Submitted by The FSF today released version 3 of the GNU GPL, the popular free software license. “Since we founded the free software movement, over 23 years ago, the free software community has developed thousands of useful programs that respect the user’s freedom. The programs are in the GNU/Linux operating system, as well as personal computers, telephones, Internet servers, and more. Most of these programs use the GNU GPL to guarantee every user the freedom to run, study, adapt, improve, and redistribute the program,” said Richard Stallman, founder and president of the FSF. This article has some interesting replies from the BSD community (right in the middle).
all the bickering is over and now the licence can actually be used!
I really do hope linux (as in the kernal) adopts it else I fear it will be yet another potential licence that noone uses and all the ‘war of words’ will have been in vain.
Do you really think that? I’d imagine as time goes on and people have a chance to start using it, many will complain about things others rejoice.
Still, good to see it’s finally done.
already right now there are literally hundreds of quite high profile projects under gplv3.. because they are using “or later”. so its not like it wont be used.
me personally, i’ll use it aswell.
You have to wonder how many projects will stay permanantly on “GPL 2.0” basis.
When people license software under the GPL and use the “or later” clause, the use of this wording doesn’t imply retroactive changes to the licensing terms once a “later” revision of the GPL exists. The terms allows the users to distribute the licensed software under the new terms when they exist.
id est, now the gpl3 exists, all projects licensed under gpl2 or later are not automatically using the terms of gpl3. **the distributor of the software has to specify that they are offering the software under gplv3**.
“””
all the bickering is over and now
“””
You’re ever the optimist. I’ll give you that.
Well, it was till Thom linked to that sensationally bad article from the Jem Report: which is the product of a fairly clever piece of trolling, or astonishingly ignorant and adolescent reporting.
It is wrong in almost every respect, and written with what is a clear bias.
I’ve written already, but I’ll summarise some things here. The main issues with GPL v2 were
1) There were worries that it wouldn’t stand up in foreign jurisdictions. This was an issue as developers all over the world were using it
2) There were worries people could incorporate GPL code into their products, sell those products, and prevent people using their changes as required by the spirit, and in theory the letter, of the license by abusing either the patent or DRM systems.
The fear that it wouldn’t stand up abroad is why it was re-worded and why it now appears to be in legalese. The Jem Report author considers this to be a flaw, but what serious contract isn’t written in legalese?! If I have to choose a license for my software, I’d prefer legalese to English, as ultimately it’s lawyers that make the choice.
The patent and DRM restrictions are designed solely to plug the second loophole. They have been crafted after a lot of work. They do not seek to ban DRM entirely, only DRM that prevents you from reusing or altering the source-code to make derivative products.
All of this information is easily available from the Internet, and has been for some time. The GPL is not out to screw users, or to make cooperation impossible (indeed, they worked quite hard to try to make it compatible with the Apache license). It’s just out to do what it’s always done: protect those who share code from those who would try to use that code without sharing back. All that’s changed is it’s evolved to close new loopholes that have arisen.
The article was clearly written with a bias, without basic research, without consideration, and from what I can see, with a view to inflame passions. The question is, did OSAlert pick such a flawed inflammatory article out of incompetence, carelessness, or a malicious desire inflame passions among its readers to maintain levels of traffic..
Edited 2007-06-30 02:02
The article is not trolling, it as point of view different fron the FSF and I respect it, but of course, for you FSF puppets any infidel showing self will is a troll.
Bias is not to be avoided at any costs (like you avoid anthrax). We all have a bias of some sort. The author of the article openly admits it AND explains his bias. Articles like this one are actually great because they show us the standpoint of the author and because of that should not be flamed like you do. You seem to think that any bias except your own is not acceptable and that kind of attitude is what prevents compromises acceptable to all. Just as somebody has mentioned before: it’s an ego issue, not a software license issue.
Edited 2007-06-30 09:27
all the bickering is over and now the licence can actually be used!
I really do hope linux (as in the kernal) adopts it else I fear linux will be a kernel that noone uses and all the ‘war of words’ will have been in vain.
I don’t like GPLv3 and I really hope it fails and the true freedom prevails.
Honestly, I think that FSF is a dangerous cancer that is expanding, we have to stay together and fight it.
For the *Real* freedom.
Edit: typo
Edited 2007-06-29 23:47
if you aren’t happy with it don’t use it and stop trolling and/or spreading shit.
GNU FREE AS IN FREEDOM!
Edited 2007-06-30 00:01
Don’t you love these RMS puppets?
Free your mind.
The problem is I may be obligated to use it at one point because its viral nature will infect the software I use.
Plese, put an end to the FSF an its tirany.
For the *Real* freedom.
Freedom isn’t an absolute concept. There is no such thing as absolute freedom, because it would imply having the freedom to deny other people’s freedom.
Don’t like GPLv3? Don’t use it and don’t use software licensed with it. Problem solved.
Don’t like GPLv3? Don’t use it and don’t use software licensed with it. Problem solved.
Is not as easy as that, we often atack MS for imposing things with its Monopoly position, now we see the FSF imposing the GPLv3 with its GNU tools monopoly.
FSF must know that is not better that MS.
Oh for God’s sake. How are the two even remotely similar? If you don’t like GLPv3 then pick up a copy of all the GNU stuff that went out under GPLv2 and fork them and keep them GPLv2. You will still be able to do a lot of stuff with them, including the 4 fundamental freedoms imagined by RMS, which is a hell lot more than you can do if you don’t like the Microsoft EULA. Oh, don’t like GPLv2 either? Well tough break, the people who originally wrote those programs did. It’s the author’s right to choose a license and you can take it or leave it.
Honestly, if you don’t understand basic copyright issues and don’t even realise what your rights and limitations are, why speak up?
GNU tools monopoly?
Everyone can *rewrite* GNU tools with your preferred licence. You have full docs and source code. It’s not like Windows, that is deliberately made poorly interoperable and has undocumented syscalls. You are completely free to write yourself a 100% GCC-compliant C compiler under a BSD license -provided it doesn’t use significant chunks of GCC code, you can reuse the implementation. Also, *BSD folks would make a king of you.
If the GNU tools have a monopoly, it’s because:
– they work
– they are free
Who bothers writing a replacement, when everyone can hack and improve them?
You are completely free to write yourself a 100% GCC-compliant C compiler under a BSD license -provided it doesn’t use significant chunks of GCC code, you can reuse the implementation.
It’s just as well that Apple is writing clang, a C/C++/Objective C frontend to LLVM that will be released under the BSD license. Early tests have shown the C frontend runs 2.5 times faster than GCC and uses 10 times less memory during compilation, and doesn’t have a 20 year old codebase from hell like GCC.
By the way, one of the reasons that Apple is giving up on GCC is “politics”.
right, you can’t really complain that gnu doesn’t let you do everything you want with their own software. make your own compiler and make it bsd if you want!
who knows? it may turn out to be so good that linux would use it instead of gcc. That would be the best way to “get back” at FSF
@MORB
**The GPL is a distribution licence** and not a usage licence. You do not have to agree to anything in the GPL to use GPL software. You have to follow the GPL’s terms if you wish to **distribute** GPL software.
What a load.
No one is pointing a gun at your head forcing you to copy or link with GPL’d code or even use GPL’d programs.
I wonder how someone who has such qualms about the FSF & and their brand of free-software became so dependant on them. Perhaps one of those free loaders that came about once GNU/Linux started to gain prominence and had no problems utilizing the software born of the movement but the nerve to label the leaders as fascists –not that don’t have the right to do so–. But that’s just speculation.
If you’re really concerned though, I suggest one of the BSDs.
Edited 2007-06-30 01:04
Unfortunately, we’re seeing a backlash against the FSF, mainly due to these ex Windows refugees who are so used to the proprietary “you can’t do anything with the software” approach they show disdain for anything that tries to broaden their freedoms. I really wish those sorts would bugger off and go back to Windows and leave free software alone. They all want to seem to use, abuse the free software packages, and then demand/dictate that they get their own way and the FSF roll over to the proprietary software types. No thanks. Keep on keeping on FSF and RMS, you’re doing a sterling job, even if there’s a bunch of idiots out there that don’t understand the dangers surrouding free software in the modern world.
Dave
The only idiot here is you, and prolly I’ve used more time Free software than you, and now I see it in danger thanks to the FSF dictators.
How the hell did this get modded up? Hello guys, it contains an insult, and should be modded down – which is what I did. As Ripley said “excuse me, but have IQs dropped!”
Dave
Since a lot of software is marked as “GPL v2 or later” and (now) “GPL v3 or later”, here’s a GPL v4 that would make everyone happy:
—
GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE v4
1) The licensor gains an perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license to redistribute, modify, use, extend, implement, trnaslate, improve and relicense the software, in source and binary forms.
2) This software is provided “as is” and any express or implied warranties, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose are disclaimed. In no event shall the licensor or contributors be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special, exemplary, or consequential damages (including, but not limited to, procurement of substitute goods or services; loss of use, data, or profits; or business interruption) however caused and on any theory of liability, whether in contract, strict liability, or tort (including negligence or otherwise) arising in any way out of the use of this software, even if advised of the possibility of such damage.
—
We could call it the BPL (Best Possible License) or just the “Best License” for short. It’d sure solve a lot of headaches.
Congratulations, you’ve recreated the MIT/X11 and BSD licenses.
Your license is a non-copyleft. It doesn’t require the availability of corresponding source code. It doesn’t offer any protection from the aggressive use of patents. It doesn’t have any terminating conditions. It doesn’t establish any terms for retaining or modifying attribution. It doesn’t even declare copyright ownership, let alone require that it be retained.
I suggest you take a look at Apache 2. It’s the most reasonable non-copyleft, non-share-alike license in common use today. Imagine if the BSD license were actually written by lawyers instead of a bunch of academics doing their best. Copyright isn’t simple. We can pretend it is, but in the end, lawyers and judges are responsible for enforcing the intent of a license.
Your license is a non-copyleft. It doesn’t require the availability of corresponding source code. It doesn’t offer any protection from the aggressive use of patents. It doesn’t have any terminating conditions. It doesn’t establish any terms for retaining or modifying attribution. It doesn’t even declare copyright ownership, let alone require that it be retained.
Just needless cruft that I cleaned out.
It’s not needless cruft. It’s what makes the GPLv2/v3 what they are. Without it you cannot have the certainty that the derivative code will carry the same freedoms for others.
Not that what you propose is inherently bad, but it’s just not what some people want for their code. Lots of people, incidentally.
Honestly, I think that FSF is a dangerous cancer that is expanding,
No, proprietary software and the DRM-loving culture are the cancer.
Today Prince has been threatened by the recording industry with withdrawal of his albums from the shops for doing a deal with a British newspaper to release a CD free to its readers. Why the hell shouldn’t he do so if he wishes? It’s thanks to the if-it-moves-own-it culture to which proprietary software (and hardware) owes its existence that this kind of drivel persists. I say ‘drivel’, I mean ‘dangerous and extortionist drivel’.
No, you can pick DRM by choice, you have a choice, but GPLv3 is an imposition, is not free, it makes you a slave.
What complete and utter bullshit. Exactly who is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to use GPL3? And who says that if you have a piece of music that is DRM’ed, that the DRM is optional?
