflicts? (Score:2)
Well; for one thing, what is "free"?
Opinions may change. Whilst I agree that the chance of future versions being "non-free" is low, there is a non-zero risk that someone at the FSF may decide on a different version of "freedom" for future GPLs.
The BSDL is more "free" in a "do what you want with it" sense than the GPL.
Re:Version conflicts? (Score:2)
The only practical benefit the clause provides is that a future v3 developer can incorporate v2 (but not v1) code. It's so that future versions can be backward compatiblity, not that past versions can be forward compatible.
Re:Version conflicts? (Score:2)
Re:Version conflicts? (Score:2)
You either need all authors to agree to it...
a future v3 developer can incorporate v2 (but not v1) code
Either the 'or later' clause allows code to be 'promoted' to v3, or it doesn't. If it doesn't then a v3 author cannot include v2 code without the permission of the original author.
Re:Version conflicts? (Score:2)
"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 3, or (at your option) version 2 or any later version.
What possible problem is there with that? It is logically identical to the existing rules, it just suggests GPL3 as the pref
Re:Version conflicts? (Score:2)
There is no reason at all to believe that a version 3 would not be covered by that statement. And to say otherwise you'd have to show that the FSF did not intend this to cover future versions such as version 3, which they indeed did. Which is also why Linus chose not to include this statement.
Re:Version conflicts? (Score:2)
Too many stories of the FSF taking license fees, etc.. they may not come to pass but there's no damned way I'm agreeing to it blind.
Re:Version conflicts? (Score:2, Informative)
Well, the recommended wording reads (emphasis mine):
As an author you needn't worry about having to pay licensing fees, since the GPL governs redistribution and doesn't take away the author's copyright. Furthermore, you needn't worry about people being forced to pay lice
Re:Version conflicts? (Score:2)
Re:Version conflicts? (Score:2)
Re:Version conflicts? (Score:2)
Nor have you read the GPL
This is old news (Score:4, Interesting)
Clarification (Score:4, Informative)
lower barriers that today prevent the mixing of software covered by the GPL and other licenses.
What RMS means by this is compatibility with other Free software licenses (such as hopefully the Apache license), rather than compromise with proprietary software.
The fork issue (Score:2)
I mean, to fork it (to use GPL 3), you'd have to (for each file) find everybody who has ever made changes to that file (unless the changes have since been replaced) and get their permission to license that under GPL 3. If they refuse, you have to re-write the section that their changes are in (or the whole file). This doesn't seem realistic...
Re:The fork issue (Score:2)
Re:The fork issue (Score:2)
The Linux kernel only makes most of itit available under v2 of the license:
COPYING from linux-2-6-12-13.tar
Does it really make a difference? (Score:2)
Sure, there will be suits and accusations, but business will continue as usual.. I really dont see some 'magical version 3' changing anything around here.
And no, its not a troll to start a arguement on the validity of GPL/BSD/ETC, ( which i wont particpate in any longer anyway ) just a statement about the current state of 'code reuse' in the world.
Show me the code (Score:5, Funny)
(Obligatory: I wonder if Duke Nukem Forever for the Phantom console will be licensed under GPL v3...)
Re:Where else have you heard talk about the GPLv3? (Score:2, Informative)
Newsforge previews GPLv3, part 1 [slashdot.org]
Preview, part 2 [slashdot.org]
FSF's Bradley Kuhn interview [slashdot.org]
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/0 2/03/1359232&tid=117&tid=156&tid=17 [slashdot.org]
Debian and ZDNet discusses GPLv3 [slashdot.org]
Business impact of GPLv3 [slashdot.org]
Purpose of GPLv3 according to RMS and Moglen [slashdot.org]
Reasonable people... (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course they have an agenda. They may be (described as) somewhat fundamentalistic. But it seems that they are still arguing in very reasonable ways.
Re:Reasonable people... (Score:2)
Re:Reasonable people... (Score:2)
He's that rude, is he? Either that, or he thinks that nobody has any right to express (or hear) any opinion except his.
I've said it before... (Score:5, Interesting)
Uh, why can't you have that now? (Score:5, Informative)
It is as simple as that. The Linux Kernel, as it happens, does almost exactly this.
Another option is that you could put some parts of your program (the "private" parts) under the GPL and other parts (the "public" parts) under the LGPL. I have seen programs that did exactly this.
The GPL does not restrict rights. It only grants them. As the copyright holder, you are of course free to grant as many other rights as you want in addition to the GPL rights. Of course, you can't speak for any other copyright holders that may have provided material in the program...
