GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1
Those interested in the details of the changes and why they were made may want to look at the FSF's rationale document [PDF].
The term which, perhaps, upset the most people was the anti-DRM provision requiring recipients to be able to install and run modified versions of the software. In particular, if GPLv3-licensed software is shipped on a device which will only run binaries signed by a particular private key, that key must be provided with the source code. The wording of this term has changed in the second draft, but its intent has not. It now reads:
The FSF, it seems, is serious about not allowing GPLv3-licensed code to be used on locked-down systems.
The first draft included a term saying, in effect, that any covered software was not an "effective technical measure" protecting access to copyrighted work. That term was intended to block use of the DMCA to lock down systems built with GPL-licensed code. That term has been reworded:
The new wording has the same intent, but it is intended to apply to anti-circumvention laws in other countries (and the EU Copyright Directive in particular).
A fundamental term is the one stating that anybody who distributes software under the GPL, and who owns patents covering some of the techniques used by that software, is giving the recipients the right to use those techniques. The first draft expressed this term as an explicit grant of licenses to use the relevant patents. The second draft, instead, requires anybody distributing the software to accept a covenant not to assert their patents against users of the software. The FSF has evidently written a separate opinion document - not yet published - which describes the reasons for making this change.
The prohibition on distribution of "covered works that illegally
invade users' privacy
" has been removed. Evidently, there was a
strong public reaction against this term, so it came out.
The language in the first draft which allowed charging up to ten times the actual cost for source code distribution is gone. The GPLv2 language, limiting charges to the "reasonable cost" of shipping the source, is back. The second draft has added a new term stating that making the source available for free download (for three years) is sufficient to satisfy the source distribution requirements of the license. It has also been made clear that redistribution of a program through a peer-to-peer client (as happens automatically with a protocol like BitTorrent) does not require accepting the license and taking on the source distribution requirements.
The language on additional terms has been changed somewhat. There is now an explicit prohibition on terms regarding who pays attorney's fees, choice-of-venue terms, arbitration clauses, etc. There is also a clause saying that, if the software has been received with any disallowed additional restrictions ("no commercial use" restrictions being given as an example), the recipient may simply ignore those restrictions.
The first draft of version 3 of the Lesser GPL is also available. The new LGPL is much shorter and simpler than its predecessor, mostly because it is expressed as a patch to GPLv3. The intent of the LGPL has not changed much. There are terms intended to make it possible to run a proprietary application with a modified version of the LGPL-licensed library, however - including a requirement that installation keys, if needed, be distributed with the source.
By the FSF's schedule, the rest of the year will be dedicated to receiving
comments on the new draft of the GPLv3. The FSF has previously said that
it would like to adopt the final version of the new license in January,
2007, and there is no indication that this timeline has changed. There
will be another series of public meetings, with the next meeting happening in
Bangalore, India, on August 23 and 24. Anybody who has opinions
on the drafts, and who has not yet expressed them to the FSF, may want to
do so in the near future or forever hold their peace.
(Log in to post comments)
GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1
Posted Jul 28, 2006 0:31 UTC (Fri) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link]
Actually, it seems to me that the anti-DRM language was narrowed quite a bit, and it's made clearer that it applies only to the specific case where an attempt is being made to effectively prevent recipients from modifying the code. People who want to build DRM systems out of GNUware won't be happy, but I can't think of any other set of folks who would be happy with GPLv2 and not with GPLv3 (other than because "it's new, so I fear it").For everyone else, it seems that GPLv3 is shaping up to be a substantial improvement: it gets rid of the legal cloud hanging over OpenSolaris (under GPLv2 you can't ship a distro containing a system library with GPL-incompatible terms because of the way the system library exception is worded), or with P2P distribution of GPL object code, or being able to tell people to get the source off of a server even if you gave them a CD, not to mention being compatible with more licenses. Given all the other improvements, for those whose only objection to GPLv3 is the DRM language, it will probably be better for them to use GPLv3 plus an exception (recipients have all the permissions of GPLv3, plus you can be an evil DRM control freak) when licensing their own code than to stick with GPLv2.
For those outside the US, it's an even stronger case to move, given all the work that's gone into harmony with non-US legal systems.
GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1
Posted Jul 28, 2006 4:58 UTC (Fri) by kirkengaard (guest, #15022) [Link]
"Given all the other improvements, for those whose only objection to GPLv3 is the DRM language, it will probably be better for them to use GPLv3 plus an exception (recipients have all the permissions of GPLv3, plus you can be an evil DRM control freak) when licensing their own code than to stick with GPLv2."
Are you nuts? Read section 3, the part about it being essentially unwaivable and causing the covered work to be entirely circumvention OK in any case. I believe the best words are "Regardless of any other provision of this License, no permission is given for modes of conveying that deny users that run covered works the full exercise of the legal rights granted by this License."
Plus, see section 7 about the assumption you make wrt 'adding permissions'. Being able to DRM the covered work is only a permission once. It is the permission to deny every other user the guarantees of the GPL. Have you been listening to the part where we say, "No added terms that violate the license"? Then read 7c. You're adding permissions to add prohibited restrictions. Not kosher. Can be dropped by any user. Easily leads to termination of your rights under 8.
And if you write code and GPL it, why would you simultaneously try to prevent your users from exercising their GPL rights? Want DRM? Don't GPL. Don't want DRM? GPL!
GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1
Posted Jul 28, 2006 5:14 UTC (Fri) by moxfyre (guest, #13847) [Link]
And if you write code and GPL it, why would you simultaneously try to prevent your users from exercising their GPL rights? Want DRM? Don't GPL. Don't want DRM? GPL!Uhm... well TiVo took Linux and modified it and redistributed it, which means they were bound to release it under the GPLv2. So they distributed the source code! But they made it so that anyone who compiled a modified version of that code couldn't actually run it on the TiVo device, because its secret hash key wasn't the same... completely contrary to the spirit of the GPL, but legal.
GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1
Posted Jul 28, 2006 5:30 UTC (Fri) by kirkengaard (guest, #15022) [Link]
Not applicable to my statement. Reread. TiVo didn't *write* that code. They merely took advantage of a loophole whereby external technological protections applied around the covered work can restrict the freedoms available to the user of an otherwise free GPL work. They didn't relicense it; they put it into a container and applied restrictions to the container. Which loophole is being closed here.
If TiVo were to write their own code, do you think that they would GPL it, and then apply DRM to it? Honestly?
GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1
Posted Jul 28, 2006 12:08 UTC (Fri) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]
They could if they wanted to.
Actually I don't see why not, not at all.
Just because they release the software under the GPLv3 on one hand doesn't mean that the binaries they ship on their device have to be under GPLv3. They own the copyrights and they can do anything they want with it.
The entire point of the GPL is that the wishes the developers and the "four freedoms" of the end users are protected. Obviously you don't agree with this point of view.
Even if the kernel shipped under the GPLv3 there is NOTHING STOPPING TiVo from shipping programs running on it that impliment DRM, besides the fact that DRM is not only technically unsound, but fairly unethical. (and no I don't think that attempting to protect artist's copyrights are wrong, that's not core to the issue of why DRM sucks)
The clauses in GPLv3 are "anti-DRM lite". It's very narrow in what sort of things that it effects.
Anyways this is just mostly a clarification. It's not realy making a huge big difference in this way between GPLv2 vs GPLv3. It's mearly making something that was implicit explicit. The only real dispute is that the wording needs to be good enough to avoid any unintended consiquences.
Tivo's actions aren't surely legal
Posted Jul 28, 2006 13:34 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]
It's worth keeping in mind that Tivo's acts are not clearly legal. They might be ok in court, or they might not.
Law is not black and white. "Licensor's intent", and the "spirit" of the licence are two things which judges take into account in copyright cases. Tivo appears to violate both of these, so there is ground to say they violate the licence.
I know a European who develops GPL'd software and who told me that he has already enforced the GPL to stop a company that was doing something similar to what Tivo is doing.
v3 makes a more solid legal foundation for lawyers defending free software developers to stand on.
GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1
Posted Jul 28, 2006 5:53 UTC (Fri) by tetromino (subscriber, #33846) [Link]
And if you write code and GPL it, why would you simultaneously try to prevent your users from exercising their GPL rights? Want DRM? Don't GPL. Don't want DRM? GPL!One obvious case where I may want to prevent users from exercising their GPL rights is corporate security. If I have a large corporate setup, I may want to use a cryptographically enhanced version of LinuxBIOS and GRUB together with a TPM chip on the motherboard to prevent my non-technical users from loading random non-signed kernels, LiveCDs etc. and screwing up the precious network.
Now, if I understand GPL3 right, I could do this with a GPL3 kernel as long as I was not distributing (i.e. if I were the corporate sysadmin, and doign this for my employer, I would be in the clear). But suppose I were an outside contractor hired by the corporation to set up the secure workstations. Since I am distributing copies of GPL3 software to a different organization, suddenly I am violation of GPL3.
As far as I am concerned, any limitations on the use of GPL-ed software is idiotic. I should be able to stick a Free Sofware on my laptop, or in baby-killing tank, or in a DRM-encrufted TV set -- precisely because if I do not have the freedom to use the software as I wish, how can it be called Free?
GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1
Posted Jul 28, 2006 7:39 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
because if I do not have the freedom to use the software as I wish, how can it be called Free?
You can not. I can. Because if your definition of the free software is "software I can use as I wish including imposing restrictions on the freedom of others" (that's exactly what the "corporate security" wants to do in your example, right?) - then there are no free software at all. GPL (does not matter if it's GPLv2 or GPLv3) ? Not free: I can not create closed-source derived work. BSD ? Non-free: I can not play with Windows TCP/IP stack - it's BSD-licensed but I don't have access to the source code and the needed tools. Public domain ? Not if you got it as part of binary blob with EULA... Any freedom becomes reality at the expense of some other freedom. I personally think freedom of the user of your software is more important that freedom of system administrator, corporation of some other middleman entity. You can disagree. But if you insist that software with any limitation of freedom is not free software anymore, then there are no free software so you can relax.
GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1
Posted Jul 28, 2006 13:47 UTC (Fri) by mrshiny (subscriber, #4266) [Link]
I think the "corporate security" example given above is a red herring. The GPLv3 says you can't distribute locked code without keys. But that's trivial for a 3rd party vendor selling such a locked system to a corporation who wants to lock their own machines. There's only one reason (vendor lock in) that the vendor would want to withhold the keys from the customer, and if the customer is buying Linux (or other Free software) odds are they know about vendor lock in and how to avoid it. So the vendor will simply sell the key to the client. This should be fairly easy to do, given proper hardware support for installing new keys or something.
The client corp is then in the position of "restricting the freedom of its users" but again, this is not a problem because the users don't own the machine and thus have no inherent rights.
GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1
Posted Jul 28, 2006 20:51 UTC (Fri) by lutchann (subscriber, #8872) [Link]
The client corp is then in the position of "restricting the freedom of its users" but again, this is not a problem because the users don't own the machine and thus have no inherent rights.That's interesting... So is it OK for Comcast or whoever to run their digital cable tuner boxes with locked-down GPLv3 software, because even though the box is in your house and you are the exclusive user, you don't own it?
GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1
Posted Jul 28, 2006 21:03 UTC (Fri) by mrshiny (subscriber, #4266) [Link]
If I don't own the box, then, yes, it's ok for Comcast to not allow me to modify the box. That only seems natural: it's their box, their rules. Now, a bigger question should be: should Comcast be allowed to restrict access to their network to their "approved" boxes? I'd say no. The analogies to the way phone companies used to operate is clear and the harm to consumers is also clear in those cases but this issue is somewhat off-topic from the GPL.
GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1
Posted Jul 28, 2006 21:52 UTC (Fri) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]
The way it works for phone companies is that 'their' rights terminate at your house's walls. Now of course this is just a U.S.-ism
Back in the day when AT&T was the phone monopoly they tried to force other phone manufacturers out of business by restricting the sorts of phones that were allowed to be used on their networks. If you used AT&T's services you had to buy AT&T's phones.
There was a big to-do about this and there was a court case. It was ruled that AT&T had rights to do anything they want to their equipment and control it how they want up till the point were it crossed into your premises. After that then it's your problem and you could use whatever device you want on that.
That sort of thinking was extended to cable companies and such. As I understand it there is no such thing as a 'illegal' cable box. Even if it does descrabling of signals and such it's only illegal for you to use it for illegal things. You can use whatever box you want.
Of course cable companies fight this by purposely (for 'digital' cable) using propriatory signals and such to make their stuff only work with a small number of devices. This is why you can't just go out and buy a 'digital cable card' for your MythTV box.
HDTV was suppose to fix this by standardizing.. And it worked more or less since you can go and get one of those PC-HDTV cards (http://www.pchdtv.com/) and pick up unecrypted HD signals from your cable. (Used to be that PChdtv did only support radio broadcasts of hdtv, but now it can do limited types of cable signals also, just not encrypted stuff)
However I would expect there is a difference between Rent vs Own. Most people rent their cable equipment from their cable provider. I would expect that it would be like automobiles were if you rent a car and then try to modify it they will probably try to sue you or fine you.
Of course this is just my personal understanding. Don't go out and try to buy a tv descrambler and expect it to work and you not to get into trouble based on what you've read here.
GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1
Posted Jul 29, 2006 4:49 UTC (Sat) by mrshiny (subscriber, #4266) [Link]
Exactly, the phone company doesn't have the right to dictate what kind ofphone you buy. But if you lease a phone from them, the phone still
belongs to them, and if that phone has GPL software on it, who is required
to have a license, you or the owner of the device? If it's merely the
owner of the device (phone company) then they do not need to release their
changes nor their signing keys.
If, however, the GPL views leasing hardware-containing-GPL-work as
distribution, then of course the situation is reversed, and the user must
have the right to modify the software.
GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1
Posted Jul 30, 2006 16:58 UTC (Sun) by grahammm (guest, #773) [Link]
Section 5b states "You must license the entire work, as a whole, under thisLicense to anyone who comes into possession of a copy." Possession does not equal ownership. Renting and being loaned are both legitimate mechanisms for coming into possession of something. So you would not need to own the software (or equipment containing it) in order to be able to make copies and modifications in accordance with GPL3.
GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1
Posted Jul 30, 2006 19:16 UTC (Sun) by mrshiny (subscriber, #4266) [Link]
Ok, so "possession" means that if you lend me a copy of a GPL work, thatmeans I am entitled to the source code and any keys needed to use that
source code. But since the MACHINE I am using does not belong to me, does
the GPL mean that I am allowed to modify the software installed on the
machine? I'm not sure that it does (well, I'm not sure that it doesn't,
either).
GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1
Posted Jul 28, 2006 21:57 UTC (Fri) by lutchann (subscriber, #8872) [Link]
Really? OK, let's keep going. What if DirecTV forces me to buy their tuner box, which only runs cryptographically-signed software off a SmartCard. Then when I subscribe to their service, they loan me a SmartCard containing signed GPLv3 software, which I may use only to access their service and must return at the end of my subscription term. Does this count as "conveying" a copy the software to me?
GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1
Posted Jul 29, 2006 4:46 UTC (Sat) by mrshiny (subscriber, #4266) [Link]
I think the courts would have to decide if distributing a system, forrental purposes, along with software that is distributed separately but as
part of the same rental system, qualifies as distribution under the GPL.
But I wouldn't be surprised if a judge ruled that you don't own the
software, or the box, and thus you have no right to modify the box, and
can not be said to have any rights to the software under the GPL. But
frankly, if the GPL software license is restricting the invention of
a "closed-box + smartcard system", it would be easy enough to re-engineer
the smart-card to not contain any GPL software. But I'm fairly confident
that the cable company is not licensing you the software on the cable box.
GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1
Posted Jul 28, 2006 9:26 UTC (Fri) by fatrat (guest, #1518) [Link]
Is this really a problem? If the outside contractor delivers the source + keys to the recipent of the program (the company) then all is well. I don't see why you'd have to give the keys to all the employees of the company as well. I'm not a lawyer mind.
GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1
Posted Jul 28, 2006 13:57 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]
It seems that the two things you're annoyed about are actually not the case.
For one, your freedom to use the software is not limited by GPLv3. You are free to do what you wish with your copy. When you give a copy to someone else, they then have the freedom to do what they wish with their copy.
For the other - the secure network example - I don't see any conflict. The outside contractor would not be distributing to the contracting company. The copies of the software would be owned by the company. (Either the company would be one making the copies available to the contractor, or the contractor would first give a copy of the software to the contracting company and then would internally propagate "their" copies.)
Also, if you disagree, please make a comment on gplv3.fsf.org. Obviously it is not the goal of GPLv3 to make that situation illegal (if I've understood the situation you're describing), and I don't think v3 does make it illegal, but if you disagree - say so (this is the year!), and even better, if you have a clearer wording, suggest that.
GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1
Posted Jul 31, 2006 4:21 UTC (Mon) by kirkengaard (guest, #15022) [Link]
Another false expansion. The GPL is not anti-sysadmin. On any system which you own (or administrate on behalf of the owner), you are the primary beneficiary of the freedoms of the GPL. User accounts on your system have whatever privileges are assigned them, but sensible administration suggests that only a fool lets his users root his boxen and erase/reinstall software at will. The GPL takes no position on system security, except to suggest that you should have the right to use GPL'd software for any purpose. No one can prevent you from securing your boxen with GPL'd software. You are not conveying the software to your user accounts; they are using it on your systems. Should you convey the same software to your user accounts, they may take it and use it subject to the GPL and with the same freedoms, but on hardware that they own, and therefore have a right to control installation on.
GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1
Posted Aug 3, 2006 9:16 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
The GPL is anti-clueless-sysadmin, because those of us who check the source to determine the function of things or the cause of problems have a huge competitive advantage over those who don't (at least, over those who don't and are unwilling to learn).
I can't really see this as a bad thing. :)
GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1
Posted Jul 28, 2006 15:18 UTC (Fri) by Rakshasa (guest, #14732) [Link]
7.a: "Additional permissions make exceptions from one or more of therequirements of this License."
IANAL, but it seems the DRM case would be similar to how LGPL adds extra permissions. Just add a permission to distribute without the requirement of supplying the keys, and you'd be clear. This of course assumes you don't include code that lacks this permission.
GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1
Posted Jul 28, 2006 15:23 UTC (Fri) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link]
Exactly, and this would be the best option for the Linux kernel developers if they won't accept the DRM provisions. Even for them, GPLv3 plus a DRM exception would be better than GPLv2, especially for non-US users.
GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1
Posted Aug 11, 2006 12:37 UTC (Fri) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link]
The open question then is if the Linux kernel developers consent on a DRM-exception. I don't think there's a consensus. Linus wants one, but he doesn't have the last word on copyright. There are other strong opinions, as always. Look at the closed source module situation: A few years ago, the Linux kernel COPYING file contained an explicit interpretative comment up front that closed source modules are ok. Now, we have vocal proponents that CS modules are plain illegal.
So even now, with the GPLv2 loophole for allowing DRM does not automatically mean there's consense about this issue. The loophole might not even be an effective loophole, i.e. what TiVo does might still be illegal, even though not explicitely written. Usual copyright contract law is that unforseen usage of copyrighted material requires a new license. And with GPLv2 dating 1991, DRM keys to prevent changes are clearly unforseen usage, especially when it is completely counter the spirit of the license.
GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1
Posted Aug 10, 2006 8:53 UTC (Thu) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]
"Given all the other improvements, for those whose only objection to GPLv3 is the DRM language, it will probably be better for them to use GPLv3 plus an exception (recipients have all the permissions of GPLv3, plus you can be an evil DRM control freak) when licensing their own code than to stick with GPLv2."
Are you nuts? Read section 3, the part about it being essentially unwaivable and causing the covered work to be entirely circumvention OK in any case. I believe the best words are "Regardless of any other provision of this License, no permission is given for modes of conveying that deny users that run covered works the full exercise of the legal rights granted by this License."
I know this is a week late, and the point has already been sort of covered, but you're making a major blunder here. I'll explain. What the GPL says is, in the first instance, irrelevant.
Let's say I copy MS Office and, when taken to court, I say "but the GPL says I can copy software and give it away". The Judge is going to laugh at me, say "guilty as charged", and punish me.
What matters (as far as Free Software) is concerned, is the COPYING file, which is where the software author tells me which licence he has distributed his work under. If the COPYING file tells me that the software is licenced under the GPL, but he grants me the extra permission that I can ignore all the DRM stuff, then that means I can ignore the DRM stuff. What the GPL says is totally irrelevant there because the COPYING file overrides it.
There is also the little matter that, in law, the author has the right to grant permissions. The GPL cannot override that (which is why v3, iirc, explicitly says that the author can grant permissions which the GPL by default denies - the reality is that the GPL cannot do anything else!). What the GPL does do, is say that if I create a modified work, I can strip the extra permissions as far as my work, or the combined work, is concerned. While the original author can say in the COPYING file that I am not allowed to remove those extra permissions, he then can't say that the resulting work is "GPL licenced" because he has added a restriction over and above what the GPL permits.
It's all very simple if you think about it carefully and logically. Snag is, too few people do ...
Cheers,
Wol
GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1
Posted Jul 28, 2006 11:25 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
There is another class of people who'll be unhappy: the small but vocal group of mostly-BSDites who've been ranting at the top of their voices against the GPL since it was first written. I've been arguing on-and-off for years with the original coiner of the pejorative term 'General Public Virus', and it's become clear that he thinks that the GPLv3 is just as bad.
(Mind you, the criticisms of most of the people in this class don't actually appear to use actual reasoning at any point, resting mostly on pedantic ultralibertarian quibblings over the meaning of the term 'free'. It seems that writing a license that allows the author to retain any control at all over the licenses applicable to derivative works is socialist, or 'not truly free', or something, except if it's a traditional proprietary license, which is apparently fine. 'Socialist' appears to be equated by many members of this class to 'Stalinist', because, you know, the Soviet Union under Stalin was so hot on respecting creator's rights. *sigh*)
(The more I argue with anti-GPL advocates, the more impressed I become by their patent lack of logic. It seems to be hard to oppose the GPL from a foundation of reason, which says a lot about how well-written it is: only the nutters try to argue that it's bad any longer.)
(This is not to say that all BSDites oppose the GPL, nor that all are nutters, nor even most of them. It's a small but vocal and annoying minority.)
GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1
Posted Jul 28, 2006 15:20 UTC (Fri) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link]
I specifically was talking about people who are happy with GPLv2 but not with GPLv3. As I said, the only objections are DRM-connected.
GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1
Posted Jul 28, 2006 15:26 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
In that case, indeed so. (People who don't like melodramatic section titles could have complained about draft v1, but 'Liberty or Death for the Software' is renamed now.)
GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1
Posted Jul 28, 2006 17:40 UTC (Fri) by bluefoxicy (guest, #25366) [Link]
"It seems that writing a license that allows the author to retain any control at all over the licenses applicable to derivative works is socialist,"
GPL is socialist; this is by design. Richard Stallin is a nut. Look at the facts:
- The basic philosophy is, "Everyone does the work and gives it away for Free." The first person can charge to give it to you; hell, everyone can charge to give it to you. After that though it's perfectly fine up on a torrent; and you HAVE to make source available at no extra charge.
