- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Linux Creator Calls GPLv3 Authors 'Hypocrites' As Open Source Debate Turns Nasty
|
|
|
Comments (49)
Hooray for Linus
25 earlier comments in the full thread.
Quoting:The Forums and the content in them reflect directly upon LXer Linux News.You right Scott, thanks for the reminder.
I shouldn't have replied to the first and went that far with the clue thing.
Abe I see where the confusion is hitting here. The GPL is not an user license per se. The GPL doesnt kick in until such time as code is distributed, it could care less what the end user does with said code except for the condition that the code is free to hack upon. So it is specifically a developers license, giving permissions from developer to developer in terms solely based upon future or current distribution of that same code.
For end user the GPL is specifically non enforceable. You can hack in or put whatever closed source, proprietary chucks of code you want to that you have the rights (from the non GPL IP holder) to. However if you then pass that to your friend/coworker/collaborator ad nauseum, then the GPL kicks in and says no you may not.
This assumes of course that the end user has armed themselves with the knowledge and skill needed to hack and modify code in the first place. The only protection that is passed to the user is the right to hack it to pieces, and if you read copyright law, you have that same right even on Microsoft's OS's, infringement doesn't kick in until such time as you try to distribute any changes you have made of that. So we see that the GPL is not in fact a user license, just that it has been represented as such by so many for so long that too many assume that it is.
For end user the GPL is specifically non enforceable. You can hack in or put whatever closed source, proprietary chucks of code you want to that you have the rights (from the non GPL IP holder) to. However if you then pass that to your friend/coworker/collaborator ad nauseum, then the GPL kicks in and says no you may not.
This assumes of course that the end user has armed themselves with the knowledge and skill needed to hack and modify code in the first place. The only protection that is passed to the user is the right to hack it to pieces, and if you read copyright law, you have that same right even on Microsoft's OS's, infringement doesn't kick in until such time as you try to distribute any changes you have made of that. So we see that the GPL is not in fact a user license, just that it has been represented as such by so many for so long that too many assume that it is.
Quoting:The GPL is not an user license per se....So it is specifically a developers license...I don't totally agree with the above. May be you are thinking of a license to be a restriction only document. A license doesn't have to be only that, it also can be a granting license like the GPL.
Like you said, the GPL grants rights. As an End User, it doesn't care what you do with the software until you start distributing it. At that point, you become a developer and the restrictions kick in. That doesn't make it a developer license only. It is a software license for all.
The restrictions in GPLv3 on developers were made strictly to prevent them from adding more restrictions above and beyond what the GPL has and not to create contradictions with what the GPL grants.
See my scenario I posted above concerning "Tivoization":
Quoting:MS owns and manufactures the XBox. If Tivization was allowed, MS could create their own Linux distribution (nothing prevents from doing that) and use the same approach Tivo is using to restrict users to use this MS distribution only, and prevents them from using other Linux distributions of their choice on their purchased and owned XBox hardware.
The more dangerous questions is, don't you think this will open the flood gates to every other device in the market?
I hope I made it a bit more clear to see where I am coming from?
> ...if you hand someone a cd that has a single package that is licensed under "GPL2 or later" then you as well are subject to the same limitations and sanctions?
Yep. So, I give someone a Slackware 12 DVD. If they choose to exercise their rights under the GPLv3, I now have to give them any special build scripts I used in creating it, any encryption keys I used to lock up the software involved, and give them licenses to any patents I hold which are required to use the software.
Guess which ones apply.
Yep. So, I give someone a Slackware 12 DVD. If they choose to exercise their rights under the GPLv3, I now have to give them any special build scripts I used in creating it, any encryption keys I used to lock up the software involved, and give them licenses to any patents I hold which are required to use the software.
Guess which ones apply.
>>The GPL is not an user license per se.
Check that with http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
There are 8 references to "user" there. "Developer," "hacker," coder," "programmer,": 5.
"The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity. In this freedom, it is the user's purpose that matters, not the developer's purpose; you as a user are free to run a program for your purposes, and if you distribute it to someone else, she is then free to run it for her purposes, but you are not entitled to impose your purposes on her."