Re:Uh, why can't you have that now? (Score:2)
Re:Uh, why can't you have that now? (Score:5, Informative)
If there's GPL and LGPL code mixed in a program, then the program as a whole is licensed under the GPL.
However, the LGPLed parts are still just as LGPLed as they were before. The LGPL parts may then be detached and used in anything else you like. An example of this in action would be the KDE web browser Konqueror. Konqueror is under the GPL. However, portions of it (specifically the KHTML web rendering component) are licensed under the LGPL. You can't take Konqueror (or anything built using any of the GPL-licensed files in Konqueror) and distribute it without obeying the GPL. However, you can take KHTML-- which is an extremely useful piece of software-- build a new web browser around it, and resell it completely free of GPL obligations. Several commercial groups, such as Apple Computer, have done exactly this.
This obviously only works under some circumstances (for example, when the LGPLed component is something which can be detached and still be useful), but under some circumstances this is exactly what you want. I considered it worthy of mention because the toplevel post seemed to me to be very vague about exactly what it was he wanted.
Re:Uh, why can't you have that now? (Score:2)
Look at it like this. We'll used the BSD license because the differences are more drastic.
I can release my program under the GPL license or the BSD license. I can also put links to two different downloads of the same code, one of which has a COPYING that's the GPL and one that's BSD. Do you agree so far?
I can also distribute just the GPL version, and say "this is dual licensed under the GPL and BSD."
This is how there's BSD code in the L
Re:Uh, why can't you have that now? (Score:2)
It is as simple as that. The Linux Kernel, as it happens, does almost exactly this.
Factually wrong. The kernel is GPLv2, straight up. It has an opinion from Linus on what constitutes a derivative w
Re:Uh, why can't you have that now? (Score:2)
The Linux Kernel mailing list FAQ: [kernel.org]
Re:Uh, why can't you have that now? (Score:2)
Re:Uh, why can't you have that now? (Score:2)
IP Lawyer: "And where did the Nvidia driver touch you, Linux? Was it... your private interfaces?"
Linux: "I... I don't want to..."
IP Lawyer: "It's okay, Linux, it's okay... here, show us on this Tux plushie where the bad Nvidia driver touched you."
Re:Uh, why can't you have that now? (Score:2)
This is not going to change. "Pure" GPL is what the people who released the "other programs released under the pure GPL" want. If the person who had rele
Re:I've said it before... (Score:2)
Also, you know you can write such a clause into your own projects (i.e. ones you own the copyright of), right? You may not want to because then it'll be "almost GPL" instead of GPL, but the option is there.
Re:I've said it before... (Score:2)
Re:I've said it before... (Score:2)
Fonts (Score:4, Interesting)
It's unfortunate that such vagueness persists with the GPL, but it seems to be a trend with copyright issues in general (fair use being the most visible).
Re:Fonts (Score:3, Insightful)
What I use GNU bc to calculate some numbers, which I then embed in a proprietary application.
Is my application now "tainted"?
Re:Fonts (Score:2)
Often when you embed a font in a document, you actually embed the truetype, postscript whatever source of the file, not just the output. That source is essentially a computer program; you could extract it and edit it, run it to generate images etc.
In fact, a comparison to an embedded game is more accurate. An early 32-bit version of Excel—95 or 97, I can't remember which—came complete with a complex easter egg (a 3D flight-sim type environment). This was an em
Re:Fonts (Score:2)
Apple owns the patents for grid-fitting the True Type fonts patent 1 [delphion.com], patent 2 [delphion.com], patent 3 [delphion.com].
You don't like it, devise a new method.
Re:Fonts (Score:2)
Enough FUD and vapourlicence (Score:2)
I'm starting to think there is no GPLv3.
Someone post a draft, and lets have a real discussion. Until then it will just be more arguing over nothing.
One concern (Score:2)
I'm have mixed feelings about the notion of a company owning a derived work with several people creating a derived work and many more people using it - and it's stil
Really snappy! (Score:2)
Mixing licenses (Score:2)
This isn't as big a problem as Stallman makes it out to be. Combining open source licenses is not difficult. All you have to do is keep the pieces reasonably distinct. I have a project, for example, with a copyright notice that reads like this:
xxx is (c)2005 by blah blah and distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License.
May include yyy which is (c)2005 by blah blah
GPL vs Trusted Computing (Score:2)
Trusted Computing currently defeats the GPL and makes the source code effectively useless. If you attempt to modify and recompile the source (as the GPL ensures you the right to do) then the Trust chip denies the new code the key and the ability to read files. The Trust chip also announces over the internet the fact that you are running modified and incompatible software, so that the new software can be locked out on the internet.
