Does GPL v3 Alienate Developers? 430
An anonymous reader writes "Via Wired, a blog post in which BMC Software's Whurley and Google's Greg Stein agree that the GPL v3 is currently on a path that will alienate developers. Stein has an interesting theory called 'license pressure' which is similar to 'pricing pressure'. 'Due to pressure from developers, all software is moving towards permissive licensing" translation, the GPL and developers are moving in opposite directions ... Developers care about the licenses on the software they use and incorporate into their projects, they like permissive licenses, and they will increasingly demand permissive licenses.'"
Impression (Score:2, Insightful)
Any developers willing to comment on what they want out of a license?
Re:Impression (Score:5, Informative)
I think this also includes contributions that would allow non-GPLed software to access it.
Selling the non-GPLed + GPLed = make money off of other peoples work.
Though, to my knowledge, there isn't an OSS license out that prevents making money off of other peoples work.
Re:Impression (Score:5, Informative)
I'm proud of the code I write, and a lot of it is portable - I know it inside and out - but other people have fixed, added on, improved and optimized my code. As a result of that happening under the GPL, I can't use that for other closed-source projects I work on. It's frustrating, I don't feel comfortable using my own code because its GPL'd.
Anything I work on in the last few years goes out BSD licensed, and I'm trying to convert my existing projects to BSD licenses as well. GPL has its place in core utilities, but I won't be GPL'ing my own code again for some time. BSD licensing is the way to go, imo.
Re:Impression (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as you're the copyright holder you can change the license when you wish. Or put your contributions to a GPL project under revised BSD or even in the public domain.
"its hard to remember who wrote what."
Ah, there's the rub. That's hardly the GPL's fault tho, is it? That's copyright law and your failure to do what copyright makes it necessary for you to do. Join the crowd and work for copyright abolition if you dont want to bother with that part.
"I don't feel comfortable using my own code because its GPL'd."
You dont feel comfortable using _their_ code because it's GPL you mean. You could have asked for copyright assignment if you wanted to accept the patches in that case. This is not a GPL problem, this is a situation you've put yourself in.
Of course, if the license were not the GPL, or you required copyright assignment, then maybe those contributors wouldn't have contributed. I sure know I wouldn't contribute anything non-trivial under a non-copyleft (preferably GPL) license.
"BSD licensing is the way to go, imo."
Nah, seen too much BSD code get proprietarized and used to screw end users. Not with my code they dont. They can write it all on their own if they want power over others that bad.
Re:Impression (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, yes. But at what point does a piece of code become tainted in that regard? Lets say I have a function that I put out, and then someone else fixes a few little bugs - an improperly initialized variable here, a null pointer check there... How does that impact the licensing of that code? Is that code now co-owned? Do I have to remove their fixes if I want to use it? They fixed bugs, things that I may have found over time. How does that legally impact that code?
If someone else releases some code, then I spend a few days fixing bugs in it, do I have copyright on those fixes?
The line is not so clear as one would like to think. And I tend to err on the of caution when it comes to these things.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think General George Patton said it best "Software licenses are a monument to the stupidity of man!" or at least he would have. I think the main purpose of the GPLv3 is to keep RMS and company in the pu
Re:Impression (Score:5, Informative)
And why would anyone, except for proprietary companies, resent the FSF for this? As an individual developer, and also someone that works on Linux device drivers full-time, I have no interest in patenting software, and I want to distribute my source code to those I distribute binary code to (and back upstream when appropriate). I have no interest in keeping customers from seeing my source code if they're using my code on their devices. So, I have no problems with either the GPLv2 or GPLv3. Why on earth would I resent the FSF for this?
Companies like TiVo might resent them for the GPLv3, but I really don't care about them. I have no desire to buy a Linux-based device that I can't modify.
Re:Impression (Score:4, Interesting)
Nobody is forced to use GPLv3 software. If your current GPLv2 software does everything you need, just continue using it. There's no termination (unless you violate GPLv2, of course). Of course should you want to have some of the features future GPLv3ed versions offer, then you'll have to decide if you change to the new GPLv3 version, or if you dislike the GPLv3 so much that you don't use that new version anyway. But it's your choice (you could even decide to make a GPLv2 fork by implementing those features yourself into the GPLv2 version).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Impression (Score:5, Insightful)
Horsefeathers. You can use your own code for any purpose you like, under any license you like. Releasing it under the GPL places obligations on others who acquire the code under that license. It doesn't place any obligation on you, nor prevent you from releasing your own code under multiple other licenses simultaneously. What you actually appear to be saying here is that you're no longer sure what code is actually yours in project X, and you're afraid of using other people's code, which they released under the GPL, in a closed source application. The real solution to that issue is good record keeping and an effective version control system, so you know what code is yours and what is not. Changing to a different license is a way to avoid the particular issue you're facing, but it's neither the only one nor necessarily the best one. If you've truly gotten lots of outside assistance on a project, the first question I'd ask is if the same level of assistance would have been available under another license. I can't speak for anyone else but I'm quite willing to help advance a project knowing that my efforts are protected by the GPL. I'm not so willing to pitch in and help out if I suspect that you're going to take the product of my hard labor, stick it in a proprietary application, and stuff the money you get for my labor in your bank account.