Please get a braincell before you post again.
The GPLv3 is doing, is cutting out my choice infecting the software I use.
I don’t want to be related to any GPLv3 crap.
Edited 2007-06-30 00:29
I don’t want to be related to any GPLv3 crap.
So don’t be. It’s not that FSF has some political power to force you to use GPLv3 against your will, is it? Use a different license for your software. It’s that simple.
You don’t have to use it – onya bike!
Dave
@Yuske
**The GPL is a distribution licence** and NOT a usage licence. You do not have to agree to anything in the GPL to use GPL software. You have to follow the GPL’s terms if you wish to **distribute** GPL software.
You can write DRM applications with GPLv3 … the only restriction is that you do not apply the DRM to the GPLv3 software itself.
There is no restriction to writing a Music Player (for example) that applies DRM to music files.
Not quite. You are allowed to have DRM in GPL3 software **as long as that DRM does not prevent users from practising their “free software rights” for that software**. For example, you are allowed to distribute GPL3 software that implements Windows Media DRM or Apple Fairplay DRM.
What you are not allowed with GPL3 is: implement any technical measure that prevents users from practising their “free software rights”. Tivo is the most famous example that uses DRM that prevents users from running modified copies of the licensed software. The DRM allows only Tivo blessed software to run on Tivo boxes and so, deprives users of the right to run software that is not blessed by Tivo.
Edited 2007-06-30 13:42
We already know the anti-DRM nature of GPLv3, what’s the point of repeating a million times the same game of words?
GPL3 only restricts DRM in **ONE** way (remember that number, 1): If your DRM prevents the “user’s right to free software” (for this software), you are not allowed to distribute this software.
The only need to repeat is is because you don’t seem to understand it when you are told.
So, once again, I repeat … GPLv3 does not prevent DRM to be applied to copyrighted works.
GPLv3 only prevents DRM being applied to GPLv3 software. Nothing more, that is it.
The GPLv3 document is a document all about GPLv3 software, and the intent to preserve four freedoms for anyone who receives that software.
The GPLv3 document says nothing at all about the application of a DRM system to, for example, music files or movies, or other proprietary software, or … whatever. The provisions of the GPL apply only to the software released under the GPL, and nothing else.
Get it? Capice? Coprenez? Do you finally understand?
How many times do people have to say this to you before you will get it?
So, once again, I repeat … GPLv3 does not prevent DRM to be applied to copyrighted works.
IT IS anti-drm because tries to invalidated it, at least admit it already.
Say what?
What in heavens name are you on about?
You make no sense at all.
Here, read it again:
“Some devices are designed to deny users access to install or run modified versions of the software inside them, although the manufacturer can do so. This is fundamentally incompatible with the aim of protecting users’ freedom to change the software. The systematic pattern of such abuse occurs in the area of products for individuals to use, which is precisely where it is most unacceptable. Therefore, we have designed this version of the GPL to prohibit the practice for those products.”
That is it, in a nutshell. The one thing you are not allowed to do is get the GPLv3 software from somebody, modify it so that it cannot be changed and sell it to another person. That is the only “ant-DRM” provision in the license, and the FSF are totoally up front about it, and the put this intent right at the front in clear view.
How is that in any way hypocritical?
Edited 2007-06-30 14:13
Because im tired of the the same game of words of “We are not anti-drm” and “you don’t like GPLv3 because you don’t understand it”, pure crap, worse than all the lawers crap in the world.
Rubbish.
I can’t make you like the GPLv3 license, but I am perfectly at liberty to point out that the reasons you give for not liking it are not correct.
I can’t help it if you don’t understand it, but I can and I will continue to point out that you don’t, and that your stated reasons for badmouthing the license and the GPL are utterly misguided.
And I can point you why the GPLv3 is the work of a bunch of dictators.
And I can’t help if you don’t understand it, that or if you want to keep being blinded by the FSF monopoly.
Where? Where is there any coercion in the GPLv3? Where is anyone forced to do anything?
Give me a quote, please (after all, I gave you one).
Put up or shut up.
Where? Where is there any coercion in the GPLv3? Where is anyone forced to do anything?
Give me a quote, please (after all, I gave you one).
The anti-drm crap, is not the FSF bussines to fight it but the consumer with the law, that makes the GPLv3 worse than DRM as Linus pointed and I agree.
The “embrace and extend” tactict they are using it other licenses, make it them Compatible with the GPLv3 but at the same time avoiding them to interact with it like the Apache license.
And I could go on.
Pure MS tactics.
Sigh! Not that again.
The FSF write a license template. They call it the GPL. People who write software may, or may not, like to use the FSF’s template license to cover the software that they write.
The FSF also has some software of its own, that forms a critical part of Linux distributions. The FSF get to set the license terms for their own software.
Very much … this is EXACTLY the business of the FSF.
Please explain how you think it is not the FSF’s business to say how the FSF’s software may and may not be distributed by others?
Rubbish.
Linus was originally mistaken about this, and has said that he now understands GPLv3 and has now only one quibble: it is too hard for Linux to get all the authors of pieces of the kernel to agree to change to GPLv3, and he does not see enough benefit to make it worth the effort.
He may yet be convinced otherwise.
Edited 2007-06-30 14:52
Linus was originally mistaken about this, and has said that he now understands GPLv3 and has now only one quibble: it is too hard for Linux to get all the authors of pieces of the kernel to agree to change to GPLv3, and he does not see enough benefit to make it worth the effort
You are taking that words out of context, congratualtion I read that artcile too, do you wan’t me to quote what he replied to a FSF advocated later in the newsletter?.
Now explain me why is the FSF bussines to mess with the hardware or why is not a lame tactict to use the “embrase an extend” method MS use?
You keep saying this, but you utterly fail to say why you say it. The GPL does not “mess with the hardware”.
“Embrace and extend” is explained (reasonably well) here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace%2C_extend%2C_and_extin…
“strategy for entering product categories involving widely used standards, extending those standards with proprietary capabilities, and then using those differences to disadvantage its competitors”
I can’t begin to think how the GPLv3 license is in any way like this at all. I’d be interested in your explanation of how GPLv3 allows people to extend something with proprietary capabilities. This should be good.
Once again you make no sense whatsoever.
You keep saying this, but you utterly fail to say why you say it. The GPL does not “mess with the hardware”.
Yes it does but is hiden in a game of words in the evil GPLv3 license.
I can’t begin to think how the GPLv3 license is in any say like this at all. I’d be interested in your explanation of how GPLv3 allows people to extend something with proprietary capabilities. This should be good.
They also say that you can’t take something w/o returning something in exchange, but with the lame “embrace and extend” they are doing it, they fail to respect the license they created
GPLv3 is evil and a dictadorship work, no doubd.
Edited 2007-06-30 15:22
And BTW, the fact of not being a puppet of the FSF doesn’t make me DRM lover, I don’t like DRM eather so stop making FUD.
You’re the only FUDmeister here, you lying SOB. I did NOT say you were in favour of DRM, and just because you like the GPL (whichever version), it does not make you “a puppet of the FSF”.
You was the first to bring the DRM subject, I dind0t mentioned, but as the FSF puppet you are, you automaticly mentioned, and I bet you are going to mention software patents next, you all are guided the RMS bible.
Which says nothing about being able to own your own IP, as is your right. That recent problem of Prince’s says nothing about having the ability to own your own work, and everything about signing the rights to your work away to a large group who doesn’t have your interests at heart.
… hmm. A paper comparing the actions of the FSF and the RIAA might be a interesting article to research and write, someday…
If you want to give your software away for free, use BSD. If you want to share your software, use the GPL.
Software under the GPL is not free. Microsoft office is not free, you have to pay Microsoft money. The Borland developer tools are not free, you have to pay Borland (or whatever they’re called these days).
Lastly, software released under the GPL is not free: if you choose to copy and paste GPL code into your own program you have to share it. This is how you pay for GPL code. This is a very egalitarian idea: I share my code, and if you use it in your own program, you pay me back by sharing your code or else you ask me to relicense the code under a different license to suit your needs (which was always possible).
To make sure no-one can escape sharing (after all, this is how they’re paying to use the software), GPL v3 requires the following
(a) You make the source code available
(b) You don’t use patents to prevent people from using your code, which would effectively block code-sharing despite (a)
(c) You don’t use DRM to prevent people from using your code, which would effectively block code-sharing, like (a)
The GPL is no more viral than any commercial license, the only difference is in how you pay to use the software. And it’s always worth remembering that you don’t have to share until you distribute the source-code (and as corporations are legal entities, you can give a copy to all your 1000-odd co-workers without legally distributing it). It’s further worth remembering that if this is a problem, you can always ask the original author to re-license their work under a commercial license if you would rather not share.
This GPL is viral/evil/not-as-cool-as-BSD thing is rubbish. It does what it sets out to do: encourage people to share code. There’s no excuse for “accidentally” using GPL code in your own software, just as there’s no excuse for “accidentally” installing a pirated copy of MS Office on your friends PC. Both place value on software, and if you choose to use it in a certain way, then you have to pay for them: the only difference is in how you pay.
This is easily the most sane, balanced and well-written BSD/GPL comparison I have ever read.
You deserve a 10.
A very good and still simple comparison, thank you. Just to put it into a formal setting:
BSD -> use for free, as long as BSDL code copyright is retained
GPLv2 -> use and contribute back
GPLv3 -> use, contribute back and don’t use patents / DRM
Commercial -> use and pay money
The GPLv3 extends the requirements of the v2, while the BSDL has lower requirements than GPLv2 and v3.
=> BryanFeeney.mod++;
GPL3 is written in *exactly* the same spirit as GPL2. The essence of all GNU GPLs are:
* The concept of conveying the four freedoms of free software to all licensees
* The concept of ensuring that the licensees of GPLed software will not “subjugate” other users i.e., the GPL has language that prevents licensees from distributing the GPLed software as proprietary software.
The major changes in GPL3 are:
* Tighter wording of the language of GPL2 to facilitate international enforcement of the licence.
* Explicit declaration of terms that were present but only implied in GPL2
Totally agree, yet when Linus says this, the FSF crowd criticizes him for not understanding the “spirit” of the GPL.
Ah, well, now we’re on a different page. Using DRM to prevent people from using your code is already prevented by the GPL. What v3 does is prevent hardware manufacturers from using DRM to restrict the GPL code that can run on it, if they are distributing GPL code as part of their product. And there we have the big split between the kernel devs and the FSF. Tivoisation.
The GPL v2 requires anyone using GPL v2-licensed code to provide source for any modifications they make to the code they distribute.
The GPL v3 requires anyone using GPL v3-licensed code as part of their product to provide a method for anyone to modify the code running on their product for their own requirements.
In other words, GPL v3 would prevent linux from being used as an embedded solution for things like Tivo, cell phones, media centers, networking gear etc. unless those manufacturers intentionally permitted their hardware to be “hacked”. The fact that the companies utilizing the GPL software provide back all of their modifications to the benefit of the community is immaterial, because the community demands the exclusive right to modify the hardware as they see fit.