You ha
Re:What's missing from GPL2? (Score:4, Interesting)
That's the argument. Personally, I don't know how I feel about it one way or the other.
Re:What's missing from GPL2? (Score:4, Insightful)
Running a web site isn't considered distribution by copyright either, and that's what really matters here. The GPL doesn't go into effect until you try to make a copy of the software, and even when it's in effect, you only have to distribute the source code to the people you distribute binaries to. If you only distribute it internally, then it really doesn't make a difference. Technically, a new version of the GPL could say that you have to give a copy of the code to the FSF if you want to distribute binaries at all, even within your own organization, but I don't think many people would actually want to use that license.
Personally, I think that making internal changes and not sharing them with the world is against the spirit of the GPL. People gave their work to you for free, and you don't want to give your changes back as payback? That's pretty lame. However, I don't think there's any practical way for a new version of the GPL to prevent it. Smart people try to get their changes accepted upsteam anyway so they don't have to maintain patches and make sure they apply and don't introduce new bugs. It's just less work.
Re:What's missing from GPL2? (Score:4, Informative)
Why do you think that? Do you think the same of companies that use GPL software *internally*? You've said yourself that this is okay, and in addition, RMS has gone out of his way to reject licenses that demand this. But what's the difference?
Applying the restrictions only within the legal domain of copyright **IS** the spirit of the GPL! To subsequently extend it beyond the domain of copyright to encompass the execution of software on servers is what is against the spirit of the GPL.
Re:What's missing from GPL2? (Score:2)
Now on to your que
Re:What's missing from GPL2? (Score:2)
Because that's not the spirit. Read all RMS' voluminous rants if you don't believe me! Where you may be confused is because a lot of people, especially on slashdot, simplify it into "you must share everything". Instead, the spirit of the GPL is to share a certain *class* of changes. The current debate is whether changes to webapps fall into this class or not.
Re:What's missing from GPL2? (Score:2)
Re:What's missing from GPL2? (Score:2)
(On the other hand, if we assume that IIS will always give root access to the machine it's running on, maybe it could be considered redistribution of Windows itself...)
Re:What's missing from GPL2? (Score:2)
Re:What's missing from GPL2? (Score:2)
WTF is wrong with using software that's distributed freely, spending your own time updating, then using it without redistributing it? If GPLv3 forbids that then it'll be going *way* beyond copyright law and even proprietary licenses.
Re:What's missing from GPL2? (Score:3, Interesting)
To state the concern more clearly say EvilCompany takes gcc, does some crazy optimizations, and starts running it on their server never releasing the code, call it pgcc (propietary gcc). Then they sell a small app ttpgcc (talking to pro
Re:What's missing from GPL2? (Score:2)
Re:What's missing from GPL2? (Score:3, Insightful)
"By redistributing this software, you accept that any violation of the terms of this license may result in you being pursued and shot by a rabid gun fiend with large number of firearms."
Re:What's missing from GPL2? (Score:2)
I've got a longer version of my argument here [blogspot.com] if anyone cares to read it.
Re:What's missing from GPL2? (Score:2)
Actually, it is was all AT&T's fault [wikipedia.org].
Re:What's missing from GPL2? (Score:2)
ESR's belief is that We don't need the GPL anymore [onlamp.com]
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What's missing from GPL2? (Score:2)
He just said that you need to include the source when you ship the binary copy. If he'd wanted everything to be free as in beer as well as free as in freedom, he would have written that into the license.
Re:What's missing from GPL2? (Score:2)
I was (half-)joking with my original post, however:
RMS doesn't want to forbid the distrobution of GPLed software for money. In fact, he's even said that it's okay to distribute for profit.
OTOH, the GPL is designed in such a way as to make distributing (GPLed) software for profit practically impossible (without it being legally tied to/bundled with some other product or service).
He just said that you need to include the source when you ship the binary copy.
*AND* that anyone you distribute it to must al
Re:What's missing from GPL2? (Score:2)
Of course, I do see the humor in your initial post, as well as your point. I'm just being incredibly pedantic. Free software is really a case of perfect competition as economics puts it: there is no long term economic profit in making free software. There is some in the short term, but it's been a semester or tw
Re:What's missing from GPL2? (Score:2)
And the only reason Red Hat can actually sell RHEL is because of the support services they tie it to. If they didn't, CentOS and co. would have bankrupted them years ago.