Re:Impression (Score:5, Insightful)
So why, precisely, should you have control over the code that I write? If I offer up a patch to project X, my intent is to contribute to project X. It's not to add to your personal code library. You have control over your code. You have control over your project. (Someone else, of course, can fork your project and create a derivative project over which you have no control. That project, of course, must be released under the GPL, so you'd still have access to it, just not control over it.)
which in turn make the original person (like the poster) effectively unable to control their code. You can't even fork it without stripping out all the non-copyright-assigned code if you want to switch licenses, for example. So, once it's been tainted with non-copyright-assigned GPL code, your project is never your own again, which puts off people like the parent poster who want to retain the copyrights on their code.
Any developer worth his salt is going to have copies of his original code and the patches he himself wrote. That code is his and he has full control over it. The code in the project isn't his code. It's an amalgamation of his and others' code. If he didn't write it, and he didn't pay for it, why on earth should he have absolute control over it?
If you want to maintain absolute control over all code in a project, write it yourself or pay someone to assist you in writing it. If you ask for and accept the voluntary labor of others to advance your project, you lost the ability to have absolute control over all of the code in the project. That's the whole intent and purpose of the GPL. It isn't a bug. It's a feature. If you don't want to make that trade, don't use the GPL. If you can convince others to contribute code to your project under a BSD or other such license, then more power to you.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
When I, as a commercial developer, license software under the GPL, I am assured that my competitors will not take it and develop improvements that I cannot use. The GPL is much more corporate friendly than BSD exactly because it guarantees that the code remain open over any improvements. It means that the developments of any contributor remain available for all so that the software "evolves" and does not become proprietary and unavailable for the original co
yes, GPL is a commercial licence (Score:5, Insightful)
Enabling businesses to be built up around free software is essential for the progress of the free software movement. Our licences just have to ensure that those companies cannot harm the movement (neither intentionally nor under pressure from MS).
So if you distribute the software, you can't hide the source, and you can't sue the users for patent infringement, and you can't put it on a device that is set up to allow you to continue to modify without also giving the recipient that freedom. (Boo-hoo, you lose the "freedom" to screw others.)
And in the other direction, there is a warranty disclaimer so that distributing the software doesn't put people's business at risk.
Here's a summary of what's new in GPLv3:
http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/brussels-rms-
As is typical of this type of FUD article, the author talks nothing about the actual content of the licence, and instead just gives baseless summaries and gossipy predictions.
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite - it's designed so that any contributions to it, if the result is distributed, are given back to the community.
Not quite. It's designed so that recipients of the code receive the same rights that the person who created the modified version received from the person who wrote the original.
You don't have to give changes back to the community, you just have to give your customers the FSF's Four Freedoms. You can sell GPL'd code, and a few authors of bespoke software do; they base their code on GPL'd projects, add some value, and sell their customers the derived work. Their customers pay them because a big part of
Re:Impression (Score:5, Informative)
Most hobbyist do choose the GPL from what I've seen, but I doubt they make up the bulk of GPL developers.
Well, there are 50-100 developers in my office today and most of them work on GPL code at some point, paid by the company. I don't think we're unusual in that regard. When commercial developers release code as open source they do so with a motive of making money. You're not going to make money directly from OSS. You make money using OSS and getting free improvements from others and interoperability with other tools is the main benefit. The GPL insures you get those improvements and the competition does not grab all your code, and start a closed fork of it. The only time we use BSD licenses is when it is a vital infrastructure component we're trying to get widely adopted as a standard. In those instances, getting people to use and integrate it into closed software is more important than getting the improvements back.
I think I just did. This is the situation as I see it and I think it has been stable for quite a while. I see more OSS development happening lately, but if anything it is code that old school people would release as BSD, now being released as GPL (and often failing to be adopted widely as a result). I guess I have to disagree with the article on that point (sort of). I see more code being released as GPL (both code that would otherwise have been less permissive like a closed license and code that would have been more permissive, like a BSD license). I see more LGPL code, which is a bit more permissive, I suppose, but I see that more as increased granularity rather than a move towards more permissive licensing in general.