In an ideal world, this wouldn’t be a problem. There would be nothing like FCC regulations on wireless that force manufacturers to intentionally obfuscate interfaces to prevent modification that could permit wireless use outside of regulations. The content owners wouldn’t have such control over governmental regulation that they could impose such strict controls over the right of companies to be able to present that content. Companies like Tivo would be able to utilize linux as a means to deliver a relatively cheap service for customers without being forced to give those customers the right to take that service at will. But this isn’t an ideal world.
As Linus pointed out several times, Linux isn’t about changing the world for philosophical reasons. It’s about providing the best possible open solution in the face of real world conditions. Compromises permitting commercial and community benefit are provided by v2, not so much by v3.
That’s the difference.
v2 is about “can’t we all just get along?”; v3 is about “no, we can’t”.
Edited 2007-06-30 01:24 UTC
Totally agree, yet when Linus says this, the FSF crowd criticizes him for not understanding the “spirit” of the GPL.
“Letter” and “spirit” comprise an idiom with a long-established meaning that vested interests like to twist. In particular, dictionaries indicate that the letter and spirit of any rule or document are solely determined by the intent of its authors. Thus, either Linus agrees that the spirit of the GPL is what the GPL’s authors, the FSF, would agree with, or Linus had better not refer to the “spirit of the GPL” if he wishes to be correct.
As Linus pointed out several times, Linux isn’t about changing the world for philosophical reasons. It’s about providing the best possible open solution in the face of real world conditions. Compromises permitting commercial and community benefit are provided by v2, not so much by v3.
Whatever Linus is pointing out, it applies to at most his own projects, such as the kernel and git. Moreover, your opinion regarding “best” and “benefit” is unsupported. E.g., a benefit to Tivo does not necessarily come without harm to a community.
Edited 2007-06-30 01:52
An amusing argument, I’d enjoy watching you argue it in front of a judge. At any rate, Linus has never referred to the “spirit” of the GPL. In fact, he’s gone out of his way to point out that “spirit” is immaterial to the actual content of the license.
Thank you for acknowledging that. Most v3 proponents would deny that Linus is entitled to point out his interpretation of the license as it applies to his own little project. Secondly, your denial of my opinion regarding “best” and “benefit” is unsupported. E.g., a benefit to Tivo does not necessarily come with harm to a community.
Most v3 proponents would deny that Linus…
And you base this claim on what data? Moreover, I qualified what Linus is saying with “at most”; after all, whatever Linus claims does not necessarily reflect how other kernel developers feel. In particular, Alan Cox fundamentally disagrees with Linus’ opinion about GPLv3, especially with regard to Tivo.
E.g., a benefit to Tivo does not necessarily come with harm to a community.
Yes, it comes with a demonstrated harm, namely to anyone whose priority is the four freedoms. I.e., any such person, including myself, has an interest in not seeing harm to the four freedoms done by Tivo using GPLed software. Moreover, a prominent Linux kernel developer, Alan Cox, has shown only negative reactions about what Tivo has done. Thus, your opinion about “best” and “benefit” is very much open to question.
Alan Cox does question Linus’ opinion of Tivo, and he originally questioned Linus’ assertion about the kernel being v2 only based on the license, but he hasn’t questioned his viewpoint on v3.
I would argue that people that value the four freedoms shouldn’t be using linux since Linus has stated ad infintum that he doesn’t care about the FSF philosophy, therefore I would assert that any harm occurring to you personally deriving from your inability to hack a Tivo is irrelevant to the world at large. If you want an altar, bend you knee at the temple of Hurd which was actually created in your ideals, rather than inflicting your personal values upon a group of people who collectively disagree with you.
Tivo produced a product that they thought the market would value, and the market agreed. They didn’t produce a product that the market was forced to adopt. The theoretical arguments about Tivo hacking ring hollow in the real world because a reasonable person would not purchase a Tivo with the intent to hack it. Therein lies the disconnect, you guys are willing to disrupt the system on the basis of a theoretical violating, whereas the pragmatic types accept Tivoisation as simply a side-effect of the GPL, but an acceptable one since Tivo publishes all of their mods.
True, Alan Cox has taken exception to Tivoistation, and in his opinion he thinks they violated it with v2, since he considers the BIOS key for the kernel to be derived work. But that opinion has been disputed by many other developers, and more to the point, if AC has an issue, he can take it to the courts. Neither you nor the FSF can. And that’s the point you guys always seem to miss. You’re not actually creating code, for the most part, you’re simply dictating what the developers should do with it.
Alan Cox does question Linus’ opinion of Tivo, and he originally questioned Linus’ assertion about the kernel being v2 only based on the license, but he hasn’t questioned his viewpoint on v3.
AC, in response to Linus:
—-
> licensing under the GPLv3, though. All I’ve heard are shrill voices about
> “tivoization” (which I expressly think is ok) and panicked worries about
GPLv2 probably forbids Tivoisation anyway. Which is good IMHO even if not yours 8)
—-
AC clearly opposes Tivoization, so it hard, especially in light of his recent positive remarks on GPLv3, to see any room for him to disagree with GPLv3’s anti-Tivoization provisions. He is fundamentally at odds with LT on a point on GPLv3 that they both believe to be a central issue. Thus, as I claimed originally, LT does not speak for some important kernel developers on GPLv3. AC will go along with GPLv2, but not as any particular preference but more just to get along.
And that’s the point you guys always seem to miss. You’re not actually creating code, for the most part, you’re simply dictating what the developers should do with it.
What they do with their code is clearly their business. People can complain all they want, and the developers can ignore it. However, I don’t care so much about the fate of the code as the fate of the license. They are important users of the GPL license, and as such, their actions and statements carry weight. If they could at least switch to a non-GPL license, at least they could be ignored in an important way. Otherwise, skepticism in the current situation is warranted.
E.g., if they expect people to respect their “intent” that others have no say at all in, then they should also respect the unique “spirit of the GPL.” It’s a criticism of their rhetoric; your previous comments about court proceedings misses this point.
v2 is about “can’t we all just get along?”; v3 is about “no, we can’t”.
Very true. GPLv3 is the coming of age of an idealistic social movement that has finally discovered that they have placed too much faith in humanity. The way of man is to lie, cheat, and steal his way to power. So what do we do about it?
Jem makes the tempting comparison to American technofascism, but this is straw-man. How can RMS speak out against the Patriot Act and then draft a restrictive license? Simple. The Patriot Act was the inevitable result of their being no law against legislation of this sort. There’s a law against the government spying on citizens (which has been ignored, but that’s another story), but nobody ever thought to prevent the government from requiring citizens to spy on other citizens.
The GPLv2 assumed that, like a constitution, a framework for guiding the judgment of right and wrong would be sufficient for enforcing its intent. But we live in a world where governments around the world, especially the U.S., have found ways to make their constitutions increasingly irrelevant. Our civil liberties are disappearing at an alarming rate. Checks and balances are following suit. And since it’s so politically expedient for Congress to declare war on things like drugs and terrorism, there’s no reason why the executive branch can’t operate under the War Powers Act at all times.
So what to we do about it? How can we restore civility to a world that has ceased to honor the principles that underly its laws? It’s clear to me that a copyright license alone cannot correct several decades of legal precedent and human nature. But it can be a step in the right direction. It’s not easy to watch as freedom, democracy, and human rights are used as justification for their own demise. But that doesn’t mean we should become complacent, and in fact, complacency will only make matters worse.
Software is as good a domain as any to begin to take back our freedom. Some people say that the GPLv3 adds restrictions that counteract freedom, but I disagree. The GPLv3 adds responsibilities to protect freedom. A device vendor that restricts the modification of its software is not protecting freedom. If they don’t wish to protect freedom, then they can use non-GPL software.
What we’ve learned from history is that if freedom is not protected, it is gradually eliminated. We are taught today that we must give up certain freedoms to protect others, but this is wrong. The truth is that the only way to protect freedom is to make it our collective and personal responsibility to protect freedom.
It’s a tough sell, especially for corporations that perceive their only responsibility is the one to their shareholders. They’ll do everything they can to protect their bottom line. The GPLv2 was fine for developers with an interest in protecting freedom. But now that the GPL community includes various business interests, the only way to hold them accountable for protecting freedom is to make it their legal responsibility. We can’t trust them to do what’s right. Hence the GPLv3.
The way I understand it, the GPL3 doesn’t prevent anyone from implementing restrictive DRM. It just forbids the licensee to sue anyone who breaks it (thus mitigating the DMCA in the USA, for example). This seems to be a very popular misunderstanding.
Public domain is even better if you want to give your code away. It’s been known that certain companies have manged to not comply with the BSD license. How lazy are you if you can’t comply with that?
Copyrights, patents, software licenses, and other intellectually property have slowly whittled away the commons of culture and the freedoms of the individual. The GPL sets out to use the framework of software license to make them more free, as does the BSD, but they go about it in different ways.
In the world of copyright, the GPL is more like one of the Creative Commons Licenses, because CCL uses the framework of copyright to grant more freedoms than you’d otherwise have. All this GPLv3 talk would be unnecessary if companies didn’t use the letter of the GPL to undermine the spirit of the GPL and/or new problems didn’t arise.
(c) You don’t use DRM to prevent people from using your code, which would effectively block code-sharing, like (a)
First of all I want to say that your post was great and I largely agree with what you said.
However I want to comment on the above point. Tivo (and others) never used DRM to stop people from using their GPL’d code, they wouldn’t be allowed to do so under GPLv2 and it would have stupid of them to even try. You could take the code and use it in any way you wanted within the scope of GPLv2. No problems at all.
What they tried to stop you from was run your own binaries on the hardware they sold you. So you could take their code, change it, include it in your own project, compile and run it without restrictions, as long as you ran it on some other piece of hardware.
I am sharing your wonderful comment on my blog. If you don’t like it, please contact me.
Indeed, this is. However, note that this does NOT mean this is a fair trade. If you think otherwise, let us trade “metal for metal”: You sent me a ton of gold while I sent you a pound of lead.
You see, trading “stuff for stuff” is not necessarily fair. The problem is what “prices” are charged. and the evaluation of what constitutes a ‘fair’ price usually differs.
The GPL requests people to publish modifications to awork under the GPL if they are distributed at all. This could be considered an acceptable — and thus “fair” — price. After all, you can’t claim to be able to make an income from this code, since much of it is not yours.
But the GPL also requests that independent works — namely “extensions” to a GPL code (for example, “plug-ins to a framework”, “applications to libraries”, etc.) — are to be published under a compatible license as well. I believe the correct GPL3 clause is “You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy.” Here, the price gets unreasonable.
For example, Adobe may be required to publish Photoshop under the GPL3, if they would need to use a GPL3 library. In other words, Adobe would be required to pay a fee by giving up its license income for Photoshop. That would be millions of dollars. Of course, Adobe would not do this but write their own library or license a different one for the usual market prices.
In the long run, the more libraries use GPL3, the less attractive is a port of Photoshop (or any other closed-source applications) to Linux. As a result, users will pay the final price: Either because their are required to use a additional, completely non-free operating system, or because they have to pay Adobe and others for the development of the additional libraries.
Of course, from the point of view of the GNU project –spreading their definition of software “freedom” –, this is not a problem. For others — people with different ethical positions — this is counter-productive and unnecessary.