(emphasis added)
Check that with http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
There are 8 references to "user" there. "Developer," "hacker," coder," "programmer,": 5.
"The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity. In this freedom, it is the user's purpose that matters, not the developer's purpose; you as a user are free to run a program for your purposes, and if you distribute it to someone else, she is then free to run it for her purposes, but you are not entitled to impose your purposes on her."
(emphasis added)
No problems, the issue here is, that is a chicken little definition. The whole rest of the document deals with what you can not do as a developer or distributor. You can find chicken little definitions all over the place and in some famous documents too.
Try on life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness and then see how well that got carried over into the actual legislation. You have a right to life, however you may not end it voluntarily. You have the right of liberty, unless the state decides otherwise and needs to protect you from yourself. You have the right to pursue happiness, unless your so miserable that you wish to be happy by not excersing you right to keep breathing.
You can make some pretty broad statements in documents that you would think carry legal weight, however when in a preamble, they are nothing more than advertising fluff and actually IIRC carry no legal weight what so ever.
Try on life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness and then see how well that got carried over into the actual legislation. You have a right to life, however you may not end it voluntarily. You have the right of liberty, unless the state decides otherwise and needs to protect you from yourself. You have the right to pursue happiness, unless your so miserable that you wish to be happy by not excersing you right to keep breathing.
You can make some pretty broad statements in documents that you would think carry legal weight, however when in a preamble, they are nothing more than advertising fluff and actually IIRC carry no legal weight what so ever.
>If they choose to exercise their rights under the GPLv3, I now have to give them any special build scripts I used in creating it, any encryption keys I used to lock up the software involved, and give them licenses to any patents I hold which are required to use the software.
Hmmm. That sounds like an exaggeration, but it may be that my understanding is limited.
Certainly, they are entitled to exercise their full GPLv3 rights with regard to any software licensed under GPLv3. A distribution as a whole, however, is a mere aggregation of parts. Unless the provisions WRT aggregations changed in some significant way, you should have not problem. They are not entitled to any of that other stuff unless you have packaged the distribution in some that that a party's GPLv3 rights cannot be exercised without it.
If You, however, choose to use a GPLv3 license for your software, it is only appropriate that you be subject to its provisions.
Hmmm. That sounds like an exaggeration, but it may be that my understanding is limited.
Certainly, they are entitled to exercise their full GPLv3 rights with regard to any software licensed under GPLv3. A distribution as a whole, however, is a mere aggregation of parts. Unless the provisions WRT aggregations changed in some significant way, you should have not problem. They are not entitled to any of that other stuff unless you have packaged the distribution in some that that a party's GPLv3 rights cannot be exercised without it.
If You, however, choose to use a GPLv3 license for your software, it is only appropriate that you be subject to its provisions.
I think we need to remember that the assumption FSF has, at least implicitly, always made is that users are developers and vice versa. It doesn't matter what role you play, you have the freedoms to play any role.
So if you are just using the code you can use it freely. If you want to share it with friends you are engaging in a distribution and you are free to do so as long as the same rights you had the one who gets it from you has.
If you wanna go further and hack on the code you are basically entering into the "developer" role and are, again, free to do that under the condition that you make your modifications available too. Everything is tit for tat in GPLv3 no less than in GPLv2. It is simply more detailed and efficient at enforcing that principle.
But, I think it needs to be emphasized, GPL never discriminates on basis of a role you play. Every developer is at the same time a user and every user is a potential developer.
So if you are just using the code you can use it freely. If you want to share it with friends you are engaging in a distribution and you are free to do so as long as the same rights you had the one who gets it from you has.
If you wanna go further and hack on the code you are basically entering into the "developer" role and are, again, free to do that under the condition that you make your modifications available too. Everything is tit for tat in GPLv3 no less than in GPLv2. It is simply more detailed and efficient at enforcing that principle.
But, I think it needs to be emphasized, GPL never discriminates on basis of a role you play. Every developer is at the same time a user and every user is a potential developer.
>the assumption FSF has, at least implicitly, always made is that users are developers and vice versa.
I had the chance to chat with Peter Brown, the FSF's Executive Director, and that is not the impression I got at all. I got the distinct impression that the FSF's primary concern is the freedom of software users, who may or may not also be software developers.