- Every system using GPL is effectively a GPL 'society'; Qt is a GPL library, writing a Qt program means you must release your program under GPL as it's a "derivative work" (according to the nuts in #gnu). The #gnu people on Freenode went as far as to say that if you write a BSD-licensed Qt implementation, and then run your program on real Qt, either A) your program is instant GPL, you owe the end user running it the source; or B) you are breaking the law (I would say they're wrong, it's the end user breaking the law); this also means that running GPL code on Windows is wrong.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
- GPL does not require you to distribute the OS software; however (again according to the #gnu crazies), apparently syscall()ing into the OS constitutes 'linking' with the OS. I guess 'linking' means 'executing part of one chunk of code as part of another work'? I don't know if I believe this part; but it shows that under some interpretations, you have a system where "to be a part of our society, you must release everything you do for free." What is this Marxism 101?
It's not that there's something wrong with the GPL and it doesn't do its job; it's that its job IS to implement socialism on computers. RMS is an insane, extremist, alarmist nutjob; he's like a mirror image of Microsoft, the same deal but completely backwards.
You may immediately think of Richard Stallin as that "Closed and Restrictive is Bad" guy, the one that hates "making software proprietary and thus denying users their rightful freedom." But he goes way further than that; RMS disagrees with BSD and MIT style licenses BECAUSE you can use them in any way, you can emit binary blobs made out of the code and not share the source. It is WRONG to give TOO MUCH freedom, the freedom to escape the communist trap that RMS created.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft.html
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft-verdict.html
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/x.html
The GPL does exactly what it was designed to do; it was designed to create a socialistic software community, this is a quite accurate description of what's going on.
GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1
Posted Jul 28, 2006 18:10 UTC (Fri) by cventers (guest, #31465) [Link]
I think you're being a little too alarmist and harsh yourself.
1. I wouldn't trust a bunch of "#gnu people on Freenode" to speak
officially about the GPL (or about Stallman).
2. You're wrong about Stallman's views on other licenses -- at least in
part. I've seen Stallman advocate BSD licensing for certain works (areas
where it's better that we have standards and interoperability).
I think Stallman could do a better job presenting himself sometimes, but
the only extremists I see are the people that seem so compelled to cement
that label onto him. Your post may not intentionally be `FUD', but it
sure smells like it.
Finally, I'm quite happy with our socialist software community. The many
people involved have built the most powerful and flexible operating
system ever imagined, and thanks to its vast and open nature, anyone can
pick it up and learn and contribute. I owe most of what I know about
computers to this community. If it weren't for this community, I'd have
never escaped Visual Basic on Windows.
The greatest thing about the GPL and our community is that you absolutely
don't have to participate if you don't want to. And you can take that to
the bank.
GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1
Posted Jul 28, 2006 19:31 UTC (Fri) by bluefoxicy (guest, #25366) [Link]
1. I point out #gnu because they're a little nutty and their statements are automagically suspect.
2. Read some of my links. For example in "The X Windows Trap" RMS says:
"Non-copylefted software is vulnerable from all directions; it lets anyone make a non-free version dominant, if he will invest sufficient resources to add significantly important features using proprietary code. Users who choose software based on technical characteristics, rather than on freedom, could easily be lured to the non-free version for short-term convenience."
This is effectively saying that any MIT/BSD licensed or public domain code is as good as proprietary because someone will add a new protocol or file format and suddenly everyone will use that product because the others don't work with it. The effective argument is "If mplayer was BSD licensed, Microsoft would make mplayer play DRM'd WMA, and then people would only use Microsoft Mplayer because it would play stuff they got from Napster." (replace 'mplayer', shift argument...)
As for "absolutely don't have to participate," remember: "However, when a library provides a significant unique capability, like GNU Readline, that's a horse of a different color. The Readline library implements input editing and history for interactive programs, and that's a facility not generally available elsewhere. Releasing it under the GPL and limiting its use to free programs gives our community a real boost. At least one application program is free software today specifically because that was necessary for using Readline." The new RMS plan is to force developers of proprietary products to either not develop good products; duplicate the GPL product; or GPL their product. You "absolutely don't have to participate" in the same way that "you absolutely don't have to pay taxes": there's a massive trade-off.
GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1
Posted Jul 28, 2006 20:55 UTC (Fri) by cventers (guest, #31465) [Link]
> This is effectively saying that any MIT/BSD licensed or public domain> code is as good as proprietary because someone will add a new protocol
> or file format and suddenly everyone will use that product because the
> others don't work with it. The effective argument is "If mplayer was
> BSD licensed, Microsoft would make mplayer play DRM'd WMA, and then
> people would only use Microsoft Mplayer because it would play stuff
> they got from Napster." (replace 'mplayer', shift argument...)
No, it's effectively stating that any MIT/BSD licensed or public domain
code can be abused in such ways -- not that it is effectively
proprietary.
> As for "absolutely don't have to participate," remember: "However, when
> a library provides a significant unique capability, like GNU Readline,
> that's a horse of a different color. The Readline library implements
> input editing and history for interactive programs, and that's a
> facility not generally available elsewhere. Releasing it under the GPL
> and limiting its use to free programs gives our community a real boost.
> At least one application program is free software today specifically
> because that was necessary for using Readline." The new RMS plan is to
> force developers of proprietary products to either not develop good
> products; duplicate the GPL product; or GPL their product. You
> "absolutely don't have to participate" in the same way that "you
> absolutely don't have to pay taxes": there's a massive trade-off.
Also false. You don't have to use readline. That doesn't mean that
Stallman is trying to force you to use readline by making it good. It
just means that readline /encourages/ you to use it by being a good
program.
Paying taxes is a law, using free software is not.
If you're going to attack Stallman, use his own words alone -- not your
twisted interpretation of them.
GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1
Posted Aug 3, 2006 15:30 UTC (Thu) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link]
Finally, I'm quite happy with our socialist software community.Indeed, the free software community may be the only real-world case where "socialism" has been demonstrated to work better than the alternatives.
GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1
Posted Aug 10, 2006 8:30 UTC (Thu) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]
Don't forget the Israeli kibutzim ... but even those are collapsing as the founders pass on and their children take over.
Socialism works great - provided the people in a socialist society have CHOSEN to live there. But times move on, children have different values than their parents, and things change.
"As American as mom and apple pie" is socialist ... just look at the old American traditions like barn raising ... but nowadays American society (certainly as it appears to the rest of the world) seems to be very ANTI "helping your neighbour".
Cheers,
Wol
Socialism? Absurd.
Posted Jul 28, 2006 21:55 UTC (Fri) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link]
No, no, and again, no.
An enforced "share and share alike" economy for software is not equal to socialism, because the community (and thus the economy) is entirely opt-in. Users have no restrictions on what they can do with a program privately, as long as they don't distribute it, so entry into the communal economy of the GPL is based on distribution, and that economy is basically a form of barter: people trade software with each other in return for a guarantee that they have the rights to modify and redistribute that software as they see fit.
Developers trade their time in return for the usually quality work of other developers, users trade their feedback for the usually quality bugfixing of the developers, and so on. This is not "socialism" simply because it need not involve money directly. Although it certainly can: Red Hat, for instance, makes decent money selling their expertise in making a Linux distribution.
Basically, the GPL acts only as an equalizer, allowing all players in the communal economy of free software to compete (yes, compete!) AND cooperate on equal terms. It enforces a level playing field, no more. It does not forbid competition (just unfair competition through secrecy), it doesn't prohibit marketing GPLed software (just vendor lockin), and it doesn't prohibit programmers making decent money (just gouging customers for upgrades).
The only way to call this "socialism" would be to subscribe to Ayn Rand's bogus theory of "the only morality is every man for himself", which is hardly a reasonable basis for a stable society.
Objectivism? Absurd.
Posted Jul 31, 2006 3:40 UTC (Mon) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link]
> The only way to call this "socialism" would be to subscribe> to Ayn Rand's bogus theory of "the only morality is every man
> for himself", which is hardly a reasonable basis for a stable
> society.
Come now, you misrepresent the eminent Russian-American philosopher. She
never proclaimed "the only morality is every man for himself" at all!
Objectivism is about respecting human rights! Especially those human
rights which may be objectively determined by self-examination to the
point of onanistic solipsism!
Try "the only morality is absolute honourable self-imposed respect for
the Objectively Self-Evident Immutable and Inalienable Right to
Property, Profit and the American Way of Every Rich Guy in the Room".
And of course socialism is exactly the opposite: it's about not
respecting any rights of any individuals at all, whatsoever, and about
making people pay taxes with a GUN to the HEAD. Because rich guys never,
ever use force because they're all honourable men, like Brutus or
something.
GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1
Posted Jul 29, 2006 12:58 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Yes, that was an excellent simulation of the way some of those nuts talk, right down to the guilt-by-association tactic of modifying RMS's name to make it seem similar to that of a murderous dictator, the repeated claims of insanity, the misuse of the term `socialist', and the bombing with only-vaguely-relevant links that frequently directly contradict your text.
(I choose to believe that this is a work of satire, you see.)
GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1
Posted Aug 3, 2006 12:15 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link]
Sorry, but when I compare the output of RMS with your screed here, he sounds a lot saner than you do.
Trapped by Free Software?
Posted Aug 12, 2006 20:32 UTC (Sat) by GreyWizard (guest, #1026) [Link]
Please explain to me why anti-GPL zealots like yourself are perfectly happy to see people offer executable software on the condition that the receiver never decompile or redistribute the result but shriek as if their hair were on fire over a much milder set of restrictions intended to protect freedom? On the one hand it's, "Software I can have but not study or share with a friend? Hey, thanks. I feel honored to part with my hard earned cash for this stuff." On the other, "Software I can have, study, share with my friends or even sell as long as I don't combine it with proprietary restrictions? How dare you foist your socialist ideals on me?! I feel the jackboot of Stalin himself oppressing me! Help! I'm trapped in a world full of freedom!"
As for your claim that defending freedom is socialism, that would make the founders of the United States of America a bunch of socialists, for example. Before you declare that Richard Stallman or anyone else is a nut, take a look in the mirror.
GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1
Posted Jul 28, 2006 18:00 UTC (Fri) by cventers (guest, #31465) [Link]
Yeah, I run into those a lot. I think the reason they whine so much is that 70% of free software is GPL. And you obviously can't downconvert a GPL derived work into BSD (though if I understand the situation correctly, the reverse is ironically OK).
I'm a strong believer in the GPL. I think it's done /great/ things for Linux. One of my favorite examples is the fact that IBM, SGI, Oracle, Novell, Red Hat, and others (some of whom are competitors) all contribute great stuff to the kernel, and to the larger system. Would they all be so ready to contribute if their direct competitor could take their hard work and turn it into a proprietary product?
GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1
Posted Jul 29, 2006 2:25 UTC (Sat) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]
Exactly.
It's due directly to the GPL why we have such nice open source software to play around with like the Linux kernel.
This would of never happenned with FreeBSD or NetBSD derevative. IBM, SGI et al would of just incorporated the nice bits of FreeBSD into their propriatory systems and that would be it.
Just like OS X.
OS X is basicly your Desktop BSD operating system. Apple took it, wrapped it around propriatory stuff and that's what your stuck with. They offer a unified UI that people like, but in pretty much every other way it is inferior to Linux systems. Slower, less secure, closed source, propriatory formats, much less hardware support, drm'd systems. etc etc.
Also GPL serves a very important service by it's 'viral' nature. It's the lowest common denominator for Linux-based systems. Since 70% of the software you use is GPL'd then other software better be compatable with it's terms otherwise your going to run into a lot of issues.