You don’t need to accept other people’s position here. But please note that the payment scheme of the GPL is not a very egalitarian idea; for it treats users differently, and discriminates those who don’t share the FSF’s definition of “software freedom”.
In the long run, the more libraries use GPL3, the less attractive is a port of Photoshop (or any other closed-source applications) to Linux. As a result, users will pay the final price: Either because their are required to use a additional, completely non-free operating system, or because they have to pay Adobe and others for the development of the additional libraries.
This is correct. Stallman’s goal is a completely free OS with applications. He does not want an OS with proprietary applications.
I’m not sure that Stallman is right. It seems better to have an OS which can be used for everything, not only Free Software.
There are many things wrong with that theory.
First, the vast majority of libraries are licensed under the LGPL, and not the GPL, so the point is likely moot.
Second, you shouldn’t single out version 3 of the GPL in that example. A library licensed under GPLv2 would have the same effect.
Third, why on earth would Adobe use a copyleft library for Photoshop? I’m pretty sure they would use their own libraries, or libraries not under a copyleft license (or a limited copyleft license, such as the LGPL).
Finally, if Adobe *really* wanted to use that rare beast which is a GPLed library, they could always ask the authors to relicense it to them.
Again, there are many misconceptions in this paragraph. Users are not treated differently because of the GPL, but because of copyright law. Copyright has no effect on *use* of software, only in its copying and subsequent redistribution (hence the “copy” in “copyright”). The GPL, which is based on copyright law, could not dictate to users how they could use the software. They can, however, dictate conditions on redistribution, because the GPL grants additional rights compared to normal “fair use” rights as stipulated by copyright law.
Second, the GPL doesn’t discriminate about anyone. It applies equally to all, irregardless of one’s beliefs about software freedom. That’s because it is a legal document, and sets conditions for redistribution of the copyrighted material. Someone could disagree with RMS, and think the FSF are a bunch of kooks, and he would still have the *exact* same rights as a diehard FSF fan with regards to a GPLed piece of software.
Therefore, contrary to what you claim, the GPL is *very* egalitarian, because it ensures that the code and its derivatives will be distributed with the same freedoms as the ones desired by the original author(s). Does the GPL curtail the freedom of those who want to produce closed-source derivatives? Indeed it does. But it also protects the rights of the original copyright holder about what can be done with the code, and therefore protect the author’s freedom from having their IP be used for closed-source software.
This is why the GPL is as free as, say, the BSDL, but in a different way – because freedom is *never* absolute, and in order to guarantee some freedoms, you need to curtail other freedoms (as someone pointed out, to guarantee the freedom to live, you have to curtail the freedom to murder).
“This is why the GPL is as free as, say, the BSDL, but in a different way – because freedom is *never* absolute, and in order to guarantee some freedoms, you need to curtail other freedoms (as someone pointed out, to guarantee the freedom to live, you have to curtail the freedom to murder).”
That’s right and that’s why many people will prefer microsoft, because it is much easier to use than linux and yet available on most x86 computers and other people will favor Apple which has even more restrictions because they feel it works better than anything. they also see Apple as a strike back against Microsoft because to them OS choice is more important than hardware choice or source code availability
That has absolutely *nothing* to do with what I was saying. Are you sure you replied to the correct post?
Note: Windows is not easier to use than Linux when compared in similar settings (i.e. preinstalled and configured). The fact is that people will use what comes with their PCs, and many people are unaware of what Linux is (heck, many people still don’t understand the concept of an OS – a non-technical friend of mine often refers to MS Word as “Windows”…)
For many people, Apple is about brand identification and visual design. I know the reason I would buy a MacBook is because they are *beautiful*, not necessarily to use OSX (I would probably install Linux and Windows in a triple-boot configuration).
You haven’t been keeping up, have you?
Windows is not easier to use than Linux.
Linux will happily run on “most x86 computers”, and it will run on nearly everything from wristwatches through to mainframes as well, … Oh, and it will even run on Macs.
Linux will run on a lot more computers than Vista or OSX will run on.
OSX and Vista both cost a lot more than Linux does.
While the FreeBSD OS has replaced some GNU software with BSD software (e. g. tar == gnutar is now == bsdtar), I think the FreeBSD will soon have to form an opinion about the GPLv3 and its possible results to the OS.
In the article, the most notable statement from the FreeBSD core team is this one, in my opinion:
Because GPLv3 has not yet been finalized, it would be premature to draw conclusions about how it will affect our project; obviously, we will follow events closely as they unfold.
I would be interested in a more actual statement.
Something generic at last: Freedom implies the responsibility to enlarge one’s freedom just as much as it does not interfere with the freedom of others. While some licenses, and I think the GPL is one of them, explicitely prohibits several options (or grants other options as long as certain circumstances are met), the BSD license is very liberal, very free. It even allows commercial or closed-source re-use, which the GPL does not allow.
[The liberal BSD open source license] allows unlimited open and closed-source reuse of our software.
This encourages the responsible developer to think about how he uses BSD licensed code, the “good” or the “evil” way…
About the GPLv3: Because it does not interfere with the GPLv2, I think it will not spread very fast, but I think many v2 projects will change to the v3 license within a finite amount of time. If this will be “good” or “bad”… we’ll see. Personally, I’m not against GPLv2, GPLv3 or BSDL, because all of them have their place to exist and their chances to develop.
Thank God for the few sane people left on Earth, what with everybody out there digging themselves in trenches. The article from the BSD community talks about some drastic ‘effects’ the GPL 3 might have on their projects. Excuse me, but how exactly does GPL 3 affect their kernel or userland? The GNU toolchain for instance, how does it affect the code created by using it? I think they will still be free to license their code under their will, just as they were in case of GPL 2.
People who are talking about GPL 3 as if it were some calamity were any way against GPL in general. They are just sharpening their saws. And among the anti-GPL3 comments, was one made by a person who is against free software in general! I wonder which of the BSD lovers modded him up.
I am license neutral just as the parent (and I am in favour of logical criticism). Just a small observation though. The new GPL 3 take away freedoms from the developer but gives more to the user (the user is able to modify and run code on embedded systems using GPL 3 for instance), hence it’s claim to be a ‘free’ license.
Both the GPL and the BSD camps (as well as other license camps) have produced excellent code. And they have coexisted, and they always will. If you don’t like GPL, don’t use it. And if you have never liked it, no use raising your voices now, you have your alternatives.
Edited 2007-06-30 00:40
“Excuse me, but how exactly does GPL 3 affect their kernel or userland?”
In no regards, of course. An effect might occur for GPLed parts of the BSD OS which move from GPLv2 to GPLv3, maybe… The kernel is BSDL and stays BSDL, but there “still” are GPLed parts in the userland, such as /usr/bin/info.
“The GNU toolchain for instance, how does it affect the code created by using it? I think they will still be free to license their code under their will, just as they were in case of GPL 2.”
I think so, too.
“I wonder which of the BSD lovers modded him up.”
BSDL licensed software is free software par excellence.
“I am license neutral just as the parent. Both the GPL and the BSD camps (as well as other license camps) have produced excellent code.”
Just as a sidenote, there are licenses that are similar to both GPL and BSDL (I think the Mozilla project uses such a license) and there’s still the option to dual-license source code as long as there’s no conflict by content.
“And they have coexisted, and they always will. If you don’t like GPL, don’t use it.”
If a developer decides what to do with his source code (hide it, make it GPLv2/v3, BSDL or his own license), he is – of course – free in his decision as long as possible conclusions from a prior license apply (GPLv2 for instance). And it’s completely okay for a developer to decide if and in which way his work may be a base for other developers, or even if a company may benefit and profit from his work (such as the BSDL allows).
“And if you never liked it, no use raising your voices now, you have your alternatives.”
The alternatives to GPLv2 always existed and keep existing while GPLv3 is ready for use.
As you said: If you don’t like it – don’t use it.
I may add: Use the right tool for every task. Decide by yourself. Judge from and educated and healthy background.
The GPLv3 is an important license, and it will surely be able to help developing further great free software.
” Personally, I’m not against GPLv2, GPLv3 or BSDL, because all of them have their place to exist and their chances to develop. ”
true, but are not the GPLv2 and the BSDL left open for possibly patent attacks,lawsuits from companies like Microsoft, something the GPLv3 tries to be immune too?
People, this is about software.
Something most people are hardly aware exists.
So whence this passionate animosity (on both sides)? Speaking of FSF as a “cancer”?
Who’s forcing anyone to use this license or the software it covers?
My disclaimer is that I’m more or less on the GNU side.
However, the Jem Report article on the GPLv3 did make me think about it. Some of that license language sounds pretty bizarre (maybe that’s only before someone translates it to you?).
Where, religion?
In the name of justice, the sharks craft a language that is unintelligible to the common person.
Give them a single sheet of paper, a 10 point font, (A4 or 8.5×11, whichever) and tell them to use one side in the Ernest Hemingway fashion, or go away.
The legal system and these licenses, themselves, need a dose of practical freedom.
Ok, here it is on one side of paper:
< http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/readsay.html?filename=gplv3-draft-… >
funny article…
no big steaming pile of nonsense here….
not about US being free, it is about the code being free….
What a fair & neutral article to commemorate the release.
I feel like I’ve been FOX News’d.
“A contributor’s “essential patent claims” are all patent claims owned or controlled by the contributor, whether already acquired or hereafter acquired, that would be infringed by some manner, permitted by this License, of making, using, or selling its contributor version, but do not include claims that would be infringed only as a consequence of further modification of the contributor version. For purposes of this definition, “control” includes the right to grant patent sublicenses in a manner consistent with the requirements of this License.”
With this clause they should not. The shareholders to which they are beholden would be up in arms. All the patents IBM has would become public property then. Nice religion RMS has.
Jem’s point was that this language is too complex for normal people to understand. But increasingly I think the problem is that people are just too stupid. Both Jem and you grossly misunderstand this patent provision.
A contributor’s essential patent claims only include the patents exercised in the work that they themselves distribute. They are not obligated to waive any rights to patents not exercised in the software they distribute, and neither are they prohibited from filing patent claims against downstream distributors whose modifications infringe additional patents. Additionally, if the patents exercised in the contributor’s work are infringed in a non-derivative work, including any non-GPLv3 work, the contributor retains the right to file patent claims against the infringing distributor.
In short, the only patent right waived by a patent-holding contributor is the right to file claims against distributors and recipients of derivative works for exercising the same patents exercised in the contributed work.
Read the language again. It’s not that hard to understand. Jem draws a distinction between the ability of lawyers and developers to understand the GPLv3. Jem is neither a developer nor a lawyer. If he were, he might understand that programming and litigating are both occupations in applied logic. Any developer with the language skills necessary to file a patent application would be able to understand the GPLv3. The rest most likely don’t have anything to worry about.
I quoted:
“A contributor’s “essential patent claims” are all patent claims owned or controlled by the contributor, whether already acquired or hereafter acquired, that would be infringed by some manner, permitted by this License, of making, using, or selling its contributor version, but do not include claims that would be infringed only as a consequence of further modification of the contributor version. For purposes of this definition, “control” includes the right to grant patent sublicenses in a manner consistent with the requirements of this License.”
