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 Programming Technology

RMS Previews GPL3 Terms 312

Posted by CowboyNeal from the looking-ahead dept.
An anonymous reader writes "In a recent interview, ESR shocked a lot of people when he said, 'We don't need the GPL anymore.' Federico Biancuzzi contacted RMS, founder of the Free Software Movement and initial developer of the GNU system, to talk about the past, the present, and the future of the GNU GPL. Among other things, they discussed the new clauses of the upcoming GPL version 3."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RMS Previews GPL3 Terms More

RMS Previews GPL3 Terms

Comments Filter:
  • ...acknoledges the need for copyrights and/or IP laws. RMS is finally being consistent.

    • Re:Recognizing the need for the GPL... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bersl2 ( 689221 ) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @10:48AM (#13638083) Journal
      Try again.

      Q: If the author of GPL says "copyright infringement is not necessarily wrong," some people could take code covered by GPL and claim that violating GPL terms is "not necessarily wrong."

      A: I've addressed that point in the statement that inspired your question.

      The GPL gets its legal force from copyright law, but that is not a source of moral authority, so none can come from there. Why then is it wrong to violate the GPL? Because that tramples other people's freedom or puts it at risk.
    • iirc the fsf has said that they consider the GPL to be using copyright against itself and they would be fine with copyright dissapearing altogether.

      ofc copyright is here to stay whether we like it or not so its all a bit irrelevent really.

      • Re:Recognizing the need for the GPL... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by harlows_monkeys ( 106428 ) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @01:14PM (#13638755) Homepage
        iirc the fsf has said that they consider the GPL to be using copyright against itself and they would be fine with copyright dissapearing altogether

        I find this hard to believe. Can you find a cite?

        The reason I find it hard to believe is that without copyright, everyone would be free to release binary-only versions of any GPL code.

        • It also means that if anyone gives you the code, you are free to give it to anyone else. Remember, Stallman's original problem that instigated the FSF movement was that he had to sign an NDA to get the source code to a printer driver so he could fix it.

          If they hadn't required an NDA, he would have happily fixed the problem, given the fix to anyone who asked, and moved on with his life. However, the NDA and copyright prevented him from doing so.

          In the GNU Manifesto [free-soft.org], RMS states:

          The case of programs t

          • If they hadn't required an NDA, he would have happily fixed the problem, given the fix to anyone who asked, and moved on with his life. However, the NDA and copyright prevented him from doing so.

            Except that an NDA has nothing to do with copyright, it's a private contract. Even if they hadn't required an NDA, he still couldn't redistribute his derivative work without permission of the copyright holder. And if there were no such thing as copyright they would have been more, not less, likely to require an ND
    • No, it's playing the game and it recognizes the need that you're not in an ideal world and have to protect yourself from those who don't believe in a free exchange of ideas but in software patents, etcetera.

      Put it this way - Linus will not go out and start suing people for infringing his software patents (please don't bring up the trademark issue which was a different matter entirely) - but if someone ever decides to attack the Linux - Linus can hold up his patent portfolio and say "Buddy, are you are sure

    • No (Score:5, Insightful)

      by swillden ( 191260 ) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Saturday September 24, 2005 @11:25AM (#13638215) Journal

      Recognizing the need for the GPL acknowledges the need for copyrights and/or IP laws. RMS is finally being consistent.

      RMS has always been very consistent on this point. In his view, copyright is a bad thing because it restricts freedom. He views the GPL as necessary because the bad thing exists, and has always described the GPL as a form of legal judo, fighting the enemy with his own strength.

      • Re:No (Score:3, Insightful)

        by qbwiz ( 87077 ) *
        But the GPL offers more protection to the original author than the lack of copyright laws would. If there were no copyright laws, then you wouldn't have to redistribute the source code and any modifications you made to it. A GPL in that vein would require that any derivative work based on the program would also have the GPL applied, and that the authors of the derivative and original works would allow anyone else to distribute those works (effectively, IANAL, etc).
        The GPL goes above and beyond that, and req

        • But the GPL offers more protection to the original author than the lack of copyright laws would.

          Absolutely. But then I think copyright is a good thing, even if its current implementation is horribly out of balance.

          • Re:No (Score:3, Interesting)

            by aardvarkjoe ( 156801 )
            But then I think copyright is a good thing,
            Yes, but RMS doesn't, and it was his supposed inconsistancy that the person responded to was talking about.