Free software is really a case of perfect competition as economics puts it: there is no long term economic profit in making free software.
Free
Re:What's missing from GPL2? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure it does: if you want a particular feature developed, hire some programmers to write the necessary code. You just have to realize programmers are providing a service, rather than manufacturing a good.
Re:What's missing from GPL2? (Score:2)
Certainly, one effect of making software free to distribute is that it's hard to make money distributing it. But you seem to be going further than pointing out that obvious fact; you're insinuating that preventing people from making money is one of RMS's goals, rather than a side effect, and I don't believe you have any evidenc
Re:What's missing from GPL2? (Score:2)
RMS has nothing to do with it. It's up to the developer(s) of the software whether or not they want to use the GPL, and since it's their code and they can do whatever the fuck they want with it. If they don't want *you* to be able to take the code, wrap it into your proprietary product, and sell it without source then that's
Re:What's missing from GPL2? (Score:2)
In the real world most end users don't give a crap if the source is available.. they're not programmers. They want support (which the likes of IBM/Redhat give them) and they're prepared to pay to get it.
Re:What's missing from GPL2? (Score:2)
Because they tie their GPLed software to other products and services (their support contracts) - precisely as I pointed out they need to in my original post.
If Red Hat's only source of income was selling Linux, CentOS, WBL and various other free knockoffs would have run them out of business years ago (after all, why would you pay $$$$ to Red Hat when you could download an identical product for free ?).
Re:What's missing from GPL2? (Score:2)
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
The pupose of the GPL is to ensure that you are provided with the GPL licensed source of a program upon distribution. The program can cost a million dollars, as long as you get the source, under the GPL license.
Of course, you are perfectly within your rights to redistribute the program under the terms of the GPL. As this is the case it makes little sense to charge for GPL li
Re:What's missing from GPL2? (Score:2)
Personally, I think that if people want to release their work under a BSD (or weaker) license, that's their choice. I just don't want to hear anyone bitch about it when such freely-available software gets incorporated into a proprietary product, and the company gives nothing back.
It de
Re:What's missing from GPL2? (Score:2)
This is not correct. Code licensed under the BSD license has its "freedom preserved" - it will always be BSD licensed. *Modifications* to that code, *derivatives* of that code and products that utilise the functionality of that code, however, might not be.
What
Re:What's missing from GPL2? (Score:2)
Depends on where your reference system is. For instance, if you're a developer joining an ongoing project previously released as GPL then you're liable to falling in the "GPL trap": the original authors can, provided t
Re:What's missing from GPL2? (Score:2)
Yes, well, there's a reason I have "freedom" in ""s - and tha
Re:What's missing from GPL2? (Score:2)
That's not a fault of the GPL- it's a fault over assigning the copyright/ownership of your code to someone else.
You don't have to do that. Of course, your modifications might not be accepted into the mainstream version. Your choice. It's nothing to
Re:What's missing from GPL2? (Score:2)
You're right if you consider 'freedom' to only apply to the original code *as written*, and not the freedom of the "project". It does, however, make it very simple to create a piece of proprietary software from a piece of free software, and encourages n
Re:What's missing from GPL2? (Score:2)
Re:What the hell is taking so long (Score:3, Insightful)
They're trying to not mess up all the ways that GPLed code is used. That's not easy, because it's used a lot of different ways. And, they are trying to build a license that will not fail when subjected to the next ten years' worth of (currently) unknown attacks. (Look at how GPL 2 stood up under SCO's attack, and you'll see what I mean.)
This isn't just "slap together a license, and we'll fix it next week if we don't get it right the first time". Sinc
Re:What the hell is taking so long (Score:2)
From what I gathered reading
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/gpl3-backgroun d.html [fsf.org]
they seem greatly concerned with the adequacy of the license to international copyright law.
This is very important, as the GPL may not be enforceable on various countries as it is today. I know that, eg, in Brazil, special legal measures had to be taken to allow for the GPL to override (if the lic
Re:Did you say 2007? (Score:2)
Wait. That does not compute. I thought the unwashed masses were people who didn't use Linux.
Windows Vista, office integration (Score:2)
But seriously, people. Who gives a rat's behind?
Anyone who gives a "rat's behind" to office integration software ought to think about how you simply can't use GPL software to drive Windows out of its position. This is because there are literally thousands of applications developed to integrate with Microsoft Office, and they do so seamlessly.
To do it under the GPL, you would have to develop a gigantic stack of software free software hackers simply know nothing about, unless