You said:
“In short, the only patent right waived by a patent-holding contributor is the right to file claims against distributors and recipients of derivative works for exercising the same patents exercised in the contributed work.”
Same thing. The owner of the patent basically gives up the right to the patents. I could be looking at this wrong, but I don’t think so. The right to file claims is the SAME as giving up the patent. It would make no sense to have a patent if you can not enforce the patent. The only way to enforce a patent is to file claims against it. This provision says you can not do that. It only takes a grasp of the English language, which I know you have. I may have misunderstood it, yes, but in this case I do not think so. I am not “stupid” by any means. Stupid people generally end up with Darwin awards
. I respect your opinions and posts.
You said:
All the patents IBM has would become public property then. Nice religion RMS has.
Which is flat out wrong. First, they only waive rights on the specific patents exercised in the GPLv3 works they distribute. They don’t become public property. Rather, sub-licenses are granted to recipients of derivative works.
The right to file claims is the SAME as giving up the patent.
No, it isn’t. The patent holder retains the patent, and they can file claims on it if it is infringed in a non-derivative work. They are only giving up certain rights to certain patents. Your simplification is wrongification, and it is a source of anti-GPLv3 FUD.
I apologize for the “stupid” remark. Being wrong doesn’t imply stupidity.
“Which is flat out wrong. First, they only waive rights on the specific patents exercised in the GPLv3 works they distribute. They don’t become public property. Rather, sub-licenses are granted to recipients of derivative works.”
I do believe you are correct after re-reading it through. Apparently I missed a couple words when I read through it the first time.
Linus will protect Linux. He has always displayed a very level head. He will take care of Linux. I worry about Sun figuring out what is best.
now i wanna see what will happened with Microsoft deals…
Lets see Novell position ;P
Er, Novell’s position is that since the GPL v3 specifically permits their agreement with Microsoft, it’s a non-event. Have you been keeping up with the developments, or did you stop following it sometime last year?
The Jem Report article–to be polite–betrays a poor understanding of the FSF, among other topics. Sadly, I am unsurprised that OSAlert links to such drivel.
Far more intelligent, informed, and even entertaining is a four-part series of FAQs written by a non-FSF, ex-Novell guy, Luis Villa:
http://tieguy.org/blog/2007/06/26/gpl-v3-the-qa-part-1-the-license/
Enjoy!
The Jem Report article–to be polite–betrays a poor understanding of the FSF, among other topics. Sadly, I am unsurprised that OSAlert links to such drivel.
A poor understanding of the FSF?
What the hell are you talking about?, the guy just hit nthe nail with the truth.
To the FSF, “Don’t agree” == “Don’t understand”. it’s a comfortably patronizing attitude. If you don’t kneel at the altar of the four freedoms, you’re simply ignorant and subsequently shunned. Don’t sweat it, many of us have been there.
To the FSF, “Don’t agree” == “Don’t understand”. it’s a comfortably patronizing attitude.
Nonsense. This contradicts Stallman’s public sentiments about important players, such as Microsoft, who disagree yet understand. E.g.,
“Microsoft’s lawyers are not stupid, and next time they may manage to avoid those mistakes. GPLv3 therefore says they don’t get a “next time”.”
OTOH, that disagreement can accompany misunderstanding is not mere dogma but well recognized from those outside the FSF:
http://tieguy.org/blog/2006/09/22/what-the-kernel-guys-got-wrong/
Moreover, you are in effect suggesting in this context that the Jem Report article does show understanding of the FSF.
It’s easy to show that this suggestion is wrong. From the article:
“We will look back on this and say that June 29, 2007 was the day when the Free Software Foundation jumped the shark, creating an impassable chasm where there was already an uncomfortable rift between the Free Software Foundation and GNU Project…”
The only “chasms” and “rifts” between GNU and FSF are in Jem’s imagination, as we see from the GNU home page:
“The GNU project supports the mission of the FSF to preserve, protect and promote the freedom to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute computer software, and to defend the rights of Free Software users.”
If Jem had simply acknowledged at least in some remote and general way the freedoms that the FSF promotes and how in his opinion it need to compromise them (even Linus tacitly acknowledges as much), then I could at least grant that he has shown a basic understanding of the FSF.
You are quoting out of context. The full quote from the article is: “We will look back on this and say that June 29, 2007 was the day when the Free Software Foundation jumped the shark, creating an impassable chasm where there was already an uncomfortable rift between the Free Software Foundation and GNU Project, and the larger free software and open source worlds.”
That means that The GNU/FSF have caused a rift between their definition of freedom (which means lots of restrictions and an unreadable license) and the rest of the free software world (Linux, BSD, Apache, thousands of other projects). This was already an uncomfortable situation before, but now it is intolerable.
The new license adds restrictions that make it more difficult for free software operating system projects like the BSDs to include important programs like GCC and GDB. There are no decent free replacements for these programs, so if they go restriction-heavy ala the GPLv3, free software operating systems that choose not to bow to the many restrictions of the GPLv3 are screwed until they can write a BSD- or similarly licensed compiler and debugger. These are goon tactics on the part of the FSF/GNU Project.
That is how the FSF/GNU people have created a chasm — by imposing a large degree of restriction on programs that the larger free software world depends on.
Hang on here mate – aforementioned software belongs to the FSF. It is up to them to do with as they want to. I mean, everyone is patting Linus on the back for staying with GPL v2. Why can’t the FSF move their software to GPL v3? And if it causes issues with certain projects that use it, and want to remain with GPL v2, then that’s *their* problem. They don’t own the FSF software in question. They have NO right to dictate what the FSF does with it.
So, take your “goon” comments with you and don’t let the door hit you on the ass on the way out
Dave
Hang on here mate – aforementioned software belongs to the FSF. It is up to them to do with as they want to.
That’s enforcing power and not freedom, that’s what we say when MS do the same with +its code.
The FSF advocates are a bunch of hipocryts.
Utter rubbish.
Read the preamble of the GPLv3 license. It says this:
The preamble sets out exactly what freedoms the license seeks to preserve. They are freedoms for the recipients of the software, all recipients.
They are not “freedoms to rip people off”.
The FSF are very clear in stating what the license is about. No hypocrisy at all.
The license seems to do a good job of both defining the freedoms it sets out to ensure, and then ensuring that everyone gets those freedoms.
Hypocryt, that’s all I hear.
The FSF is enforcing its power to make us adapt GPLv3 even if we don’t want it with is GNU tools monopoly.
But of course, is fine when they break their own rules because they are dictators.
Edited 2007-06-30 14:07
You are quoting out of context.
Yikes–that was unintentional, but it was a mere (ill-chosen) example. I stand by my point that the article presents the mere one-sided, poorly supported view that you are echoing. That is, it is claimed that the GNU mission is failing, i.e., freedom is not being promoted, but no reference (even negative) at all is made to the very freedoms that GNU defines! This betrays a failure to realize what GNU is about. The article purports to be not merely an attack against the FSF but an attempt to show that GNU is failing. How can it do that without even referring to the most basic definition of freedom (whether or not you agree with that!) of the project?
A popular motivation for attacking GPLv3 is as an “updated” excuse to attack the GPL, in general. Don’t believe me? The article explicitly states that a goal of NetBSD is to eliminate dependence upon GPL software. This goal predates the drafting of GPLv3. GPLv3 is just being used as a pretext for attacking the GPL.
Indeed, some of the anti-GPLv3 trolls can be hilarious. E.g., a Slashdotter says something like “This is the last straw. I’m moving to the BSD license.” Yet when you find posts from such people from years ago, they were already espousing the BSD over GPLv2! Such people are not only using the GPLv3 as an excuse, but doing so dishonestly.
Edited 2007-06-30 05:52
Freedom does not need a definition. It is shorthand for “freedom from restriction.” The FSF used to define freedom in terms of what you can do; it now defines it in terms of what you are not allowed to do. That is not freedom. That it is packaged as such and sold to us as freedom is a lie.
The goals of the BSD projects have been, since day one in 1970whatever, to create an entirely BSD-licensed operating system. The need for NetBSD to replace programs that are under more restrictive licenses predates the GNU Project and the Free Software Foundation, so there is no way it can be an attack on the GPL. It’s just that the GPLv3 makes compliance much more difficult for programmers and users, so there is now a much greater incentive to replace GPL stuff, of which there is little in the BSD realm.
The FSF kool-aid drinkers don’t seem to understand that their FSF GNUSpeak of “you don’t understand” doesn’t work anymore. Torvalds smacked around one of the FSF’s propagandists on the kernel mailing for using GNUspeak the last time GPLv3 came up over there..
What a biased article. Jem really seems like a nice guy in person, but saying that the GPLv3 is “creating an impassable chasm,” is total bullshit.
Yes, it’s hard to read, that’s a good point. Why does everything have to be made for lawyers and not the common man ?
The patent clause is basically about feeling secure when you use GPLv3 software. Any company, person, or other distributer of GPLv3 software won’t sue you for violating patents on the software, and you won’t sue them. Although it might be seen as some sort of racketeering by the closed source or non gplv3 companies, but it’s that way now.
The DRM restriction is for not for DVD discs, as DVD discs are not software covered by the GPLv3. This is more for Tivo-ization. Not about gaming cheaters, or else there would never have been any gplv2 games either because the source is open and you can look for ways around anti-cheat methods. It’s not about software causing your hardware to explode. Say you have hardware that you bought and own. If it were just hardware you could do pretty much anything with it. You could add a bigger hard drive to your iPod or Tivo. You could add better parts to your car and turn it into a racing machine. Now if your Ipod or Tivo has GPLed software on it you could modify it to add more features. Well actually you couldn’t with the Tivo because only authorized or proprietary software can run on it. Maybe you want to put Rockbox on your new mp3 player because it has more features. It also uses a known-compatible hardware, but wait, you can’t use it because it’s not signed by the right encryption key. Who is Tivo or anyone else to take away features with “updates”? GPLv3 will give you the right to use the software and hardware in a freer way.
This is only about GPLv3 software. The big switch won’t happen overnight. People will still use the BSD, GPLv2, MIT, CDDL, and public domain. No one is forced to put there own code under the GPLv3 or any other license.
And Jem, why would you as an end user choose not to use GPLv3 ? As an end user there is no difference if you favorite program or distro is GPLvX, BSD, public domain or closed-source. Unless you are a coder too.
The BSD vs GPL debate as a whole is like a balancing act. Either you want your software freedom up front (BSD) or you want it down the road in the future (GPL).
I am not a zealot. I use gpl, bsd, public domain and closed source programs and OSes all the time.
Most people are pragmatic, as are all businesses that intend to stay in business. They will choose the licence and the platform that suit them best. My guess is that the IT world will watch how the new GPL pieces fall very carefully, and they will use GPL v.3 if they think it’s a sensible, workable solution. And if it isn’t, they won’t. Hardly a remarkable outcome, is it? If the GPL v.3 turns out to be a good working solution for most enterprises, then it will have fulfilled its purpose admirably.
