- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
GPL Challenges: A Reality Check
To me, the GPL is a double edged sword. Its positive aspects can be seen with projects, such as the Linux kernel and Firefox. But its negative side can be seen as more and more Linux distributions are using legal work-arounds to bypass GPL restrictions. Why? Simple, it's restricting what the developers/sponsors of these distributions are trying to do. |
|
|
Comments (35)
"most new Linux users couldn't careless"
4 earlier comments in the full thread.
Hmph. I certainly didn't care for the article, or where it was going. There are a lot of licenses out there under which developers can release their products/code, and most consider their choices carefully. Seems like most meet-in-the-middle license, as the author asks for, either gets co-opted by one side or the other, or withers on the vine for lack of support.
Kind of like American politics. Hmm...
Kind of like American politics. Hmm...
ok, slowing down a bit here- these kinds of Enderle-style articles make me crazy. Nothing to support what they're saying, just a bunch of assertions with nothing to support them. It's lazy and useless. So much hot air and foam in the world already- would it kill columnists like this to write something with a bit of meat to it? Especially since they're getting paid for it. There's better stuff in the LXer comments.
> I do wish somebody would sue somebody on the aggregation of free and non-free software so that we could get the issue settled once and for all.
Is this really a legal issue? As I understand it, it's a question of policy for the different Linux distributions, not a legal question.
> I do wish somebody would sue somebody on the aggregation of free and non-free software so that we could get the issue settled once and for all.
Is this really a legal issue? As I understand it, it's a question of policy for the different Linux distributions, not a legal question.
Quoting:Especially since Firefox isn't under the GPL.
Last I heard, Mozillas are triple-licensed [sic] and it's highly probable that GPL is among those three. I only remember MPL ;)
Gosh darn it, I hate it when I agree with dino, its just so much more fun to find him disagreeable *grin*.
I made sure I wasnt guessing and went through and read the GPL (yet again) and no where in there does it say that you cant ship closed source material in a distribution. As long as you arent stepping on whatever license they were released under there isnt a single actionable clause that I saw.
I'm a layman so I may well be wrong, its not illegal, just considered bad form by the purists.
I made sure I wasnt guessing and went through and read the GPL (yet again) and no where in there does it say that you cant ship closed source material in a distribution. As long as you arent stepping on whatever license they were released under there isnt a single actionable clause that I saw.
I'm a layman so I may well be wrong, its not illegal, just considered bad form by the purists.
>Is this really a legal issue? As I understand it, it's a question of policy for the different Linux distributions, not a legal question.
Sorry. Head shoved up my .... well, not my shirt. Residue of reliving KDE and QPL, I guess.
You're right, no legal workarounds, just whining.
Sorry. Head shoved up my .... well, not my shirt. Residue of reliving KDE and QPL, I guess.
You're right, no legal workarounds, just whining.
wuh oh, here comes someone with rubber gloves to help dino. I am so outa here-helpful people with rubber gloves scare me.
> and it's highly probable that GPL is among those three.
Well, the mozilla licensing policy page is here:
http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/licensing.html
and I don't see anything about the GPL. It's possible I'm overlooking something.
Well, the mozilla licensing policy page is here:
http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/licensing.html
and I don't see anything about the GPL. It's possible I'm overlooking something.
Silly LXerers, always digging for facts.
> Gosh darn it, I hate it when I agree with dino, its just so much more fun to find him disagreeable
I would question you're ability to fit in if you didn't disagree with dino. :-p
Seriously, though, I understand that non-libre can be included on a GNU/Linux OS CD, as long as it meets the requirements of "aggregation", and is not linked to the libre code/libraries too closely. I don't object to that from a legal standpoint, just from a policy standpoint. ;-)
I would question you're ability to fit in if you didn't disagree with dino. :-p
Seriously, though, I understand that non-libre can be included on a GNU/Linux OS CD, as long as it meets the requirements of "aggregation", and is not linked to the libre code/libraries too closely. I don't object to that from a legal standpoint, just from a policy standpoint. ;-)
Is there a debate about the ability of an OEM to include whatever it wants if it preinstalls Linux? I'm curious about the possibility that Dell or HP or Gateway could sell, say, Ubuntu preinstalled computers, complete with Flash, codecs, proprietary drivers, etc. It seems that is no different from having a friend install Linux on your computer. Not that this would necessarily be a good thing, just wondering.
I don't think anything - beyond organizational policy - would stop someone from selling boxes with GNU/Linux and a slate of non-libre codecs/drivers pre-installed. Naturally, I would have to decline the extras. :-)
Then I'm totally confused by the first two sentences:
> Have you ever sat back and pondered why we don’t see more Linux OEMs distributing Linux over Windows? Most might find themselves running down the usual list of reasons, but I have one that you might not have considered - the GPL.
I wasn't aware that OEM's would have problems with the GPL. Either I'm a complete idiot or the author is a complete idiot.
> Have you ever sat back and pondered why we don’t see more Linux OEMs distributing Linux over Windows? Most might find themselves running down the usual list of reasons, but I have one that you might not have considered - the GPL.