Re: (Score:2)
"Business doesn't like the GPL": true when they are on the receiving end, but false when they are on the giving end. It makes all the sense for a company to realease its internal work as GPL and no, say, BSD, since they can always leverage any improvements made by others and avoid having other companies using their base code to get an edge.
"Not everything has to be GPL": quite true. Your example is dead-on: the FSF itself have recommended the us
Re:Impression (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd change that to "true when they are in the middle". Business on the recieving end _loves_ GPL code. It means they dont have to worry about a supplier going bellyup, it means they can change providers, it means they can hire outside help with the code, it means the software isnt going to fork into a bazillion proprietary incompatible versions and it means it's there long term, and that invested time and money isnt going to vanish.
It's the middlemen, who want to recieve freedom but not give it to anyone else who dont like the GPL.
That's something I can live with.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, it's about my freedom, as a user of GPL software. As a user, I am utterly free--I don't even have to agree to the GPL to use the software!
However, preserving my freedoms requires restricting your freedom to take my freedoms away from me.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
PD source code does, and that is what we are talking about here. You can't win the argument by moving it to a new venue. However, since you brought it up, PD executables ensure that you can run the program and you can give it away; you don't have source code, so freedom to do things with said source code is entirely irrelevant. You don't have f
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh. Pleased to meet you.
Um, no. You can't "hijack it." It's yours. You know, PD = Public Domain. You're the public. It's yours. But thanks for improving it. That's great. You say users prefer your version? Because it's better? Maybe users are smarter than some people give them credit for. Good for them. And good for y
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And what I am telling you is that source code that is PD is also protected just as well, plus it is useable by many more developers, regardless of people's prejudices for or against how they choose to develop, and that it in no w
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Speaking for myself - I just want my code to be used. If I let people use it for free, there's still a decent chance that they'll offer any improvements back to the community. The free software concept is
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
1 - Community writes one million lines of code and release them publicly: everyone benefits.
2 - Corporate developer writes 100 lines of code, adds them to the community work and releses a closed product, actually taking credit and money, for a work consisting of mostly open source.
This is exactly why you see around many wifi routers and firewalls using Linux plus some closed source wifi card driver whose producer gives nothing back to the community that helped them
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you did get it "all wrong". The GPL has nothing to do with preventing others from getting rich off the free labor of hobbyist developers. In fact, anyone who objects to someone else making money off
Re: (Score:2)
Any developers willing to comment on what they want out of a license?
Yes. I could be said to work professionally in software. My job isn't as a developer as such, but the software is a (well, the only) means
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the key is, the GPLv3 isn't alienating developers in purpose but it is becoming a side effect.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There have been retroactive extensions at least for the USA.
Nope (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're looking into reusing code somebody else wrote, or contributing to somebody else's project, you're stuck with their license.
Re: (Score:2)
Developers are affected by licenses too... (Score:3, Interesting)
That's true only as long as you don't link to any other libraries or use any other programs as part of your work. As soon as you link your software to other software on the system, you are affected by the licenses on the other software. So, unless you're developing truly standalone soft
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps this linking scenerio is a "hole" that was plugged in GPL 3, but I dont know but would like to find out if anyone here does know.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The GPL says no. Here's a quote from the LGPL (which does allow dynamic linking):
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I know good inte
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
For the purpose of this discussion, there are two kinds of developers, the initial authors that pick the license, and the developers reusing that code under license
I think this is a false dichotomy. I write Free Software, but I don't write everything from scratch. I use libraries written by other people. Some of the code I've released is in the form of libraries that will be used by others. Which kind of developer am I? I pick the license for my own code, but I have to ensure that the libraries I use are licensed under compatible licenses.
Re:Nope (Score:4, Interesting)
I haven't noticed many users posting blog articles or sending letters to the U.S. Congress complaining about a software license. It appears to me that the GPL, due to its popularity and the massive amount of code released under it, has generated rants, propoganda campaigns, and even a letter from a CEO to the U.S. Congress explaining how it will be the end of the free world [groklaw.net], and why? Before the arguement was always that it wasn't as free as it should be, at least in this latest rant the truth is used, because its not as permissive for businesses and software developers who would like to take the GPLed code, use it, and not have to give anything back.
I agree, developers are in control, and far from being idiots choosing a license under peer pressure and in dire need of direction from lawyers, CEOs, or even Congress, we use a license because it serves our needs.
Trasnslation (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry for the flaming, but I hope you can see it's easy to lose patience with this sort of thing. And I lose patience with Slashdot for running this story over and over again.