            However, my understanding is that RMS would like to not only get rid of copyright law, but create new laws that would essentially enforce releasing source code along with binaries. If that's the case, then his support of the GPL and opposition to copyright laws is not neccessarily inconsistant.

            • Re:No (Score:3, Insightful)

              by swillden ( 191260 )

              However, my understanding is that RMS would like to not only get rid of copyright law, but create new laws that would essentially enforce releasing source code along with binaries.

              Yes, I think that's his position.

              Mine, BTW, is that we should keep copyright law (reigned in a bit), but make publication of source code a prerequisite for obtaining copyright protection. If you don't want to publish your source, you should have that option, but since you are defeating the purpose of copyright (which is to e

              • If you don't want to publish your source, you should have that option, but since you are defeating the purpose of copyright (which is to enlarge the public domain), you shouldn't benefit from it.

                Well, besides the fact that the purpose of copyright is not to enlarge the public domain, but to give incentives to authors to create works, copyright was never intended to be used for software in the first place. Software is the description of an algorithm, if anything it should be covered by patent laws, not c

                • Copyright was intended to do both from the start. Very very little is truly completely and utterly original. The idea is that the creator of a work gets the first opportunity to profit from his work. Once he has had the chance to exercise that opportunity those ideas are then free to inspire the next generation of works. Disney profited extremely well from the public domain in it's early years but is now its most deadly enemy.

                  If copyrights last forever then it is only a matter of time before the right t

        • The GPL goes above and beyond that, and requires you to redistribute the source code. That is not merely the lack of copyright law.

          I agree with you, and this is where I personally part with the views of RMS. Kudos to him for popularizing the copyleft (AFAIK he didn't invent the concept), but I'd rather see software protected by CC-BY-SA, or something even less restrictive.

      • Re:No (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Dogtanian ( 588974 ) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @12:26PM (#13638465) Homepage
        RMS has always been very consistent on this point. In his view, copyright is a bad thing because it restricts freedom.

        I realise the view is RMS's, and not necessarily yours. However, in a country where everything is permitted, except where it is explicitly prohibited, doesn't every law "restrict freedom" in some manner?

        • I realise the view is RMS's, and not necessarily yours. However, in a country where everything is permitted, except where it is explicitly prohibited, doesn't every law "restrict freedom" in some manner?

          Yes, and I probably should have been more precise about what I understand his views to be. Read his writings and you'll find that "copyright is a bad thing because it restricts freedom" is a gross oversimplification and one that he almost certainly wouldn't make. He tends to be very precise, even pedant

  • It also appers to mandate s/w features (Score:3, Insightful)

    by myc_lykaon ( 645662 ) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @10:29AM (#13637988)
    From TFA:

    What do you mean?

    If you release a program that implements such a command, GPL 3 will require others to keep the command working in their modified versions of the program.

    Isn't it a slippery road to go down when the license mandates a feature-set? It seems to make a mockery of the 'free to modify' mantra. In fact it seems to be 'not free' in that sense.

    • Re:It also appers to mandate s/w features (Score:5, Informative)

      by albalbo ( 33890 ) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @10:34AM (#13638013) Homepage
      Nothing in the GPLv3 is remotely decided. People keep throwing ideas out there to see which fly, some may, most won't.

    • Not quoted in context ... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      This is about allowing people who release server software to mandate that any modified server running publicly will have to release the modified source code. That is the command he is talking about, and only that. Id hardly call that a feature set.

      Seems a decent enough idea in this day and age, if everyone starts running thin clients with proprietary code on the servers then the GPL becomes a bit useless.

    • Re:It also appers to mandate s/w features (Score:5, Informative)

      by Chris Burke ( 6130 ) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @10:50AM (#13638093) Homepage
      Only one feature. The previous paragraph from TFA:

      Some companies, such as Google, use code covered by GPL to offer their services through the Web. Do you plan to extend GPL 3 copyleft to request code publication in this case too, considering this behavior like a product distribution?

      Running a program in a public server is not distribution; it is public use. We're looking at an approach where programs used in this way will have to include a command for the user to download the source for the version that is running.

      But this will not apply to all GPL-covered programs, only to programs that already contain such a command. Thus, this change would have no effect on existing software, but developers could activate it in the future.