There is a certain logic to that, I think.
A software developer has complete freedom with the software he or she develops. In that sense, the developer needs nothing whatsoever from the FSF. If, however, the developer is adding on to somebody else's software, or using somebody else's tools, the freedoms the developer needs are the freedoms guaranteed to users of software.
I had the chance to chat with Peter Brown, the FSF's Executive Director, and that is not the impression I got at all. I got the distinct impression that the FSF's primary concern is the freedom of software users, who may or may not also be software developers.
There is a certain logic to that, I think.
A software developer has complete freedom with the software he or she develops. In that sense, the developer needs nothing whatsoever from the FSF. If, however, the developer is adding on to somebody else's software, or using somebody else's tools, the freedoms the developer needs are the freedoms guaranteed to users of software.
I've never been into this "Tivoization" thing. Do we punish Apple for making Apple ROMs proprietary?
Tivo made their hardware to run only with a particular build of software. Fine, change the ROMs if you want to run with another set of software.
Hardware is not software, software is not hardware. I don't complain because my car doesn't run on diesel, even if I go through all the effort of putting diesel into the car's fuel tank. If I want it to run diesel, I have to change the engine.
If a software developer has complete freedom to publish their own work under whatever license or whatever form they wish, why not Tivo and their hardware?
On the _patent_ nonsense, I must agree. Anything that undermines software patents is fine by me, it's stupid and must stop. But then, the more I learn, the more I'm against copyright and patent at all.
Tivo made their hardware to run only with a particular build of software. Fine, change the ROMs if you want to run with another set of software.
Hardware is not software, software is not hardware. I don't complain because my car doesn't run on diesel, even if I go through all the effort of putting diesel into the car's fuel tank. If I want it to run diesel, I have to change the engine.
If a software developer has complete freedom to publish their own work under whatever license or whatever form they wish, why not Tivo and their hardware?
On the _patent_ nonsense, I must agree. Anything that undermines software patents is fine by me, it's stupid and must stop. But then, the more I learn, the more I'm against copyright and patent at all.
It's not Tivo's code. It's not Tivo's hardware.
Quoting:Hardware is not software, software is not hardware. I don't complain because my car doesn't run on diesel, even if I go through all the effort of putting diesel into the car's fuel tank. If I want it to run diesel, I have to change the engine.
Weak analogy. My car runs on gasoline from any company that produces gasoline. Why shouldn't users run Linux produced by other distributors?
Quoting:If a software developer has complete freedom to publish their own work under whatever license or whatever form they wish, why not Tivo and their hardware?
Like TC said, It is not Tivo's code. They are restricting the code of others too in the process. Besides, they sold the hardware for a price paid in full by a consumer. It is not their hardware any more.
>It's not Tivo's code. It's not Tivo's hardware.
Some if it is Tivo's code, but that doesn't change the point.
It is a bit bothersome that Tivo would rely on the provisions in GPLv2, build a business that lies fully within its provisions, then find its business threatened because the rules of the game changed.
With Linux staying at v2, Tivo may end up ok, but...hmmm. If I were starting up a software-based business, I think I would be exploring alternatives to GPL'd software. There's certainly a lot of BSD'd stuff. There may not be any real need to risk the GPL.
Some if it is Tivo's code, but that doesn't change the point.
It is a bit bothersome that Tivo would rely on the provisions in GPLv2, build a business that lies fully within its provisions, then find its business threatened because the rules of the game changed.
With Linux staying at v2, Tivo may end up ok, but...hmmm. If I were starting up a software-based business, I think I would be exploring alternatives to GPL'd software. There's certainly a lot of BSD'd stuff. There may not be any real need to risk the GPL.
> Hmmm. That sounds like an exaggeration, but it may be that my understanding is limited.
I think it's an accurate summary, but then IANAL. Of course, since I did none of those things (build scripts, encryption keys, and patents), none of it applies. The source code is already on the disk, as is the text of the GPL, so I don't assume any obligations by giving someone a copy of the disk.
> They are not entitled to any of that other stuff unless you have packaged the distribution in some that that a party's GPLv3 rights cannot be exercised without it.