Bruce
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't you realize that this is a fast path to bankruptcy for the developer? The developer ne
The plural of anecdote? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Same here. I have no idea what all the controversy is about concerning the GPL. If people don't like it then they shouldn't use it. There are open source licenses out there to fit everyones needs. And if a developer doesn't like what's out there they can make up their own. The only reason I can think of for all the attacks on the GPL is that there must be some desire to pu
I respectfully disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
As an "open source" developer for some time now, I disagree. In fact, once I am ready to release I doubt it will be under any version but the GPL v3. Why? Consider one question: Does the FSF and EFF back most or indeed any of the other versions of an OS license?
Because only the GPL has the full faith and backing of the FSF and the EFF. In the era of expensive patent and "anti patent" litigation, I want those organizations on my side for the same reason that --though I consider myself quite conservative in most political positions --, I don't automatically dismiss the ACLU as a leftist liberal organization. They have a good track record of protecting the important parts of our "electronic civil rights."
Pffft. (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever. I don't see GPLV3 causing any major shift in the open source/free software community
Re:Pffft. (Score:5, Insightful)
We would really like to get all the code with no strings attached so we can add our own strings to it. We dislike the GPL as is and really dislike the new one since it focus on fixing some clever ways we had of bypassing the spirit of the licence. Ideally we would like to get all the code - doesn't matter that we didn't wrote it or that we don't share it ourselves. GPLv3, BAD!
Re:Pffft. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, this guy is clearly talking about the wrong community. I think in the free software community it will get a lot of support from developers.
If you want an Open Source license, then use one. If you want a Free license then use one of those instead.
Crisis averted.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't a lot of the movement from BSD, etc., to GPLv2 to enable incorporating existing GPLv2 code? Whether that kind of pressure exists to move to GPLv3 is going to depend on how popular
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Pffft. (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhspa something to do with ease? BSD to GPL:
1. Start including GPL code. Done.
GPL to BSD:
1. Make a complete list of all your contributors, ever
2. Try to contact everyone, moved, missing, dead, whatever
3. Pray really hard everyone will want to relicense
4. Check all libraries and see that they're not GPL
5. Whatever code and libraries you can't relicense, rewrite
Of course, the BSD camp will take this as proof that BSD is "freer" than the GPL. And the GPL camp will take it as proof that exactly what's wrong with BSD/free is how easy it is to make it not BSD/free. To me it seems counter-intuitive to promote the ten freedoms [opensource.org] of open source as means when the ends typically is software that has none (i.e. proprietary, source-less derivates). It's like a living tree that spawns dead branches, does that make sense to anyone?
Interesting "theory" (Score:5, Insightful)
The "problem" with the GPLv3 isn't that it will allienate developers, it's exactly the opposite: most people against the underlying principle of the GPL - and especially those who have been relying on loopholes created by the changes in technology and society - are scared that it will actually be adopted - which I think it will, replacing the GPLv2 in new projects as the "de facto" copyleft licence. Don't like it, don't use it, but especially don't bitch about others using it, fell free *not* to use the code in the first place.
as a real developer... (Score:2)
* license proliferation and incompatibility (can't change Linux)
* that selfish anti-Linux ("GNU/Linux") rant in the preamble
* the stupid gname! "GNU" isn't gnice, it's moronic
* "consumer product" definition doesn't involve a fair chance to negotiate a contract
I wish we could move everything to GPLv3. Right now, every downloadable ISO image with GPLv2 binaries is in violation unless that site is also supplying the source. It's not enough to point people to th
no, not THAT contract (Score:3, Insightful)
The GPLv3 tivoization clause says that you can't use DRM to prevent changing the GPLv3 code on a consumer device.
What makes a consumer device special? Ever wonder why GPLv3 has a hole?
This is to allow various types of devices where the customer (usually a business) actually wants the DRM being used against them. Typically this is for legal reasons. The device might be safety-critical stuff: a medical implant, aircraft flight co
Projection (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure certain companies would like GPLv3 to be alienating open-source developers, but frankly I don't see that happening too much. The only people it's alienating are people who would never use the GPL anyway. I've heard this tune sung before, when GPLv2 was being introduced: all those unrealistic, idealistic, totally unneccesary changes RMS was introducing would completely destroy the license and developers would abandon the GPL as unworkable. We can see how accurate that prediction was.
Re: (Score:2)
False. TiVo. And any GPL-based entity that wants to do a Novell type deal in the future. (You may not agree with either, but they are people who are using the GPL.)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
TiVo, since they in fact use the GPL, is not, an entity that wouldn't use the GPL anyway.
Since the claim was that the only people driven off would people who wouldn't use the GPL anyway, TiVo is a valid counterexample which disproves the claim.