      So the "such a command" phrase in the paragraph you quoted does not mean "any command". It refers to a specific command to allow source download of a web-app. It doesn't say whether this command would have to still exist if you didn't use your modification as a web-app.

      I'm not sure I like that kind of clause, but it is very different than what you said. You statement made me worry that RMS would do something as foolish as mandate an unchanging feature set and interface, but that isn't true.

      • It's no different from the already-present clause that says that any commands in the program to display the license to the user must be preserved. Remember, this only applies to GPL'd webapps that already include such a feature. If you want to remove it you can, of course, either negotiate with the author or write your own fucking code.

      • Then the obvious question becomes, what if a web app that the author wanted to put under the GPL didn't contain such a command in the first place?

        The point is moot, however.

        The only thing recipients of any software, GPL'd or not, are *required* to do is _NOT_ break the law... and with regards to copyright, that means that they don't make any copies without permission from the copyright holder. If you are not distributing copies of the software (even if you are distributing the service it provides, if y

    • This is just a variation on the requirement that source always be available. Nothing new here. (GPL has always required certain trivial "features" such as displaying the license and the no-warranty clause.)
    • It also doesn't seem like it will work. You can just expose all your services through two layers: the first layer is powered by modified GPL code, and includes the function for sending out the code. The second layer is just a wrapper that isn't GPLed at all and only passes function calls to the first layer and pipes output back to the user. The catch is this second layer can be made to not pass the "give me the code" function.

  • GLAMP? (Score:3, Funny)

    by khasim ( 1285 ) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Saturday September 24, 2005 @10:35AM (#13638024)
    Federico Biancuzzi recently contacted RMS, founder of the Free Software Movement and initial developer of the GNU system (the G in "GLAMP"), to talk about the past, the present, and the future of the GNU GPL.
    gDid gI gnot gget gthe gmemo gon gthis? gHow glong ghas git gbeen "GLAMP"?

  • The freedom to confuse (Score:5, Insightful)

    by teslatug ( 543527 ) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @10:36AM (#13638029)
    Check out the following quotes:

    Maybe you could talk about the common question that people have: a project under GPL that receives a patch under GPL 3. What happens?

    If the project's current code permits use under "GPL version 2 or later," they can integrate that patch. However, the files where they have merged in the patch will have to say "GPL version 3 or later."

    They also have the option of not using that patch, or asking the contributor to give permission for its use under "GPL version 2 or later."

    If I take a patch under GPL 3 and merge it with a project under "GPL 2 or later," should I write that the new license for the whole project is GPL 3?

    The merged program as a whole can only be used under GPL 3. However, the files you did not change could still carry the license of "GPL 2 or later." You could change them or not, as you wish.


    This new version, and later ones will confuse, fragment, and even make illegal many contributions and/or projects in the future. I think this will prove to be a weak link in Free Software as people try to mix GPL2 with GPL3 projects, and make a mess of things. Whatever benefits there are of GPL v3, they will be overshadowed by this mess it will create.

    • Re:The freedom to confuse (Score:4, Funny)

      by eobanb ( 823187 ) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @10:47AM (#13638077) Homepage
      Well see this preview is like a GPL beta. Or unstable. In fact, let's called it something like GPL, the Messy Midget. I suggest you try the stable, though perhaps slightly outdated GPL 2.x tree, last updated in 1991.

      You know maybe we should have some other distributions of the GPL. We could have one called GPLspire, that basically comes with a legal team that you have to pay for each month to ensure that others don't violate your licence. Or how about SlackGPL, that tries to be as much like the Communist Manifesto as possible.

      Burn, karma, burn.

      --Eoban

    • Re:The freedom to confuse (Score:4, Insightful)

      by RickHunter ( 103108 ) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @11:29AM (#13638233)

      Nope. Note that this only applies if the patch explicitly says "GPL v3". The normal case is for contributions to be under the same license as the original codebase - in this hypothetical case, GPL v2. Someone submitting code licensed under GPLv3 to a GPLv2 project would be just as unlikely as someone submitting GPL'd code to a BSDL project, or vice-versa.