I wasn't aware that OEM's would have problems with the GPL. Either I'm a complete idiot or the author is a complete idiot.
> I don't think anything - beyond organizational policy - would stop someone from selling boxes with GNU/Linux and a slate of non-libre codecs/drivers pre-installed.
I agree, that's pretty much added value... of a sort.
> Naturally, I would have to decline the extras. :-)
I'll take the 5th ;-)...
I agree, that's pretty much added value... of a sort.
> Naturally, I would have to decline the extras. :-)
I'll take the 5th ;-)...
jim! I'm shocked!
/me feigns shocked expression
bigg: I think it has less to do with OEMs than Matt's attitude.
/me feigns shocked expression
bigg: I think it has less to do with OEMs than Matt's attitude.
Personally I thought the bloke was talking through the back of his neck, and filed the article under "too silly for words"
> "too silly for words"
Well, absolutely.
Unfortunately, there are a slew of people who are writing this kind of half baked opinion pieces and trying to pass them off as articles. I could see that posted in a thread on LXer, but they'd never withstand criticism. So maybe it's just an attempt to avoid the critique?
Well, absolutely.
Unfortunately, there are a slew of people who are writing this kind of half baked opinion pieces and trying to pass them off as articles. I could see that posted in a thread on LXer, but they'd never withstand criticism. So maybe it's just an attempt to avoid the critique?
Quoting:and I don't see anything about the GPL. It's possible I'm overlooking something.
Always digging for facts, but not always deep enough :)
http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/ "This page details the licenses under which Mozilla source code can be obtained. All of the code which makes up the core Mozilla products is licensed under a MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-license or a licence compatible with all three of those (e.g. the BSD licence). Other code in our repository may have different licensing terms."
One of the links: "GNU General Public License The GPL is one of the licenses under which our code is available."
And later, in "Historical Documents": "Relicensing FAQ This document gives the details of the process we used to change the Mozilla source code from MPL or NPL to the current MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-licence."
> Always digging for facts, but not always deep enough :)
Well, I did say I might be overlooking something. Having made numerous mistakes in my life, I know better than to assume I'm always correct.
Well, I did say I might be overlooking something. Having made numerous mistakes in my life, I know better than to assume I'm always correct.
MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-licence sounds like it was made by Ronco. It's a floor wax! It's a dessert topping! Mmm, fresh bass!
"Honestly Matt, what _are_ you saying?"
Why Chief Don, that's easy: "I'm getting paid to spout twaddle, and you're not. Neener neener."
:-)
no you're not
"Am I nuts" asks Matt: Nah, you're not. You're just a clueless consumer who doesn't understand software licensing.
You think the only way to make your preciousssss hardware work is to bow down and include all that non-free crap nobody really needs that desperately. The alternative of re-releasing all that non-free crap as Free Software doesn't even come into your mind. It's been done before, you know. Look at mozilla, openoffice, slowlaris and even java.
If all these non-free drivers, flashy players and whatnot were GPL'ed, the dilemma you write about wouldn't exist in the first place.
See his spin on BSD? Well, isn't that just the stuff microsoft tries to brainwash us with all the time? One might get silly ideas...
Then come the nuggets of this article: "First off, BSD is an OS, not a distribution of any kind whatsoever." and "BSD has had one major success on the desktop for the casual user and that is with PC-BSD."
Oh thank you, Matt. Thank you so much. That's the ultimate proof to show you're clueless as a windows fanboi. No, I'm doing injustice to windows fanbois, most ms fanbois I know actually have some sound reasons to support their opinion with.
You think the only way to make your preciousssss hardware work is to bow down and include all that non-free crap nobody really needs that desperately. The alternative of re-releasing all that non-free crap as Free Software doesn't even come into your mind. It's been done before, you know. Look at mozilla, openoffice, slowlaris and even java.
If all these non-free drivers, flashy players and whatnot were GPL'ed, the dilemma you write about wouldn't exist in the first place.
See his spin on BSD? Well, isn't that just the stuff microsoft tries to brainwash us with all the time? One might get silly ideas...
Then come the nuggets of this article: "First off, BSD is an OS, not a distribution of any kind whatsoever." and "BSD has had one major success on the desktop for the casual user and that is with PC-BSD."
Oh thank you, Matt. Thank you so much. That's the ultimate proof to show you're clueless as a windows fanboi. No, I'm doing injustice to windows fanbois, most ms fanbois I know actually have some sound reasons to support their opinion with.
I don't know if we want to blame just him, though. Look at all the excitement we had that Flash 9 was released for Linux. Adobe screwed us repeatedly, did their best to support the Windows monopoly, and then Linux users rejoiced about getting a Flash Player that is old news on Windows.
I use it on some machines, but generally avoid using it if possible. I also let websites know whenever possible.
As you say, the problem is not the GPL. The problem is that there is still software that is not released under the GPL. If I were to slap my colleagues on the back of the head everytime they use Windows, they might be more open to using Linux, but that doesn't mean Windows is flawed.
I seriously doubt that most free software developers (myself included) would donate their time if someone could come along later, make a slight improvement on what we have done, and make it proprietary. My motivation is that the world is a better place, and my life is easier, if we have quality free software. If I don't have an assurance of reciprocity, I don't have a lot of motivation to share in the first place.
