RMS: The GNU GPL Is Here to Stay (O'ReillyNet)

Posted Sep 23, 2005 21:53 UTC (Fri) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link]

In the freedom balance, the GPL weighs users -- particularly those who want to customize software for themselves -- far above original authors. Under the current copyright regime, authors have it all. If they don't like a license, they have unlimited alternatives -- unless they want to draw on the Free Software commons. But why should a web service get to both draw on the Free Software commons for profit, but not be as obliged as those whose code they used? How is running code on a web site's servers different, in any fundamental way, from running it on a user's machine?

To help focus the question, suppose (in a universe not so distant) the site owners had a choice to download code derived from Free Software to a user's browser, and run it there; or to run the same code on their servers. The user's experience is the same either way. Surely if they downloaded it, the GPL would apply. Not downloading it, they're getting the same benefit, but the user is not extended the same right to improve her experience. Instead, she's obliged to beg the site owner to incorporate her suggestions, or re-implement from scratch. She's not enabled to set up her own service, passing along her own ideas to others.

Every argument against public-performance clauses applies equally well to GPLv2. GPLv2 has been an enormous success, moreso now than in the past. That's despite loud and repeated predictions that BSD would be more popular with businesses, marginalizing GPL, if GPL weren't relaxed some. That didn't happen. What happened was that BSD-licensed code has stagnated, vs. GPL software, because those who chose BSD frequently didn't their give improvements back. That surprised some people, but not me, and not the FSF.

Nowadays, with code running on servers, GPLv2 and BSD are equivalent, and that threatens to flatten GPL development to the (much slower) BSD rate of improvement, and deprive users -- all of us -- of the benefits that were the real purpose of the GPL. How would you feel about making improvements to a GPL program for a company, expecting that you would be able to take your work with you to the next job, and then finding that the company had decided not to let you?

Posted Sep 23, 2005 21:54 UTC (Fri) by GF (guest, #32647) [Link]

When I go to e.g. www.google.com it is _I_ who use the software running on googles servers, I'm the user. However I get none of the so called "four essential freedoms". To the degree web (and other public) servers are running free SW, I think the SW should be published. That's at least my first sponteanous reaction.
I come to think of the story of how the malfunctioning proprietary print server software got RMS started on his mission. That SW was (maybe) not running on his workstation, he was just using a remote service, somewhat similar to web services.

Posted Sep 23, 2005 23:28 UTC (Fri) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link]

As RMS says in the article, code licensed under the GPLv2 ONLY will by definition be incompatible with the GPLv3, no matter what the GPLv3 contains, at least to the extent that if the code is contained within the same files, offset comments would need to be applied (and maintained) stating which code was the exception to the general file license. This is part of the issue with v2 ONLY language and why the suggested language uses the "or any later version" clause. That clause, as you mention, means code can be automatically updated to the GPLv3 without issue, because it's inherent in the license conditions.

Do note that the existing kernel code isn't all GPLv2 in any case. Some code originates from BSD, in which case the original BSD code can be relicensed too GPL3 just as it was relicensed to GPL2 (BSD permits that). Other code was specifically contributed under the "or any later version" clause, while other code has specific language turning over copyrights to Linus, or specifically permitting him to exercise his judgment in terms of license. Thus, it won't all be unconvertible. Actually, much of the code either has known and still active contributors or has the far more direct newer "signed off by" lines, in which case it won't be an issue.

OTOH, the same security blanket that makes it infeasible for the likes of Jeff Merkey (sp?) to offer to buy the kernel, because not all copyright holders could be tracked down, also prevents conversion in this case. Given that about a third of the kernel code has been rewritten since 2.6.0 (estimate based on Andrew's claim earlier that about a quarter had been at that point), with much of that code directly signed off and therefore directly attributable, and the rest fairly easy to retrieve from logs, and the known or easily traceable authors of much of the remaining code, perhaps a quarter would initially be stuck GPLv2 only, if the active kernel coders as a group decided to switch. However, even without direct targeted effort, just rewriting as they came across it, the remaining code would likely be mostly gone in a year, and with a bit of targeting of the harder and more niche code, the rest could be gone, either replaced, or in the case of non-critical code like some of the several file systems, be yanked out entirely if necessary. That's a far cry from immediate, but two years or even three wouldn't be that extreme given the time other projects will be taking to do their own conversion, and the complexity of the kernel.

Still, all that said, I can see a couple other possibilities happening as well. One, the kernel already includes the Linux Kernel GPL Preamble, a legally binding disclaimer specifically stating that the kernel's GPL does NOT apply to userland code. Anything in the GPLv3 that proved disagreeable to a suitable number of active kernel devs could be similarly disclaimed, by section and paragraph, if necessary.

Two, it's possible, tho I wouldn't call it likely at this point, that the GPLv3 will include a "menu" of several optional modules that can be applied by the author as desired, much as the Creative Commons Licenses do, only with a strong central core that they don't have. The core might be very similar to the GPLv2, with optional patent and software-as-a-service clause modules that an author can choose to claim or disclaim as desired. (As noted above, even if this isn't the case with the formal GPLv3, it can always be /made/ the case with exceptions similar to the kernel license preamble already in place.)

Of course, these options do mean rather more license proliferation, but if the modules were formalized, it would at least keep the proliferation to some level of control. If disclaiming is left to the individual cases, the situation could easily become far more complicated, unless the GPLv3 gets the same level of support as the GPLv2 now has or better, not a given by any means!

Duncan

Posted Sep 24, 2005 12:26 UTC (Sat) by jstAusr (guest, #27224) [Link]

Don't you think the four freedoms are intended to be applied as a set? Otherwise, why not just have two freedoms or ultimately no freedom?

The four freedoms are intended for all users aren't they? In other words, in each case, don't you need to consider if the four freedoms are intact for all the users?

Just one other thought. The destination of web services is to have the users pay for each use of every program. All programs would reside on servers. The users machine would hold only data and reports or maybe they would pay for storage space on the server. If you would want to listen to a song, play a game, write an email, or anything else, you would need to pay a service fee to a program server. A certain well known monoply has wanted that to happen for a long time.