      • Re:The freedom to confuse (Score:5, Informative)

        by swillden ( 191260 ) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Saturday September 24, 2005 @11:57AM (#13638352) Journal

        Someone submitting code licensed under GPLv3 to a GPLv2 project would be just as unlikely as someone submitting GPL'd code to a BSDL project, or vice-versa.

        I think the more likely "problem" scenario is where a developer on a GPLv2 project wishes to borrow code from a GPLv3 project. However, very few projects are GPLv2... most of them use RMS' recommended language and are therefore best described as GPLv2+, where the '+' means that the code can be released under any later GPL version.

        Let me see if I can enumerate the possible scenarios and describe the effect of each.

        • GPLv2+ borrows from GPLv3+. No problem, but the specific files imported/modified are under GPLv3+, and the project as a whole is distributed under GPLv3+.
        • GPLv2+ borrows from GPLv3. No problem. The result is GPLv3. This might be a bad idea if the GPLv2+ project wishes to be distributable under GPLv4+.
        • GPLv2 borrows from GPLv3 or GPLv3+. Can't do it. One side or the other must provide another license.
        • GPLv3+ borrows from GPLv2+. No problem.
        • GPLv3+ or GPLv3 borrows from GPLv2. Can't do it.
        • GPLv3 borrows from GPLv2. Can't do it.
        • GPLv3 borrows from GPLv2+. I don't think there's a problem here. The recommended RMS language would seem to allow a user to remove the upgradeability.

        That looks bad, but in practice I doubt it will be. Very few projects are GPLv2, and probably even fewer will be GPLv3. The only major project I know of under GPLv2 is the Linux kernel, and it is sufficiently important that it's unlikely to be hampered by the inability to pull in GPLv3[+] code. If a feature is generally desirable in Linux, someone will invest the effort to re-implement it for Linux. In most cases that really has to be done anyway, for technical reasons.

        I think that if GPLv3 adds enough value to be compelling, most projects will end up migrating to it. Those, like Linux, that can't will simply continue onward with GPLv2. They may wish they had the GPLv3, though, if the FSF can find some language that handles the patent issue well.

    • Many projects currently under GPL2-or-later will probably just upgrade the whole thing to GPL3-or-later. If they like GPL3, that is. If they don't, then they'll probably just not take any GPL3 code at all.

  • ESR best forgotten (Score:4, Funny)

    by Lulu of the Lotus-Ea ( 3441 ) <mertz@gnosis.cx> on Saturday September 24, 2005 @10:36AM (#13638031) Homepage
    In a recent interview, Eric Raymond shocked many Free Software developers. Interviewed developers commented "What? Is he still around? Now there is someone you don't think about anymore." Raymond's contentious statements were uniformly viewed as desperate cries for attention by a once notable software developer. A sympathetic developer commented, "I certainly hope ESR gets the professional counciling he so obviously needs; he just needs to learn that you can lead a productive life outside the limelight. I know of a good support group for people like him and Dvorak."
    • Have you ever met ESR? While he isn't a complete moron he certainly isn't the brightest hacker either. The guy kept bugging me asking what I was working on which kept distracting me from my work. As if, because he is the grand ESR, he couldn't just wait for my presentation like everyone else. His talk was interesting but nothing I hadn't heard from many other hackers and IMO was less interesting than the technical talks going on. Saying that the GPL isn't needed any longer just proves that he really doesn't

  • I can't help thinking that (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 24, 2005 @10:36AM (#13638032)
    RMS would've made a great Supreme Court justice, had he gotten his law degree

  • Section 4 Article 16 (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 24, 2005 @10:37AM (#13638037)
    All developers and advocates of GPL software hereby agree to bathe on a minimum of a daily basis. Those developers that face the public further agree that they will brush their teeth priort to any such encounter, no matter how brief!

    I could believe this part, especially coming from RMS. It's no wonder ESR said we didn't need the GPL anymore.

  • It's 2005, not 1985. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SpaghettiPattern ( 609814 ) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @10:42AM (#13638060)
    It's 2005, not 1985. We've learned a lot in the last 20 years.
     Yeah we learned we need it more than ever before. Just imagine the SCO history without the GPL.

    If you rigorously cling on to values (like GPL and free speech) people think you're a zealot. Until the same people realize they themselves were idiots. GPL is what got Linux this far -and not it's technical superiority over whatever- and it remains needed to prevent doctor evils screwing people over.