Re: (Score:2)
no, not TiVo (Score:2)
They haven't written anything original, new, fresh, unencumbered by prior licenses... and then decided to use the GPL.
question motives (Score:2)
I'll be brutally honest (Score:2, Insightful)
My drive is in writing code, and being able to look at other code that has what I want, plain and simple. In that sense, the GPL made it easy to do those two things: all technology is driven by convenience. PHP isn't popular because of its "enterprise-class frameworks", it's popular because it's easy to grab code from elsewhere, easy to write code in. Windows is easy because it comes with your computer. The GPL made it easy to be open-source.
In the past few years it seems everyone
Re:I'll be brutally honest (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I understand where you're coming from but would like to point out that acceptance of the status quo is *not ideologically neutral. The status quo was created by ideologues who didn't like the previous status quo.
That doesn't mean you have be up in arms, or a "zealot" as people like to call anyone who talks about values. But be intellectually honest, and say that the prevailing Vision/Cause (and I guess lawyers) are, in su
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not simply release your code to the public domain?
Re:I'll be brutally honest (Score:4, Insightful)
But the GPL isn't just about visions and causes. It's about defenses against predatory behavior. The only reason that Microsoft hasn't gone after Red Hat demanding royalties for patent violations is because GPLv2 prohibits it:If Linux and the GNU project had taken your attitude of "hey, I'm just a guy putting up my code," then the community would be in a very different position today wrt. Microsoft's patent aggression.
Straw Man (Score:2, Insightful)
GPL is working (Score:3, Insightful)
In this case, I'm very glad. I wanted to base my application on another project which was very similar to my own. But that person chose not to release the source to their application, so I was forced to go this route. It doesn't matter - this was a free tool and a useful experiment in learning to code for a new device. And the GPL source made it take 1/10th as long. I'm actually frustrated at the people who write code and horde it, so in some ways, I'm glad the GPL is forcing things to open-up.
Of course, I'll change my tune next week when I have an app I want to write where one library is GPL and the rest is not, and I'll have to go rewriting things.
Re: (Score:2)
don't worry about the FSF (Score:2)
In any case, people like Hurley shouldn't spend time worrying about the future of the FSF. The FSF has been in this business f
Yes. (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Cl
Re:Yes. (Score:4, Informative)
That's great. You could even do it without really liking it, if it crosses the "good enough" threshould. Many people that live by the GPL contribute to BSD licenced programs, it's not ideal but good enough.
What bugs me is how this is targeted towards a company that did follow the letter of the GPLv2, is struggling, and has been in my opinion good for Linux. To me this says hey you can follow the rules to the letter but if RMS decides that he doesn't like you he will target you. I find this super counter productive.
Well, then you have a good reason to dislike the GPLv3, as I said above. I disagree, but it's a good reason nonetheless. I personally feel that the spirit of the licence is what's important and that it must be updated to reflect changes in society, and in that perspective tivoization and and patent shielding are subterfuges. Since they are able to exist by following the letter of the licence then the licence has to be updated.
Hating NVidia for supporting Linux but not the way you want them to. I feel it is more productive to state that you will buy ATI cards if they open source their drivers. Which frankly I will do. I would buy Intel but I have a nice AMD motherboard in my current system and Intel doesn't make stand alone cards. Frankly I am happy that NVidia does provide driver for Linux at all. I would rather have FOSS drivers but half a loaf is better than none. Why can't people be more positive and yes even grateful.
Indeed... note that I'm not doubting your motivations or even your entushiasm and contributions, we're just debating here. The closed drivers thing is a though problem with many possible approaches, all of which have pros and cons.
Now fighting software patents that is what I would really like to see the FSF doing and not targeting Tivo. BTW I don't work for Tivo or own one. If nothing else this is my shout that the FSF isn't doing it's job and is being harmful to FOSS in general as well as the users of FOSS.