With 'non-viral' license like Mozilla's stuff I've seen software projects that incorporate 5-6 different licenses into a SINGLE PROGRAM. That is nuts. They all have different terms, different restrictions, and different oddball things that the author required. Stuff like that turns into a nightmare.
Could you imagine having a operating system were you may have to deal with 20 semi-incompatable licenses in pretty much every large body of code. You would end up with 1000's of licenses and any corporation would be forced to go through huge software audits just to be sure to find what they can and cannot run.
Some examples of what we would have to deal with depending on which piece of what program you're looking at:
Can use for educational purposes only. Can modify but have to distribute the source code back to the project's sourceforge website. If you use for commercial purposes you have to donate money to Uganda aborted baby charity funds. Free to use for 135 days then after that you have to register on a website. No source code aviable so it must only be used on x86 machines. No Microsoft machines may use these services. Pay 30 bucks to Tom Buck to unlock ODBC connector. You can't use this if your a company with a store front over 90000 square feet and have income over 10 billion dollars unless you hire union workers because 'Walmart Teh $UCKS!!!oneone1) etc etc etc.
You'd end up with the same mess that 'creative commons' licensing has turned into.
With the GPL viral it's much more better for us because that's all we have to worry about. We know what to expect. We know what the terms are. If it's not GPL'd license then it can only be MORE Free (like BSD) not less Free.
It's like someone else said (paraphrasing):
"If your worrying about open source and having a tough time dealing with the GPL then your doing something very wrong."
GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1
Posted Jul 31, 2006 3:51 UTC (Mon) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link]
> Uganda charity funds.Not a laughing matter:
http://www.oxfam.org/en/news/pressreleases2006/pr060330_n...
"Rate of death in northern Uganda is three times higher than Iraq: new
report"
GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1
Posted Aug 3, 2006 13:37 UTC (Thu) by wookey (guest, #5501) [Link]
If you are interested in this subject it is well worth reading the groklaw comments on GPLv3 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060727140038810 which includes a number of comments which finally make clear to me the fundamental difference between the 'Linus' and the 'FSF' positions - and both are defensible positions - you have to decide which you prefer.
However reading that lot took me about 5 hours, so here's a summary to save some of you some time.
Essentially it's a question of whether you believe the GPL right to run modified software extends beyond the software onto particular items of hardware, which effectively translates into whether it is a right for developers or for end-users too.
The 'Linus' position says that there is nothing evil about locked-down hardware per se. There are plausible reasons for doing it in medical equipment, safety-critical systems, and probably others. There are also bad reasons for doing it in entertainment systems, but just because something is bad/dumb/antisocial doesn't mean it should be forbidden by free software (see shark-mounted laserguns, terrorists using GPG, and similar 'no restrictions on fields of endeavour' examples). So long as the software source is available under GPL terms (as it is for Tivo for example), then the fundamental rights of the GPL have not been lost. You can still modify that software and learn from it and run it and incorporate it into other software. You can't run it on the locked-down proprietary hardware you bought - you'll have to use something else, but that's what you get for buying locked-down proprietary hardware. That effect remains outside the scope of the GPL.
The 'FSF' position says that the above is all very well for developers, who can benefit from the software changes and incorprate them into other products or run it on different hardware, but it effectively denies users their GPL rights of being able to run the GPL software provided on the hardware they got it with. They want to be able to modify the software in situ and still have it do something useful so long as they didn't actually break the code.
I hope that is a clear 2-para summary of the nub of several hundred K of text. There is a lot more interesting discussion on security systems and what it means to be able to identifty a particular instance of code for whatever certification process you might want. A lot of it is guff about banks wanting to be sure which version of code you are running to access their systems. As we all know here, their security mechanisms should depend entirely on the protocol, and it shouldn't matter at all what software is on the other end, because you can never guarantee that, and trying to is the wrong apporach to the problem.
I find myself with some sympathy for both of the above points of view. In general I prefer the FSF view that you should actually be able to run modified code on whatever hardware it was written for, and obviously I don't care at all if DRM-happy entertainment outfits have to write their own code instead of using the GPL. But I do worry that extending the definition of source code to (try to) cover this case _is_ actually effectively trying to put in restrictions on fields of endeavour and may well have unhelpful unintended consequences.
GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1
Posted Aug 7, 2006 11:40 UTC (Mon) by fergal (guest, #602) [Link]
I haven't spent the 5 hours reading groklaw, so this is just based on what you wrote.
nothing evil about locked-down hardware per se. There are plausible reasons for doing it in medical equipment, safety-critical systems, and probably others.
I don't buy this argument. These are examples where the owner of the equipment needs it locked down. This is achievable while still giving the owner the ability to modify the source and place that modified source on to the hardware and lock it down again.
Owner vs intruder security can be maintained without the need for manufacturer vs owner security. For example if the secret key on each box was flashable but only by users presenting the secret key (just like your password can be changed only by someone wth your password) then the user can secure their box with a new secret key while maintaining their Freedom (FSF-style).
Nice--lots of stuff made explicit in draft 1 & 2
Posted Jul 28, 2006 1:46 UTC (Fri) by emk (subscriber, #1128) [Link]
One problem with GPLv2 has been the number of corner-cases where rules were (arguably) implied by the license, but never stated explicitly. For example, the Free Software Foundation has never objected to the inclusion of MIT-licensed code in a GPL'd program.
Under both drafts of GPLv3, many of these interpretations are explicitly included in GPLv3 itself. There's also been a lot changes to make the GPL work better under international law.
I'm feeling very happy about moving my own projects (and helping my employer move theirs) to GPLv3. And the public comment process has definitely cleaned up many issues in the first draft.
GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1
Posted Jul 28, 2006 10:03 UTC (Fri) by sdalley (subscriber, #18550) [Link]
>The language in the first draft which allowed charging up to ten times>the actual cost for source code distribution is gone. The GPLv2 language,
> limiting charges to the "reasonable cost" of shipping the source, is back.