    There's also the freedom to refrain from using the GPL and stop whining.

    • Yeah we learned we need it more than ever before. Just imagine the SCO history without the GPL.

      I'm imagining it. I don't see any big differences in the outcome.

  • Already got it (Score:5, Funny)

    by Phantasmo ( 586700 ) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @10:48AM (#13638080)
    Just downloaded and installed the beta. Feels much snappier than the last release.

    I'll keep you guys posted.

  • Services (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @10:51AM (#13638094)
    At last someone on the GPL 3 team has said something that belays my fears about Services and the GPL version 3. The fear was that they would force you to give users access to GPLed code you use when you provide a service - for example forum software. From the article, they talk about developers including an ability to have the service software offer the sourcecode, and the GPL protecting this particular part of the program but not forcing developers to include it in the first place. While this does stop the fears that you would have to provide the sourcecode for every bit of GPL code you use in your service, it does open the door for limitations on modifications in GPLed programs, similiar to invariant sections in the Gnu Documentation License, and Im not decided if this is a good approach or not.

    • Re:Services (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mark-t ( 151149 ) <markt.nerdflat@com> on Saturday September 24, 2005 @12:05PM (#13638383) Journal
      As I've remarked elsewhere, this is not legally enforceable.

      Copyright only governs COPIES, not the services provided by those copies. If I am not distributing actual copies of the software (even if I may be distributing the service it provides), then copyright doesn't have any legal bearing, and the copyright holder can't legally force me to stop providing the service, even if I'm doing something he doesn't like (he could if I were to ever try to distribute the software as well, however). He is free, however, to politely *ASK* that I comply with his wishes, but it still has no legal weight.

      • Re:Services (Score:3, Informative)

        by eraserewind ( 446891 )
        Really? insert software company here is free to ask you for money in return for using their software (with no redistribution). Is that not legally enforceable? The GPL2 is not a usage license, but there is nothing much to prevent a new licence (GPL3) from being one. What right would you have to have and use even one copy of the software without either purchasing the software, or obtaining it under license? I wouldn't consider any license that had such a clause to be particularly free, but I don't see how it

  • Incompetent reporter (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Federico Biancuzzi is just plainly incompetent on the subject of software licenses. See his old interview to RMS [linuxdevcenter.com] to see how often RMS must clarify basic issues to him, and misuderstands Biancuzzi's dumb questions. I'm not going to read TFA this time.
  • fragile. Maybe the GPL needs to be simpler, not more complex.

    • Are you trolling? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Try *reading* the GPL. Its pretty much as simple as could be. It's way simpler than Microsoft's EULAs for example, even though the GPL gives you some freedoms and the EULAs just restrict your rights.

  • ESR (Score:2)

    by rnd() ( 118781 )
    Of course ESR doesn't think the GPL is necessary. I'm surprised he ever thought it was necessary, since it is a contract defining the terms of use of property, a concept he doesn't believe ought to apply to software. ESR's stance is anti-property, and what good is a contract about property when that code you just wrote doesn't belong to you?

  • ESR, GPL, RMS, GNU! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 24, 2005 @11:50AM (#13638322)
    WTF?

  • GNU is too political. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jellomizer ( 103300 ) * on Saturday September 24, 2005 @11:55AM (#13638346)
    The problem with GNU and the proposed GNU 3 is that is is getting more and more political, and more of the politics are getting further away from just Open Source. Things like preventing GNU software to use DRM, and certon rules on pattents. While we can debate these are things are good or evil, as for as I see it shouldn't matter if it is GNU or not, if this keeps on growing, then there will be restrictions on if we use the GNU program for warfare, or in a government that we don't like. Keep the GNU Simple that is the only way to keep GNU goodness, when you keep on adding restrictive clauses it will become more and more evil.

    Yes people will use GNU software the way you didn't want them too. This is part of making a license.

  • ESR is wrong; per the usual (Score:5, Insightful)

    by I_redwolf ( 51890 ) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @12:06PM (#13638391) Homepage Journal
    The GPL is an anchor of freedom. It has nothing to do with technical merits of ones software. It has everything to do with making software freely available and open in communal fashion. I'd like to think of the GPL as a digital library of function; with protection for not only the developer but the user. Similar to fountains of knowledge that have existed through out history allowing human-kind to prosper. It should be noted that all communes and libraries of the past that operated as a hub of knowledge have been almost entirely destroyed with few exceptions. I find it hard how one would do this with the digital medium but moving along.