This is quite interesting... note that the FSF has done this extensively. Actually IIRC the previous revision of the GPL was made because of "patent shielding", which was another situation were following the letter of the licence could be done without following the spirit of the licence:
Around 1990, I found out about the danger of software patents. So in GPL version 2, we developed the section that we called "liberty or death for the program", although informally, because in GPL version 2 the sections don't have titles. This said that if you agree to any sort of patent licence that would limit the rights that your users would get, then you couldn't distribute the program at all. [fsfeurope.org]
Back then, when RMS talked about patents, many people dismissed it as "political posing", "fanaticism", "I like Linux but this is to much politics, RMS is an extremist", well, you get the idea. Some years latter and here we are, knee-deep in patent threats. To reinforce that the GPLv3 has extra provisions against this forms of sidestepping the licence:
A few years ago, I realised that there were other ways software patents might be used to make software non-free, so we're designing GPL version 3 to block them too. For instance, one issue is, what if the developer of the software has a patent on it, or rather, has a patent on some particular computational technique used in the program. (...) However, there's another way of using software patents to threaten the users which we have just seen an example of. That is, the Novell-Microsoft deal. What has happened is, Microsoft has not given Novell a patent licence, and thus, section 7 of GPL version 2 does not come into play. Instead, Microsoft offered a pate [fsfeurope.org]
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think this is true. If I take BSD licensed code and make a change to it and then license this new group of code as GPL, I don't think there is any problem. The GPL meets all the requirements of the BSD license. I can do anything with the BSD code I want so long as it is in compliance with the BSD license. The BSD license does not restrict me from not prividing the source, or selling the code, or licensing the code in some new way. MS took the entire TCP stack and so long as they keep the original credit in it, they can release it under their proprietary Windows license. The same is true for releasing it under GPL (as far as I know). Now if I have GPL code and I want to release it under the BSD license, I have a problem, because that does not meet all the criteria for the GPL license. To do that I do need permission from all the copyright holders who contributed.
On your first point, regarding GPL2 and 3, I agree by the way. I just believe you are incorrect about moving BSD code to GPL, which I think is perfectly legal.
That's why I like the LGPL (Score:5, Informative)
I have the tendency to write software libraries, because they allow me to reuse my code in several different projects. The executable programs are just a wrapper. So, the LGPL suits me.
Good examples of LGPL projects are the FFMPEG library, which the LGPL ensures it can be used for both commercial and non-commercial projects.
And if that's not enough, there's the wxWindows (wxWidgets) license, which is GPL + exception.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not many people realize this. But if you use a LPGL licensed library, you don't have to release your product under the LGPL, but you do have to release it with a license that allows modification.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The LGPL basically says that you have to provide a "linkable" version of the code, so that someone can modify the LGPL components and recombine them with the non-free components - it doesn't mean that the non-free components must be modifiable.
You're correct that the combined work must be released with a license that allows this, and that many people don't know that they need to do it. It's one of the most common misconceptions about the LGPL - most people think they only have to publish the source to the
Re: (Score:2)
You do not need a license to distribute code to which you own the copyright. The license gives permission for other people to be able to use and distribute the code to which you own the copyright, including derivative works.
Hence, LGPL doesn't allow you to reuse the code that you've written. You can reuse the co
Said elsewhere, but I haven't seen it like this: (Score:5, Insightful)
GPLv3 really just seems to be an attempt to make things explicit which were implied in GPLv2. Personally, I think that's a step in the wrong direction, because the moment you enumerate which things you can or can't do, as opposed to just blanket saying: "you can't, in any way, distribute this software if you, in any way, prevent others from distributing this software", people will say "oh, you said "patent", not "Billy's Intellectual Voucher Certificate", so my way of restricting use
Re:Said elsewhere, but I haven't seen it like this (Score:2)
Exactly. The GPL grants you a lot of rights, provided you grant the same rights to anybody you distribute to. It's symmetrical.
The GPL isn't very restrictive (hey, it includes a patent license, BSD doesn't have that). But that automatically also means that anybody using that code has to be unrestrictive downstream as well. Symmetry.
Most of the opponents of the GPL want a license to be less restrictive towards them, but still they want to be more restrictive themselves. Well, those people never were in the
Translation (Score:4, Insightful)
In the long run, doesn't matter, GPL will thrive (Score:2)
In the long run, the boundaries between code written under different FOSS licenses tend to get fuzzy, because all the best ideas from old software (and code, where allowed) tend to make a new appearance in software created under the latest license. It's just
Exactly that's why! (Score:4, Insightful)
Joke Joke!
There's an old rule of marketing which states "You can charge too little for a product". Just look at most people's gut reactions, GPL'd software is more valuable than public domain software. For developers and corporations like IBM, GPL'd software is more valuable than BSD software because of the GPL's additional sine qua non provisions. The spirit of fairness that is at the basis of RMS's 4 freedoms has value to developers and coporations. For most developers, protections against corporate profiteering preserve their personal ability to profit from their labor. The only people alienated are freeloaders.
Most Free zealots that I know never read GPL2 (Score:3, Interesting)
MOD PARENT UP (Score:3, Informative)
My objection to the GPL is the Theo De Raadt test: If you need to be a lawyer to fully understand the license, it's not friendly to developers. That's why I release my code under the 3-clause BSDL; it's short, simple, and to the point. Any deve
Overlooked something... (Score:5, Insightful)
Right now, there are roughly 3 types of OSS licenses.