Either way, it is clearly too early to say. Furthermore, if it looks as if the GPL v.3 is really an attempt to force enterprises to adopt it regardless – if, in other words, the GPL v.3 turns out to be viral in a way unacceptable to many enterprises – then they will soon work around the problem, most likely by writing GNU out of the picture. Multi-billion dollar companies are not going to pack up and return their staff to serving Big Macs just because a special-interest group has had a few ideas that sound OK on paper but turn out to be unworkable in practice.
This isn’t an only argument over licences, imho. It’s also a fight over territory. If it wasn’t for GNU, Richard Stallman would be Richard Who, just another IT guy. GNU is the raison d’etre, the permanent entry ticket to whatever gig is on. Unfortunately for him, the world decided a long time ago that it wasn’t going to be GNU or even GNU/Linux, it was going to be Linux with all that entails. I think the Jem Report may be correct in saying we’ve all just seen the closing curtain lower still further on the GNU story, for all that the article is too biased to be reliable.
BTW, freedom means freedom. It does not mean freedom +/- whatever else takes your fancy. Just and simply freedom. This little point seems to have become completely lost. It could turn out to be quite important.
Edited 2007-06-30 03:02
I’ll probably make new releases of all my software using GPL3 very soon, need to keep up to date
I specially like the patents section on it!
Is this the part that affects Microsoft’s agreement with Novell?
“If, pursuant to or in connection with a single transaction or arrangement, you convey, or propagate by procuring conveyance of, a covered work, and grant a patent license to some of the parties receiving the covered work authorizing them to use, propagate, modify or convey a specific copy of the covered work, then the patent license you grant is automatically extended to all recipients of the covered work and works based on it.”
The GPL seems to be written to require that free software stay free- you can’t hide what once was free, and you can’t write a program that absolutely requires components other people can’t get free access to.
It also seems to mandate that the user not be denied the use of the software for patent reasons, or for DRM/artificial hardware restriction reasons.
Basically, they’re trying to guarantee that if a user has the source code, they will be able to compile and run the program.
My impression has always been that the GPL has been more written with users in mind, while the BSD license has been written with developers in mind. Of course, in practice both of them have sticking points for developers… and I haven’t read the new text to see precisely how they’ve gone about protecting the various things.
So far only 26 or so software has been relicensed under GPLv3…most significant being SAMBA and GCC toolkit…this out of tens of thousands of open source projects out there.
Linus and most of the kernel core developers has said no thanks…with alan cox being maybe only pro-gplv3 in the team, so linux kernel will almost 99% sure stay gplv2.
Linus were actually converting but then retracked in to anti-GPLv3 after FSF peons attacked him on lacking the spiritualism and faith on the Holy Gnu.
From GPLv2
It looks like GPLv2 had some patent protection.
Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone’s free use or not licensed at all.
There’s more to the GPLv2’s wording but I’m too tired to read the license right this minute, but it looks like GPLv3 is more in depth and specific. No one was really complaining about patents in v2.
I got to thinking…
Those claiming that FSF, cooking up something like the GPLv3, must be terrible license fascists, given the fact that they’re out to “destroy” Novell and Tivo and stuff..
Even though with GPLv3, you are still entitled to use the software in so many ways: run it, hack it, fork it, study it, distribute it, modify it, multiply it, by God, even *sell* it!
Let’s assume that people who create such a license – and let’s face it, the great majority of users will not be affected in the slightest by it – , then how gross, how horrific, how utterly inhuman, would proprietary EULA’s be, if we follow that train of thought?
Take a license that allows you to run software only on one or two cpu’s? A license you can’t sell to someone else if you don’t need it anymore? A license that you can’t use anymore if you modify your hardware too much? A license that forbids you to run benchmarks on the software?
Need I really go on?
By way of comparison, it feels like some people are shouting crucify him to a guy that kills a rabbit and eats it, but they have not the slightest problem going to McDonalds or KFC all the time, using cosmetics tested on animals, or eat ham sandwiches made of pigs castrated without any sedation whatsoever.
Humans are funny.
This is a license written by and for lawyers, not programmers or users.
The battle of software patents if any will be between lawyers. I sincerly hope the GPLv3 is a good adchievement that ensures the OSS eco system at least as it is today will last forever.
If you understand the concept of “free software” all GPLs are simple: For this software, allow the user the right to practise all four freedoms of free software.
The legalese present in GPL3 are for this reason: For this software, allow the user the right to practise all four freedoms of free software AND haha, don’t try the funny stuff you did with GPL2 that deprives the user’s free software rights. Basically, the legalese exists for everyone that wants to distribute GPL software AND deprive users of their right to free software.
Edited 2007-06-30 13:26
GNU/Freedom means freedom for the consumers and may mean slavery for the developers. Developer has to surrender and write off all potential income and royalties from her/his product.
Every developer is a consumer, too, because people often don’t write everything from scratch, so, everyone is in the different situation. Small contributors might favor GPL-like licenses, while major ones may not.
There are many situations where surrendering the code puts developer in disadvantage.
1. Selling multiple copies of the product
2. Royalties
3. Customers is late or completely refuses to pay. Developer may implement limitations in the code that forces customer to pay in order to use application. If the source is surrendered, customer might remove restrictions.
4. Customer may hire someone else to take over after the initial phase of the project.
That’s find and perfectly covered by the GPLv2, and I agree with it.
If you agree with GPLv2, then there is no reason to dislike GPLv3 because it has exactly the same purpose as GPLv2 only GPLv3 closes some loopholes that some parties (wanting to get around one or more of the four freedoms) have found of late.
Edited 2007-06-30 14:24
If you agree with GPLv2, then there is no reason to dislike GPLv3 because it has exactly the same purpose as GPLv2 only GPLv3 closes some loopholes that some parties (wanting to get around one or more of the four freedoms) have found of late.
Cut that crap, GPLv3 is a restricted GPLv2 with less freedom and many more restricition atacking a ground where it not belongs and afecting the software I use.
So don’t tell me what should I like.
Rubbish. Please explain how the GPL restricts you, especially in your “using” software (which is running it). You are not restricted in any way, either by GPLv2 or by GPLv3 in just using the software.
I didn’t do any such thing. What I said was: “If you agree with GPLv2, then there is no reason to dislike GPLv3”. This is a fact, and you have come up with nothing at all yet that indicates otherwise.
Rubbish. Please explain how the GPL restricts you, especially in your “using” software (which is running it). You are not restricted in any way, either by GPLv2 or by GPLv3 in just using the software.
I have a better idea, YOU explain me how it doesn’t.
Edited 2007-06-30 14:38
I gave you the quote, which explains the intent of GPLv3 in plain language. This is what the license does, it protect four freedoms (which it names), for all recipients of the software covered by the license.
YOU are the one making the utterly unsubstantiated allegations about how GPLv3 allegedly restricts freedoms and it is “dictatorial” and coerces people to do things, so it is entirely up to you to explain how.
Put up or shut up.
I explaining that the FSF is going to far invading grounds that is not their bissness like hardware.
And dragging us all to their nonsense believes even if we don’t want to thanks to its GNU tools monopoly.
There is nothing wrong with GPLv2 and GPLv3 just isolated us more drawing and inflexible line and complicating cooperation saying “Do as I say period”.
Is not better than the DRM crap.
What part you don’t understand.
The FSF’s GPL license says nothing about hardware, other than what people who distribute the FSF’s software may let their hardware do to FSF’s software.
You might have thought you explained, but you have it wrong.
Once again, get it through your head … GPLv3 does not prevent DRM, and it makes no restrictions on hardware (it is, after all, a software license). The only restriction of the license is what you may do with the software that the license covers.
You may build your DRM hardware to your heart’s content … the only restriction is you may not distribute a system which applies DRM restrictions TO THE SOFTWARE COVERED BY THE LICENSE. DRM restrictions of your system (hardware or software ones) can cover anything else, just NOT THE SOFTWARE COVERED BY THE LICENSE.
Get it yet? Are we finally getting through?
The FSF’s GPL license says nothing about hardware, other than what people who distribute the FSF’s software may let their hardware do to FSF’s software.
And at the same time they are usingi terms like “Tivoisation”, the license ain’t nothing but a game of words, don’t even quote it, because is useless.
GPLv3 does not prevent DRM
But invalidate it, is the same as preventing.
Cut the word gaming crap, We don’t fall in it any more.
Edited 2007-06-30 15:04
Here is what “Tivoisation” means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoisation
“Tivoization is the creation of a system that incorporates software under the terms of a copyleft software license, but uses hardware to prevent users from running modified versions of the software on that hardware.”
Once again, this is talking about software (not hardware), and how you may not restrict the software that is covered by the GPL in a certain way.
Interesting. How exactly does the “Tivoisation” clause “invalidate” DRM … especially hardware DRM applied to (say) music files or videos?
This will be good. I’m waiting.
“but uses hardware to prevent users from running modified versions of the software on that hardware.”
It also says Hardware
Interesting. How exactly does the “Tivoisation” clause “invalidate” DRM … especially hardware DRM applied to (say) music files or videos?
You have to be a retard to not understand that it makes you give away the keys to invalidate it.
But you are not a retard, just a manipulator like the FSF is.
Edited 2007-06-30 15:31
No, you don’t.
If you want to make a fully closed system, then you should not use GPL software in that system. GPL software is not meant for such a system.
If you want to use GPL software as part of a system with DRM, and you don’t want to give away any keys, then just don’t make the DRM protection cover the GPL software. Don’t make a fully closed, system. Make a system say with two partitions, one partition for system software (make that modifiable), and another partition for digital media files and make that partition only protected by the DRM.
See? The GPLv3 simply does not “make you give away the keys”. There are at least two ways to use GPLv3 software and DRM in the same system without having to give away any keys.
The GPLv3 does not “invalidate” DRM. Dare I say it, but “You have to be a retard to not understad” (sic) that.
Edited 2007-06-30 15:35
Again, you are just using a game of words, invalidates DRM forcing you to give away also the keys when you distribute it, that will eventually means invalidation of DRM.
Cut the crap already, is not working.
You are quite wrong. There are at least two ways for a company like TiVo to comply with GPLv3, still use GPLv3 software on their systems, still have DRM for protected content, and not have to give away any keys.
That would mean that anyone could change the software and run it in the hardware to allow what Tivo doesn’t want.
That’s the anti-DRM.
You see? we don’t fall in the FSF crap any more.
Edited 2007-06-30 15:50
If the DRM is in hardware (and for TiVo, I know this is the case), then AFAIK no amount of changing the system software will allow retrieval of information from the DRM-protected store without the keys.
If it was possible, then clearly TiVo haven’t designed it very well have they?
If TiVo don’t wwant something, then why did they design a system using GPL software that violates one of the GPL freedoms, when TiVo knew that doing that was expressly what the owners of the GPL software didn’t want?
Why should TiVo get what it wants but not the GPL software authors?
The GPL authors get what they want and that’s the code, the hardware is not their bussines, they can make their own hardware just like tivo did, they are free to do that.
Edited 2007-06-30 16:11
It is not fine and perfectly covered with GPL, because:
1. One can’t hope to sell multiple copies of a product, if somebody else is given right to distribute his work for free.
2. One can’t receive royalties, because GPL grants royalty free distribution.
3. One can’t protect his code if customer is able to analyze and modify it.
4. One can’t prevent customer to hire anyone who will work with the code.
I am not a member of any computer based community or association. I am trying to maintain a broad view of the whole industry. That means not a specific, sided view of Linux community or FSF supporters.