    ESR seemingly doesn't understand that if it was simply about technical merit and time. In another 20 years we'll look back and it'll be a different story. Isn't history one of ESR's strong points? Here is another reason why ESR can't be coined as a forefront in opensource or what we all deem to be some form of movement. His views are totally not inline with freedom and freedom is what this is about. You release under GPL as a form of solidarity? How about in the future you refrain from releasing under the GPL and release under the license that you think is best. Solidarity and cowardness go hand in hand when you're in the minority.

    RMS on the other hand needs to learn that one can't force freedom. You can only protect it and the primary goal should be protection for the user and developer. The external parties should not matter beyond that. If they benefit in fashion from the GPL then one should not prevent that. This doesn't mean that the GPL should never change; I have faith that RMS will learn better to adapt the GPL to current environments as well as forseeing the road ahead.

    None the less my personal views are that RMS is a leader and ESR as a mumbling imbecile and sideliner. As much as people dislike RMS and fight and rally against him. He never sidelines and he never stands in solidarity with a position he disagrees with. He stands firmly in his belief for freedom and provided the framework on which I make my living, how I learned to make my living and how I even enjoy myself every now and then.

    So, unlike the rest of you; after I pickup my girl from the airport i'll have a beer in the name of RMS. Cheers; and thanks.

    • Re:ESR is wrong; per the usual (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Dogtanian ( 588974 ) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @12:55PM (#13638620) Homepage
      None the less my personal views are that RMS is a leader and ESR as a mumbling imbecile and sideliner.

      Ever since he started skewing the Jargon File towards his own political beliefs (over-extending the hacker ethic to cover his 'libertarian' views, which if it was ever entirely true- dubious- certainly *doesn't* represent every hacker nowadays), I got the impression that ESR wants to give the *impression* that every hacker and supporter of free software is behind him and his views, as opposed to actually getting them onside. Or- and there may be some truth in this- perhaps he actually believes that he's more representative than he actually is.

      I'm not going to deny his contributions (both in code and support) to the open source movement, but that's more than offset IMHO by his egotism and partisan nature.
    • Eric is right. He doesn't need the GPL because the GPL is for people who actually write code.
    • ESR's position against Free Software has always seemed slightly irrational (or at least unjustified) to me, but I always put it down to no more than him trying to get some more limelight for his Open Software efforts. That would be unfortunate, but no biggie.

      But now that he has publicly gone anti-GPL by saying that it is no longer needed, I think that ESR is finally showing his true colours.

      In a world where Free+Open Software ruled the roost (we're not quite there yet), the only people for whom the GPL mig

  • Misunderstanding about Apache licenses (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pauljlucas ( 529435 ) on Saturday September 24, 2005 @12:19PM (#13638439) Homepage Journal
    From TFA:
    We often hear that some 70 percent of web servers use Apache; what we don't hear is that a large fraction of those servers are using a nonfree modified version of Apache, as permitted by the Apache license.
    Those servers could equally well use modified versions of Apache even if Apache were under the GPL. The GPL comes into play only if you distribute your modified versions of Apache. If you keep your changes in-house, the whole issue is moot.
    • from the GNU GPL FAQ [gnu.org]

      Q:A company is running a modified version of a GPL'ed program on a web site. Does the GPL say they must release their modified sources?
      A:The GPL permits anyone to make a modified version and use it without ever distributing it to others. What this company is doing is a special case of that. Therefore, the company does not have to release the modified sources.

      It is essential for people to have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately, without ever publishing those modifica

  • Only for large projects, Eric! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PhilHibbs ( 4537 ) <snarks@gmail.com> on Monday September 26, 2005 @06:46AM (#13649463) Journal
    People who do what the GPL tries to prevent ... trap themselves unto competing with a small in-house development group against the much larger one in the parent open source project, and failing.
    That's true for large projects like Apache, but if I decide to release some code that I wrote, and nobody notices, but some company decides that it would make a decent product, then I am SOL. The company gets market share before I can attract a developer community to help me bring the product up to 1.0 release standard.

Slashdot Top Deals

Do you suffer painful illumination? -- Isaac Newton, "Optics"

Close