How does this square with the beta 2 text of section 4[1]:
"You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey,"
GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1
Posted Jul 28, 2006 10:41 UTC (Fri) by farnz (subscriber, #17727) [Link]
I'm no lawyer, but my understanding of it is that if you've not distributed at all, you may charge whatever you feel like to distribute. It's only if you've distributed a binary on its own (possibly at an incredibly high price) that the reasonable cost provisions kick in.So, I could ship a complete enterprise network based on GPLv3 code, and charge you over $10m for the software, plus a further $50m for a warranty. So long as I either include the source, or will give you the source in the next 3 years for the reasonable cost of distribution, I'm clear.
GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1
Posted Jul 31, 2006 21:15 UTC (Mon) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]
Ya.. The idea that it is perfectly legal to charge money for software and programming services, but that's it's not ok to restrict access to the source code.
One example was that RMS would charge money for Emacs back in the day. It covered costs of shipping and the tapes it came on, but also covered development costs and helped fund other stuff he was doing.
A more modern example would be Cluster File Systems Inc. This corporation was created to fufill the need for a modern distributed file system for Linux. They are responsable for Lustre and much of the improvements for Ext3. After the relative failures of things like Intermezzo or Coda they figured that you couldn't do something this relatively groundbreaking and complex on a traditional Free software budget, so they started off by marketting and charging the use of Lustre for high performance computing. It's commonly used in Beowolf-style clusters and such.
They are a very pro-GPL company though and when a company bought a copy of their software they purchased it under the GPL license and source code was aviable to them. Getting attention of the developers, having the source aviable for it, and having much of the FS already in the Linux kernel via Ext3 was probably a major selling point behind Lustre for many researchers.
But ClusterFS inc never distributed it anonymously via the internet. They released a older version under the GPL for the 'community version'.
Since then however you can download the latest version of Lustre from their website. I figure they figure their product has matured to the point for use for a much wider audiance and maybe eventually for kernel inclusion. Once they get their security model worked out (PKI and/or kerberos integration) it should be very cool for larger corporate networks. It's been used to set file transfer speed records (several 100GBytes/second) and have multiple redundancies in it's services and management stuff for high aviability.
Other obvious example of a company charging for GPL'd software would be Redhat. Of course Redhat also is one of the major Linux companies that is actually successfull financially and they've done a lot of good work. GCC stack smashing protections, open sourcing GFS, open sourcing Netscape directory systems, multitude of kernel patches, testing and enhancements, etc etc.
Of course they make their money more from treating software as a service, rather then a boxed product.. but they still charge for distribution of binaries.
GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1
Posted Aug 3, 2006 9:29 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
A bit of pickiness here: the original GCC stack-smashing implementation (maintained for several years) was done by Hiroaki Etoh of IBM. It's quite different in design (operating on RTL directly rather than trees), but the ideas are the same.
Lustre and GPL
Posted Aug 4, 2006 0:23 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (guest, #1954) [Link]
A person who paid for the latest version of Lustre and got a GPL license with it had the right to sell copies of Lustre to someone else for less money than CFS was charging. Ordinarily, I would expect some entrepreneur to seize upon that business and eliminate further sales by CFS.
So how did CFS get away with charging substantially more than distribution cost for software with a GPL license? I believe that it comes down to the small community of Lustre customers having integrity and wanting CFS to get paid. Which means Lustre development was really being supported by donations, not by selling its work.
Simple free market economics tells me you cannot in fact sell software with GPL to multiple customers for more than distribution cost.
Lustre and GPL
Posted Aug 4, 2006 5:21 UTC (Fri) by dvdeug (subscriber, #10998) [Link]
In many cases, buying from the main vendor has huge advantages over buying from a third-party vendor. You get someone willing to stand behind their product and who can support their product. You get some degree of quality control and trustworthyness.
How many people would go their Linux kernel from just anyone? Most people either get the kernel from the kernel website or their Linux distributor, because in either case, there is a presumption of competence on the part of those who edited the kernel, and someone to report bugs to. Especially in a corporate situation, trusting the source of your code is more important than some nominal fee.
Lustre and GPL
Posted Aug 4, 2006 8:24 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (guest, #1954) [Link]
In that case, I would say you're buying support services and paying just distribution cost for the software itself. Linux distributors are great examples of the fact that a non-copyright-owner is as capable of supporting a piece of software as the copyright owner.Maybe we should consider support an integral part of what gets sold as "software." If so, I need to correct my rule to, "you cannot sell software with GPL to multiple customers for more than distribution and support cost."
The essential point is that you can't get users to pay the development costs when the only license you sell is an unlimited copying license such as GPL. Unless you have only one user.
I thought there was in the earlier comment a contrary implication that CFS funded development of Lustre by selling the latest version under GPL.
GPLv3 beta 2 and LGPLv3 beta 1
Posted Aug 1, 2006 16:32 UTC (Tue) by njh (subscriber, #4425) [Link]
> > The language in the first draft which allowed charging up to ten times> > the actual cost for source code distribution is gone. The GPLv2 language,
> > limiting charges to the "reasonable cost" of shipping the source, is
> > back.
>
> How does this square with the beta 2 text of section 4[1]:
>
> "You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey,"
Section 4 of the new draft refers to conveying source code verbatim.
The "reasonable cost" restriction is in 6b of the new draft: it refers to
the case where object code is conveyed without sources but accompanied by
a written offer to supply the Corrisponding Source. The restriction is on
the extra costs that apply if a receipient of object code exercises their
right to receive source code.
To clarify:
I can give you source code (and may charge whatever I like).
I can give you both source code and object code together (and may charge
whatever I like).
I can give you object code without sources (and may charge whatever I
like), along with a written offer for a copy of the Corresponding Source
"on durable physical medium customarily used for softare interchange,
for a price no more than [my] reasonable cost of physically performing
this conveying of source".