Far as I know “OS” in OSAlert means “Operating System”, and not “Open Source”. So, I don’t feel that my post is off topic, because I am trying to present a general developer’s view of GPL.
Sigh!
What part of “if it is the seller’s work, the seller doesn’t have to release it under the GPL if the seller doesn’t want to” do you not follow?
What part of “if it is GPL software, then it isn’t the seller’s work” do you not follow?
Edited 2007-06-30 15:06
As I said, I am trying to find out what would be the interests that make developers to contribute to GPL-ed projects, or corporations to contribute to them. I think that many of them will find that is not in their best interest to mess with GPL.
If corporations need to lower the costs of development they could establish a foundation like Apache or BSD, share the development cost, and add proprietary components to sell the products. That makes more sense.
This is what many say, but it turns out that there are many many thousands of developers worldwide, including a number of big name commercial companies, who do contribute software under the GPL.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1750358,00.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM#Open_Source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Technology_Center
IBM, for example, has adopted a business plan where they sell mostly services, not software. This is a viable enough business plan that IBM can afford to employ 600 people in their Linux Technology Centers.
The primary reason why people contribute to Open Source is so that they may all enjoy the fruits of collaboration. The concept is explained well enough in the following references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_collaboration
http://collaboration.wikia.com/wiki/Coauthor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source
Edited 2007-06-30 16:15
Your links point to IBM. They might be in a specific situation, as you have said, they are selling services. But, majority of companies that offer software are selling software. The developers in those companies are likely to have contracts that prevent them from sharing the code.
IBM has given up patents, but they still have proprietary software.
You could mention Sun, as a better example. Sun software sales were not going well.
Some people might like to collaborate, it may give additional value to their lives, but will not pay the bills.
I am trying to say that if GPL was more business friendly, GPL projects would attract more developers and more investments.
If you want to argue this from an eonomic perspective, then it is surely relevant to point out that for the vast majority of people and businesses, software is not a profit center but a mere expense.
From that perspective, it makes a lot more sense fro and economy to use Open Source and collaboration. The economic benefits are enormous.
But, even from a purely blinkered perspective of just developers, it is arguably easier to sell services to support software than it is to sell the software itself. Selling services people will readily pay for expertise. Selling closed-source software (trade secrets) is a much harder sell … your customers are not in control of their own computing equipment or their own data.
For most of the history of software and computers, the software has been free and the software houses sold services and expertise. It has only been since little Billy Gates just didn’t get this, and he spat the dummy when people didn’t do things his way, that there has been a shift away from that concept.
From that perspective, it makes a lot more sense fro and economy to use Open Source and collaboration. The economic benefits are enormous.
You have a personal experience ? Are you in business ? Well, far as I know, the majority of the software written is a specific, tailored to customers specific demands. How do you accomplish that by Open Source ? Do you think that customers are able to create a specification of the software they need ? If you do, you will be heavily disappointed when you find out how far from truth that is. They don’t have clue.
And if they do, and if they pay the development, will they be willing to share it with their competition for free ? Some might be, depending how much they spend on development. If it is something that can be quickly derived from existing free product, like “we need a customized news reader to keep our customers informed of….” then, maybe, yes.
In real life software applications are painful, exhausting, long lasting projects.
I had a customer that event tried to prevent me from selling application to anybody else, particluary not to their competition. They demanded exclusive rights, but they were not willing to pay for them, so I turned them down. Every now and then some of the others is trying to “smuggle” it in the contract. I don’t think that it is much in the spirit of collaboration.
Consider companies selling Linux support and system maintenance. I know a couple of them. Neither one of them will fix a bug in application, driver or kernel code themselves. They don’t have the resources, and don’t employ developers. If there is a bug in some software, their customers have to live with it, until someone somewhere finds enough time to fix it. If the software was proprietary, one could complain, at least.
BTW, have you ever tried to read someone elses code ? Some of guys out there write, nice, tidy code, but they
are not in majority. Have you ever fixed someone elses code ?
Considering Bill Gates, Microsoft lowered software prices for couple orders of magnitude and forced the rest of the industry to do the same in early 90s. Ask anybody who is in the industry long enough. Clipper compiler for DBase costed a fortune, other apps as well. Solaris, HPUX and SCO servers costed a fortune, too. Your knowledge of history is distorted by FSF propaganda.
Gates is at the end of his career now, and I begin to think that his major fault is that he was just an uneducated geek, who remained one for the rest of his life. Just like Stallman. They are the same age, I think.
I think that majority of you Linux guys are just Gnome and KDE users who got their software for free, so you can now browse web, read mail and paint pictures in Gimp without paying. And you hope that Mr. Stallman will make sure that you will keep getting it for free.
What projects do most of you collaborate on ?
You hope that Mr. Stallman will somehow find the way to make all the developers give you their software for free, even if you will have no idea what is it made for. Just in case it might need some day.
Stallman is uneducated?
He has no higher education, far as I know, he is a technician. Maybe self-educated. It is typical for self-educated people to pick what they like and ignore the rest.
Cool, in your book to be a Harvard graduate is to have “no higher education”? Is it really that bad in Cambridge, MA?
Yeah, I know you’re joking to keep us typing.
hilarious….
Thats right RMS is a uneducated nut…..and free software is a free-ride for leechers..
Great research skill you have…
Where does it say that?
The GPLv3 applies only to code that is released by someone (willingly) under the GPLv3 license.
If someone else receives that code, and then wants to sell it, then it is not “their product”, is it? The code belongs to the original author.
If a person wants to write their own code, and sell it as “their product”, and they don’t want to release it under GPLv3, then who is forcing them? They can do what they want with their own code.
Please remember, the GPL applies only to code that someone has written and then willingly released under the GPL.
Edited 2007-06-30 14:31
I alredy know that, you soud like a brooken record.
You might know that, but apparently the author of the post to which I replied, “By trenchsol (1.41) on 2007-06-30 14:07:55 UTC” … didn’t know that.
I don’t memorise everything like cult members do, so I use my mind to understand it instead, something that you are not doing.
and if you code is released with gcc (with gcc and shared libraries in GPL v3) ?
> Where does it say that?
If you surrender the source under GPL-like license everyone may build and distribute your work. You are not going to earn anything from it. How much did you pay for your Linux, if you are using it ?
> The GPLv3 applies only to code that is released by
> someone (willingly) under the GPLv3 license
What I am trying to discuss here are the circumstances under which a developer would be willing to release under GPL. Developer that expect to receive substantial amount of money for his code is more likely not to use GPL.
I am trying to discuss developer’s side here.
Since the GPL is so “restrictive” as you say, companies who want to use Tivoisation or who don’t want to release their source code can receive a proprietary license from the copyright holder by PAYING them. And the developers can gain patches from people using the GPL’d version, and therefore the worth of their product increases. The GPL *protects* them, versus the BSD license.
See Trolltech/QT and KDE’s relationship.
Edited 2007-06-30 14:58
Yes, correct. MySQL and Quantum Leap are good examples. To be able to do that one should use dual license. Vendor requires contributors to sign an agreement that allows vendor to distribute the contributions as proprietary code. You can check yourself.
It can be possible if there is an asymmetric relation, where one side is a vendor and others are just contributors.
In the case of Tivo, there are countless developers. Who will Tivo pay to ? I can’t say, but I believe that they would be happy to, so they just can go on with their business. I think that this is really impractical…..
Tivo have a lot of options.
They can either:
(1) Use a BSD derivative, or
(2) Go closed source, and use some other OS like Wind River, or
(3) Continue to use GPL software, and maake their DRM apply only to the data files and not to the system software that is GPL.
Three quite practical alternatives for TiVo right there.
Why?
They are using Linux and till I know Linux is GPLv2.
So they don’t need to change crap maybe some libs, that’s all.
Wouldn’t it be nice if there was some provision in the license that would enable them to compensate for other’s people IP, instead ?
That is where the main problem is. How to compensate for other’s people IP. GPL say: “No way, you have to make your product GPL, too”.
tl;dr – Don’t depend on selling software. Software is easily duplicated. Sell services because high level services are not easily duplicated.
People have the inherent ability to create and share information. People don’t create information in a vaccuum, they build upon the ideas they obtain from other people. Progress occurs when people create and share information and then act upon the information. In the context of an information society that has the ability to easily replicate data and information, information becomes essentially limitless. This doesn’t mean that information within an information society becomes worthless, it just means that applying restrictions to the flow information within an information society is less than optimal to the progress of that society.
Software is a collection of instructions that are designed to accomplish a task or solve a problem. People use their knowledge to solve a problem. **Software is information**. The proprietary software model works because of one concept: Artificial Scarcity. It works because there are institutions in place that restrict the flow of information within that society. Without these institutions, artificial scarcity would not exist as they do today and the model of selling proprietary software falls apart.
Knowledge and effort is required to come up with a solution that correctly solves a problem. It is a skill to practise the art of manipulating logic and assigning instructions to solve problems. The skill required to design and write software is not easily replicated. IMO, the art of programming cannot be taught, only nurtured. Techniques can be taught to help solve problems but the techniques are useless if the people learning these techniques do not understand how to apply them to form a solution.
So how does all this apply to free software and business? Don’t be dependant on selling software (information) because this is easily replicated. Sell the service of modifying, improving and supporting other people with their software related problems. These services are NOT easily replicated; these services are a truly scarce resource because there are a limited number of people with these skills. Having said that, there is no reason why you can’t put a price tag on the software itself; you can sell free software, just don’t deprive your users the right to share, modify, and publish modifications of your software.
Edited 2007-06-30 15:46
The question is why not sell services AND software. Partial answer might be that you might be able to build service with the existing software that you are not allowed to sell.
But the one that has the both is still in advantage.
**Everyone is allowed to sell free software**. However, it is not good to deprive users any one of these rights :
0. The right to use the program
1. The right to learn from and improve the program
2. The right to share/sell copies of the program with other people
3. The right to publish improvements made to the program
Access to the source code is a requirement for freedoms 1 and 3. Any software that deprives the user any one of these rights are non-free for that user.
There are essentially two reasons why software should be free for the user:
1) The user cannot have full control of the own computers if they do not have access to what the software is telling the computer to do. A computer program is a set of instructions designed to perform a task or solve a problem. If the program is not performing to the user’s requirements, the user should have the right to demand the program to be improved so it does. Being dependant upon the author of the software is not good for the user as the author can be unwilling or unable (dead, missing, in prison) then the user is SOL. With free software, there are literally millions of computer program authors that can help improve the program for a fee.
2) Society is hindered if users are deprived of the right to share and improve upon the knowledge contained within the software. Remember, ideas, information and knowledge are always built upon the information that existed before. Remember that computer programs are designed to solve a problem. It is useless/less useful to the user if the program does not solve the user’s requirements. If you give people the right to share and improve upon the knowledge within software, the software becomes a lot more useful to all users of the software and society is progressed because of better working software.