So my answer is that if someone prefers the proprietary world, leave my code alone and make a better proprietary product with your own effort. I do not write code simply so that other people can enjoy themselves. I do it to build a free software community. If that is not your goal, then you can use whatever license you want. But if I'm donating my time, I should be able to do as I wish with my code. I don't appreciate someone coming along later and saying "why don't you do X". I don't do X because I don't want to.
I use it on some machines, but generally avoid using it if possible. I also let websites know whenever possible.
As you say, the problem is not the GPL. The problem is that there is still software that is not released under the GPL. If I were to slap my colleagues on the back of the head everytime they use Windows, they might be more open to using Linux, but that doesn't mean Windows is flawed.
I seriously doubt that most free software developers (myself included) would donate their time if someone could come along later, make a slight improvement on what we have done, and make it proprietary. My motivation is that the world is a better place, and my life is easier, if we have quality free software. If I don't have an assurance of reciprocity, I don't have a lot of motivation to share in the first place.
So my answer is that if someone prefers the proprietary world, leave my code alone and make a better proprietary product with your own effort. I do not write code simply so that other people can enjoy themselves. I do it to build a free software community. If that is not your goal, then you can use whatever license you want. But if I'm donating my time, I should be able to do as I wish with my code. I don't appreciate someone coming along later and saying "why don't you do X". I don't do X because I don't want to.
Yye, the hype about The Flashy Nine Dead Flies is quite annoying, indeed. I must have spent the last ten years in the sahara or why is it that flash seems to have become teh killa application in them interwebs tubes nowadays? Oh, right, futube and my5h1t3 and googly vids are everthing the posh teenager has to be after these days.
There's a problem with flash, though: there's no comparable free format available yet. Well, actually there is SVG, but how many mature plugins can you get for that.....
There's a problem with flash, though: there's no comparable free format available yet. Well, actually there is SVG, but how many mature plugins can you get for that.....
There was a recent article that I can't find, that claimed the BSD license does not permit taking BSD code and locking it up in a closed, proprietary application. Anyone know the one I mean? It appeared in the past couple of weeks.
>claimed the BSD license does not permit taking BSD code and locking it up in a closed, proprietary application.
Depends on your definition of "locking it up".
You absolutely can use BSD code in a closed, proprietary application. You never need to provide source, etc.
However, you can't keep anybody else from using that BSD code, which, to me, is an essential element of "locking it up."
Depends on your definition of "locking it up".
You absolutely can use BSD code in a closed, proprietary application. You never need to provide source, etc.
However, you can't keep anybody else from using that BSD code, which, to me, is an essential element of "locking it up."
tuxchick, you're probably looking for this: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070114093427179
That article has been widely criticised, though. Even the University of California has denied the conclusions the article came up with.
That article has been widely criticised, though. Even the University of California has denied the conclusions the article came up with.
Quoting:There was a recent article that I can't find, that claimed the BSD license does not permit taking BSD code and locking it up in a closed, proprietary application. Anyone know the one I mean? It appeared in the past couple of weeks.
The article was flawed but the basic premesis is true. If you take a piece of BSD code and stick it in your closed source product, the code you took is *still* under the BSD license. It cannot be relicensed under a different license. But you can distribute it inside your differently licensed program as much as you want.
Practical example: If Novell gets to see Windows' source code, then they can grap the files from the TCP/IP stack, remove MS's changes (not needed if they are trivial) and publish it on the internet. MS can't complain because the BSD stack it took is *still* licensed under a BSD license. Just not MS's changes to it.
> If you take a piece of BSD code and stick it in your closed source product, the code you took is *still* under the BSD license.
Certainly that is the case because you don't own the code that you borrow from someone else.
Nonetheless, as an example that would never happen, I would not like Adobe to take my code, make a few changes, put it in the Flash Player and release Flash just for Windows, using it as a tool to aggressively attack Linux. They are able to build on what I have done, yet prevent me from accessing their small modifications. In that case I have little reason to share in the first place. I don't think the author of the article gets this point.
Certainly that is the case because you don't own the code that you borrow from someone else.
Nonetheless, as an example that would never happen, I would not like Adobe to take my code, make a few changes, put it in the Flash Player and release Flash just for Windows, using it as a tool to aggressively attack Linux. They are able to build on what I have done, yet prevent me from accessing their small modifications. In that case I have little reason to share in the first place. I don't think the author of the article gets this point.
> They are able to build on what I have done, yet prevent me from accessing their small modifications. In that case I have little reason to share in the first place. I don't think the author of the article gets this point.
And that's why folks who prefer the GPL use it rather than the BSD license.
And that's why folks who prefer the GPL use it rather than the BSD license.
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
I believe that binary kernel modules are violations of the GPL, but it's pretty clear that the kernel devs are not interested in making an issue of it. (Yet.) Lots of Linux distributions, including the too-sexy-for-its-shirt Ubuntu include binary kernel modules without having to implement "legal work-arounds" .
The guy is a troll, or ignorant and proud of it.