The article states "look at the proliferation of licenses", as a sign that the GPL isn't filling a need. The simple facts are that the first two licenses are pretty much in the bag. Nobody writes new licenses that attempt to the accomplish the first two. Pretty much to a person, everyone uses Apache 2, BSD or the GPL to accomplish those goals. If you start looking down the list of other one-off licenses that are for OSS. Those are all about filling the need in the third item. If anything, it could be said that the LGPL is "failing". It isn't the "one true license" to accomplish the task. Essentially the proliferation of license's is about finding a "share and share alike" that can exist in a corporate environment. Where the core technology can be shared and developed by many folks, while the extensions and non-core pieces can be value-adds that are solve for money.
Greg Stein's a brilliant guy, and one hell of an engineer. But I think he's living in his own little world here. Lot's of folks like and enjoy writing software under the premise of the second type of license. Some folks do it under the first. In the end, the collaborative effort will virtually always win out. So in a lot of ways it doesn't matter if you use a license from the first or second group. That's why Apache has never been taken and had a closed competitor that is more used. Sure some commercial products are based on it, but none of them will ever quash Apache out of existence because they are so popular.
All the action is how to have an open source commercial license. The LGPL has a few terms that are a bit harsh on business, and have little to say with respect to patents or trademarks. In this day and age a license must address those.
Kirby
It's more than that (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT7188273245. html [linuxdevices.com]
http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_so ftware_notes/why_gplv3_says_additional_permissions _are_removable [fsfe.org]
http://gplv3.fsf.org/additional-terms-dd2.html [fsf.org]
And the LGPL v3 is actually written in terms of the GPLv3:
http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/barcelona-rms- transcript.en.html#lgpl [fsfeurope.org]
http://gplv3.fsf.org/lgpl-draft-2006-07-27.html [fsf.org]
So basically, the GPLv3 was designed to eliminate
Makes no sense (Score:4, Insightful)
This just makes no sense. The difference between GPLv2 and v3 is negligible compared to the difference between the GPL and other licenses.
It's basically the same license, it's just that it's written in a more legally robust way, more explicitly enforcing the things that GPLv2 is already supposed to enforce.
It's also had the most thorough community review process ever, for these sorts of things. Every word of GPLv3 has been debated by everybody who bothered to get involved, including all the major commercial users.
All news like this is just FUD.
Why is this here? (Score:2, Funny)
My mom doesn't know the difference either. Should I get her to write an essay and submit it?
GPL = non starter for me (Score:2, Interesting)
On the other hand, we do occasionally use MIT or BSD licensed projects. When working with those we put in a lot of QA time (something most open source projects are severely lacking in!) and we put in some engineering time as well to fix problems we find or extend the project to do things it currently doesn't. That means my employer devote
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Google and Tivo don't like GPLv3 (Score:4, Insightful)
Tivo wants to use GPL code but prevent users from installing modifications to the GPL code on their boxes.
Google wants to use GPL code and add modifications that others are prevented from using or modifying by using software patents and lawsuits.
If you want to use free code and hide your changes, and further restrict users, BSD is the way to go.
New day, same old stuff (Score:4, Interesting)
So what possible interest could this large multi-national software company have in GPL software? "Boo hoo, we can't steal code from the internet."
Their assertion that the GPL is unfavorable to developers is questionable at best. Unfair to their developers because they have to write the code instead of stealing it? Or is it unfair to other developers because - I don't know, some other reason that you have to drink the MS kool aid to understand.
Really, now - a company that makes monitoring and management software for several Windows versions - and Linux - issues a release in which they speak of "developers!" and spread FUD about the GPL. Coincidence?
Where "developers" = "proprietary leaches" (Score:4, Insightful)
As a developer, though admittedly a small-time developer (under 100k lines of source published under GPLv2 over the last several years), I see the GPLv3 much like a version upgrade of a library or operating system. The new one may have a few minor quirks, but they're well worth it for bugs fixed in the new version. As a developer who releases under the GPL, I especially see the "tivo" issue as something like a security hole, and I'm glad it's getting fixed!
The thought process behind all this wishful thinking seems to be that "developers" (proprietary leeches who want to use the code but not share their own additions) are somehow customers, and what they want matters. That would be true if they were paying customers. But the truth is, every time I publish any GPL code, I never expect to make a dime (other than perhaps people find me and want consulting on their projects). So all these "developers" who want more permissive, BSD-style terms don't factor into my decision making process. I want to share the code, and since I don't expect to make any money, it's only fair that anyone who uses it must share theirs too.