That was largely my point Dino. Just because I hand someone a disk of GPL'ed code doesn't mean I assume any obligations. Under some circumstances, it may mean that, but it doesn't have to. Azerthoth seemed to think it did.
I think it's an accurate summary, but then IANAL. Of course, since I did none of those things (build scripts, encryption keys, and patents), none of it applies. The source code is already on the disk, as is the text of the GPL, so I don't assume any obligations by giving someone a copy of the disk.
> They are not entitled to any of that other stuff unless you have packaged the distribution in some that that a party's GPLv3 rights cannot be exercised without it.
That was largely my point Dino. Just because I hand someone a disk of GPL'ed code doesn't mean I assume any obligations. Under some circumstances, it may mean that, but it doesn't have to. Azerthoth seemed to think it did.
Quoting:I think I would be exploring alternatives to GPL'd software. There's certainly a lot of BSD'd stuff. There may not be any real need to risk the GPL.They don't have to, Tivo could have kept the restriction to their service outside FOSS software.
If their intention is to secure access to their service, they could have added a dongle based restriction and I believe they will be OK.
>That was largely my point Dino
Oops! Did I get the direction arrow backwards? My bad, then.
Oops! Did I get the direction arrow backwards? My bad, then.
> My bad, then.
No, it's probably just that the conversation is rather hard to follow. My "Guess which ones apply" should probably have had a sarcasm note attached. That would have made my point a lot clearer.
No, it's probably just that the conversation is rather hard to follow. My "Guess which ones apply" should probably have had a sarcasm note attached. That would have made my point a lot clearer.
Dinotrac:
Well the user is a default, so to speak. If you're not talking about any other role you're merely talking about the "user". Note that I also mentioned that all developers are essentially users at the same time. So by having users' freedom as their primary concern they are automatically having freedom of all other roles which are based on the role of the "user" as their primary concern.
So they might not explicitly say that it is actually for all roles, but that much is very obvious anyway. Users are everyone, no matter which additional role they play.
I brought that up because some have been bringing forth arguments that seem to be implying that GPL treats developers differently than users, as if there is a difference. It treats everyone equally, it just depends on the users actions which provisions of the GPL will apply in which case. That's all there is to it.
Quoting: I had the chance to chat with Peter Brown, the FSF's Executive Director, and that is not the impression I got at all. I got the distinct impression that the FSF's primary concern is the freedom of software users, who may or may not also be software developers.
Well the user is a default, so to speak. If you're not talking about any other role you're merely talking about the "user". Note that I also mentioned that all developers are essentially users at the same time. So by having users' freedom as their primary concern they are automatically having freedom of all other roles which are based on the role of the "user" as their primary concern.
So they might not explicitly say that it is actually for all roles, but that much is very obvious anyway. Users are everyone, no matter which additional role they play.
I brought that up because some have been bringing forth arguments that seem to be implying that GPL treats developers differently than users, as if there is a difference. It treats everyone equally, it just depends on the users actions which provisions of the GPL will apply in which case. That's all there is to it.
>I brought that up because some have been bringing forth arguments that seem to be implying that GPL treats developers differently than users,
Ah.
Ah.
hooray for stupid lxer readers
http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/blogs/misleading_informa...
points to a very fine rebuttal by Ciaran O'Riordan of FSF Europe fame. Read that before you start your hozzahs.
points to a very fine rebuttal by Ciaran O'Riordan of FSF Europe fame. Read that before you start your hozzahs.
I'm Danijel Orsolic and I'm a stupid lxer reader. ;)
Yeah, I initially fell for that article as well. Why do some people just feel like stirring controversy for nothing.. Oh wait, who am I kidding, controversy brings readers and hence ad money, FOSS be damned. :(
Yeah, I initially fell for that article as well. Why do some people just feel like stirring controversy for nothing.. Oh wait, who am I kidding, controversy brings readers and hence ad money, FOSS be damned. :(
That is a good rebuttal, and yes, people are much too quick to leap into the fray with fists a' flying, and never mind about the facts. Facts are so inconvenient.
Hooray for truthiness!
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
FOSS developers can chose what GPL version they like. Commercial developers can use FOSS software but have to, as users, abide by whatever is offered by FOSS developers. Beggars can't be choosy.