RMS explains all this in more detail in one of his essays. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html
ps. please don’t tell me that users won’t understand computer code. This is irrelevant. Users should not be *artificially* dependant upon the author of that program. Artificial dependancy occurs when the user is required to get the author’s permission for improvements.
If everything turns out they way you say it should, I would stop writing software. Thanks for feedback.
That is your own prerogative if you choose to stop writing software altogether. Personally, I would encourage you to make money from services that somehow involve free software. Making money with free software is a matter of imagination. The following examples are just a small sample of ways to make money.
One way to do this is to provide a distribution service. Download free software from the internet, burn to a disk then sell the disk for a nice profit. Offer to provide support and customisation services for all the software you distribute. Sell copies of the OpenCD http://www.theopencd.org/. If the OpenCD was commercial and proprietary software, I would estimate it to be $600 worth of software. I bet your customers would love to get $600 worth of very usable and capable software for a fraction of that price (market forces are supposed to kill stupidly high prices). I bet your customers would love to get assurance that they can get the software modified and support for their requirements.
There is a lot of information and knowledge contained in the world of free software. Most users won’t have the time/patience to filter out everything. Learn some then charge money for a professional quality consultation service. Every programmer has the potential to be a Firefox expert, a Linux (kernel) expert, a KDE/Gnome expert. The knowledge contained within that software is available for all users. You, as a professional in this field, can provide services to help people make sense of which software to choose and if necessary, get changes happening to fit requirements.
Another service is a documentation service, you could take the Latest release of Ubuntu, compile technical documentation of all the software then publish the results in a book. All of this is very legal and is an ethical way of selling software.
Edited 2007-06-30 19:42
The problem with that is that someone could copy the OpenCD and sell it for 75% or 50% price.
In general, the best way to make money of open source is sell support for companies that outsource their IT department or to teach and certify OSS users. In real life to goes to sysadmin, network admin and DBA jobs. That is not what I am doing.
If you make it big that business, then you can afford to support developers that provided you the software. That is what IBM does.
Still think that BSD offers better model. A couple of companies can create a foundation and pay the developers and costs together. When the work is done each company can incorporate the code in their own proprietary product. Developers get paid, and still own the code. The downside is that competition, that is not involved, may use the code, but they are not in position to request features.
As I said it does not include software written for specific demands. Customers are sometimes able to formulate their business requirements, but almost never are able to translate them to software specification. It is a painful part and that is what consultants make living from. It is very hard to apply OSS methods and principles to such project. Single customer is liable for all the costs, and, in general, they are not willing to let others to benefit from their investment.
Society is hindered if users are deprived of the right to share and improve upon the knowledge contained within the software.
Yes, information, knowledge and software should be free, but we live in a society where the economic structure rewards us for keeping those things secret. In reality, software freedom is an extremely small facet of a much, much larger problem– that each individual’s goal is not to improve humanity as a whole, but to acquire material wealth for him/herself. I respect RMS’s ideas and I generally agree with his goals, but from my perspective, he is attacking the wrong end of the problem. That combined with the almost religious image that the FSF has acquired over the years will result in the FSF never being generally accepted beyond the fringe of the tech crowd.
The sad truth is that the world is not truly ready for free software, and once it is, we will not need RMS (or the GPL) to enforce it.
GPL v3 is about freedom IF, and only IF don’t impose limitations in use and develop software.
1-GCC must be LGPL or BSD (developers must have a c,c++ compiler to produce BSD software if they want to)
2- Linux kernel must be BSD (you need a kernel to start with)
3- Linker must be BSD (You need them too)
Then, you can license your work with the license of your choice.
Sorry about my understood, but how can produce a c program licensed in BSD ?
Edited 2007-06-30 14:18
“1-GCC must be LGPL or BSD (developers must have a c,c++ compiler to produce BSD software if they want to)”
GCC has an exception. You can compile any kind of software with it.
Hi all,
GPL3 pleased to meet you hope you guessed my name … hoo hooo …
I hope you bring lots of good to this new world .. you are seen as controversial ..
there is lots of people trying to bring you down out of commercial concerns by means of the usual FUD .. i think MS has a patent on this … if not .. they are applying for it now probably .. however i think the GPL3 is a good thing .. especially in non-US countries where the patent bullshit is not going on .. hope it never will .. cause it ruins the world as we know it ..
in us countries … as usual rich people want to get richer than they already are by finding more ways albeit it illegal (in us legalized i suppose .. read patent bullshit law) to get richer and richer by squeezing more and more money out of the working classes and getting more and more power over the working classes … they want to sell you hardware and keep the controll over hardware you buy .. think of DRM .. and think of tivo trickery … this is not in the interest of customers .. only in the interest of people wanting to squeeze money out of people and wanting to keep in control of being able to squeeze money out of people .. again this is not in the interest of customers .. sadly these bad developments in the world start in the us .. the home of the brave and the free .. brave perhaps .. free .. far from free .. i would say … fortunately .. the gpl3 does more .. MS and Novell eat your heart out ..
…
I am of the understanding that if Sun is relicensing their opensolaris under gpl3 linus will consider seriously moving to gpl3 as well .. cause it will be a good thing for linux to share sources with sun in an even larger codebase .. think of running linux with zfs .. and other cool things sun has to offer .. offcourse its cross pollination .. that can happen then .. solaris will benefit from this as well .. its a win-win for solaris and linux .. imho …
Ok enough for now …
Cheers,
Johnbon
Here we go again…
Freedom is the absence of restriction. However only one person in isolation can be entirely free from restriction, as when people interact, one person’s actions will inevitably restrict another’s. Hence we have the paradox of freedom: in order to ensure freedom we must deny freedom–specifically, if there is a freedom that we wish to ensure, then we must prevent people from restricting that freedom, and in doing so, we are denying another freedom. For example, if we wish to ensure people have the freedom to live, without having that life taken away, then we must deny people the freedom to kill others. So we cannot be entirely free. However we will consider ourselves most free if we have the freedoms we most value (at the expense of others we value less). GPL advocates value some freedoms, BSD advocates value others, and each considers themselves more free.
BSD advocates often point at the two licenses and say “See, ours gives all rights, and has no restrictions, whereas theirs has many restrictions, so is clearly less free”, but they are forgetting that their license does not give a set of natural instinsic rights, but rather gives specifically the rights that copyright holders have under complicated and somewhat arbitrary copyright law, which includes rights to deny others rights. Since the BSD license gives users all the rights that a copyright holder has under copyright law, it necessarily also means they are subject to all the restrictions that other copyright holders can apply to them. The GPL, on the other hand, because it denies users many of the rights that are provided to copyright holders, is instead able to provide other rights–rights that other copyright holders would normally be able to deny them. So, contrary to the beliefs of BSD advocates, the BSD license is certainly not absolutely free from restrictions. However those who value the freedoms granted under copyright law, and do not value the freedoms that copyright law denies, will consider the BSD license most free.
GPL advocates will often say “See, ours restores all the rights people should have, denying only the right to deny others those rights, so is clearly more free”. This is sometimes expressed as “Your freedom ends at my nose”, or more formally as “The maximum freedom compatible with a like freedom for all”. They recognise that the BSD allows restrictions (those of copyright law), and that even the GPL itself allows restrictions, so they do better than the BSD advocates. However the concept of “the maximum freedom compatible with a like freedom for all” is easiest to define when limited to noses, and while GPL advocates notice that copyright law denies others rights, they tend not to notice that personal property rights too, deny others rights. So GPL advocates, too, to some extent, seem to assume that there is a set of natural intrinsic rights (and while it doesn’t include complicated and somewhat arbritary copy rights, it does include complicated and somewhat arbritary property rights). In any case though, those who value the freedoms granted under the GPL, and do not value the freedoms that the GPL denies, will consider the GPL license to be most free.
If you start thinking about the individual rights of a group of people who become stranded on a deserted island, you will probably come to realise that much of what we consider to be natural intrinsic rights are somewhat arbritary. (What? You made a copy of the map I sold you for two coconuts? I drew that map, so it’s my intellectual property. Since you violated my intellectual property, I’m suing you for a hundred coconuts.) Living in another culture for long enough, you might discover others too (or you might simply think you’re living amoung a bunch of savages, or under a bizarre opression). The US values the freedom to bear arms. Elsewhere in the world, this is viewed as the freedom to be shot in the street. Freedom to bear arms, or savagery to allow the threat of being shot in the street? Freedom from the threat of being shot in the street, or bizarre opression to deny the freedom to bear arms? Who is truely free?
If you ask me, I agree with Libertarians, most of the time. I disagree with some views, but that’s it, more or less. They don’t agree on just everything among themselves, too, I guess.
Great post. Modded it up
In terms of intellectual property it can be argued you sold the rights to make further versions of the map, when you sold the map. And it can be argued that since intellectual property is an unlimited resource you cannot own it. Especially because my thoughts belong to me and not you. By claiming ownership of a thought (which IP is all about – and nothing more), you claim ownership of _my_ ideas and _my_ thoughts.
Land OTOH is a limited resource and as such cannot be shared equally. That can be owned. Thoughts however are free – in every sense. And code is merely thought.
However the concept of “the maximum freedom compatible with a like freedom for all” is easiest to define when limited to noses, …
I appreciate your insight and your examination of the issues rather than a simple recital of the cliches.
But one more way of deciding which is best is to look at the results. The license is only part of it, but GNU/Linux has taken off in a bigger way than the BSDs.
I believe that If the Linux Kernel is put under GPLv3 that we might see the END of the use of the Linux Kernel by BIG players like IBM. I also believe that the “in your face” anti-patent and DRM features of the GPLv3 license may just be the thing that finally gets IBM and other third party proprietary holders of code in the currently defunct IBM OS/2 operating system like Microsoft to release OS/2 to open source under a proprietary software friendly Open Source license that THEY will create.
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/GPL3-welcomed-by-IBM-Red-…
“GPL3 welcomed by IBM, Red Hat, Novell, MySQL”.
Edited 2007-07-02 04:26
Actually I’m pretty software neutral. I’ll use GPLv2, GPLv3, LGPLv2, LGPLv3 (when it comes), BSD, MIT, Mozilla, Open Watcom and Proprietary stuff and have no problem with any of it because I believe in the seemingly obsolete idea of INDIVIDUAL rights and freedoms concerning software licensing and everything else (this is why I’m also against so called “gun control” laws). I was simply speculating on what the Big Business and Business cartels (like the Business Software Alliance of which IBM, Microsoft and the others who contributed third party code to OS/2 are a part) might do in the face of certain parts of GPLv3 that they may not agree with, particularly the patent and DRM stuff since the cartels and big businesses in question are largely responsible for legalizing and designing of software patents and DRM technology.
As for Richard Stallman it seems to me that the existance of the LGPL and its use in many Free Software Foundation libraries shows that he is a “quiet” supporter of INDIVIDUAL rights in the matter of software licencing despite his philosphical opposition to Proprietary software.
bsd’ers who talk about all the gloom and doom about how evil the GPL3 is aren’t all that different from all the FSF’ers who talk about how evil Microsoft is.
Let’s face it. There’s a lot of good from microsoft, gpl apps and bsd apps and there’s a lot of junk as well. Users and developers get to choose from the 3 based on their own needs and wants and not everyone has the same needs and wants.