Why I Rolled My Own (Score:4, Interesting)
The GPL would have been nice, but it's a bit too politically-intensive. And the problem with BSD-style licences is that (unless you remove the second clause, to permit distribution only in Source Code form; which is actually fine for stuff written in interpreted languages) it doesn't guarantee to preserve Freedoms One and Three (I know I'm borrowing these terms from GNU; I happen to agree with their manifesto, I'm just not convinced that a notice of permission for acts above and beyond the Fair Dealing provisions of copyright law needs to reproduce a political manifesto) for posterity. I know that's just me being lazy -- I could always get off my backside and write my own Free competitor if some upstart tried to make a non-Free fork -- but I figured that said non-Free competitor would be just as guilty of "just being lazy" by using my hard work (which I intended to be for the benefit of all of humankind) for their non-Free project rather than writing their own from scratch.
I did at one stage have a section restricting translation of the program to other languages (the English text permitting translation was to be replaced with a section forbidding further translations when the program was translated; the intention being to preserve the integrity of the program and its documentation by guarding against multiple translations) but dropped this requirement as being unworkable and possibly non-DFSG.
COPYRIGHT
0. This program is copyright $DATE $AUTHOR. You are authorised to copy and distribute this program, and create Derivative Works based upon this program (in respect of which you will hold copyright on the portions you have modified), strictly in accordance with the terms of this licence and on the understanding that the same terms will be imposed upon the recipients. This licence originates from the copyright holders, not necessarily the person from whom you have obtained the program. Nothing in this licence is intended to be construed as prejudicing your Statutory Rights, which may include a limited right to make copies ("fair dealing" or "fair use") for certain purposes.
TERMS OF DISTRIBUTION
1. Any distribution in Source Code form (the preferred form for making modifications to the program) must include this licence and warranty disclaimer (or at your option, a warranty underwritten by you).
2. Any distribution in binary executable form must include the complete Source Code, the necessary instructions to render the Source Code into executable form ("Build Instructions"), and this licence and warranty disclaimer (or at your option, a warranty underwritten by you). If the program is made available for electronic download, the executable and Source Code + Build Instructions need not be included in the same archive file as long as both are available for download from the same place.
3. Any distribution pre-loaded into an appliance must include the complete Source Code and Build Instructions, the necessary instructions to replace the version of the program within the appliance with a modified version ("Modification Instructions"), any applicable warnings regarding cessation of warranty protection and/or regulatory approval as a consequence of modification, and this licence and warranty disclaimer (or at your option, a warranty underwritten by you).
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY
4. We warrant that this program, when run unmodified on a computer which is operating properly, will do what the source code says it will do. NO OTHER WARRANTY IS MADE IN RESPECT OF THE PROGRAM, NOT EVEN OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. If you are in any doubt about the suitability of this program for a particular application, you are advised to consult with a programmer who is familiar with the language in which this program is written and whom you trust before proceeding.
As far as I can see, it guarantees to preserve Free
I'm not a developer TFA is talking about (Score:3, Insightful)
57% of projects on Freshmeat use GPL (Score:5, Informative)
Reports of the GPL's demise therefore seem exaggerated.
I like the GPLv3, and I write code. Others do too (Score:3, Insightful)
Clearly people who don't like GPLv2 won't like GPLv3, but why would you expect anything different? And those who have been most outspoken against earlier drafts of GPLv3, like Linus Torvalds, seem to be much happier with the latest version (they might not use it, but it's hard to claim they're alienated). And kernel developers are certainly not uniform (in anything!); Torvalds didn't like earlier drafts, but Alan Cox has spoken very positively about the GPLv3. The Apache License 2.0 compatibility and internationalization are enough reasons all by themselves to upgrade. And I don't have any trouble with the new "must be able to change the software" rules; if I start a project, I want to be able to use arbitrary later versions extended by others, and I can't without these new GPLv3 clauses for anti-Tivoization and anti-DRM. Yes, in some cases there are other conditions I want more instead, but in those cases I'd use a different license.
I don't license everything under the GPL, because I have different motives for different projects. Indeed, over my lifetime I've licensed stuff under the GPL, LGPL, MIT, and proprietary licenses, depending on my circumstances. But if you're trying to make sure that you get to use future versions of a project you start or contribute to, the GPLv3 is a pretty good way to get there. It certainly isn't "alienating" me. Instead, I now have a new choice, one that better reflects my goals when I choose to release code under the GPL.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
As an example of this kind of marketing manipulation consult "The Submarine" by Paul Graham.
http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html [paulgraham.com]
April 2005
"Suits make a corporate comeback," says the New York Times. Why does this sound familiar? Maybe because the suit was also back in February, September 2004, June 2004, March 2004, September 2003, November 2002, April 2002, and February 2002.
Why do the media keep running stories saying suits are back? Because PR firms tell them to. One of the most surprising thi