RMS: The GNU GPL Is Here to Stay (O'ReillyNet) [LWN.net]

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

Posted Sep 25, 2005 0:18 UTC (Sun) by dlang (subscriber, #313)
Parent article: RMS: The GNU GPL Is Here to Stay (O'ReillyNet)

as many have noted the real question here is where to draw the line, and the answers that boil down to 'I'll know it when I see it' don't do anything to reassure the rest of us on the issue.

many people want to make code that runs websites available.

does this mean that anything that has any way to access it over the network must require that a method be offered to download the source of it (assuming it's based on a GPL work)?

think carefully about this, if so you are requireing changes to every network protocol out there (DNS, SMTP, IMAP, POP, BitTorrent, etc) just in case there's ever a GPL version of it (or the GPL version won't be able to be written and still comply with GPLv3), carrying this to it's logical extreme, what about Ping? does the fact that you can ping a box and get a response mean that you are entitled to all the local patches and config info about the kernel that is running on that box?

if not, what exactly is so special about HTTP that it deserves special treatment?

think about the current AJAX 'craze' (javascript running on browsers makeing async calls to a server for specific functions), currently this implements it's server-side calls by useing XML-over-HTTP so both server and client side code would have to be provided, but it would be pretty simple to have the call from the client to the server use a different port and eliminate the HTTP wrapper (it would even be more efficiant). now all of the sudden since the majic HTTP protocol isn't used anymore there's no requirement to provide the server source?!?!?!?

(Log in to post comments)

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

Posted Sep 25, 2005 0:26 UTC (Sun) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link]

by the way, the answer that HTTP is special becouse it's popular is not acceptable unless you want to have licenses changeing periodicly based on what software is popular at the time the license is written.

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

Posted Sep 25, 2005 13:11 UTC (Sun) by job (subscriber, #670) [Link]

Please respect all the people who reads your comment and has to spend some extra work to parse what you're actually saying. Using proper capitalization and punctuation would make it simpler. Keep in mind that many of us reads English as a foreign language spends enough neurons on reading the text without having to fill in the missing characters.

As to what you're saying, it is not likely that one network protocol would be favoured over others in a software license. Neither is it likely that any protocols need to be changed just because one is required to distribute source code.

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

Posted Sep 25, 2005 23:12 UTC (Sun) by dark (subscriber, #8483) [Link]

I think there is some basis for being concerned about that. The Affero GPL is a variant of the GPL which has a downloadable-source clause. The FSF was involved in drafting it, and one of the goals was to see how such a clause would work in practice. So it's a precedent to consider, and it does single out HTTP as the protocol to use.

That doesn't mean the GPLv3 will automatically do the same thing, but we should at least talk about it. And we can't just ignore the protocol either. I work with services for mobile phones, where the transport protocol might be SMS -- 140 bytes per packet, costing several cents and several seconds to send a packet. Offering source code over that is not reasonable.

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

Posted Sep 25, 2005 23:48 UTC (Sun) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link]

if it's not going to favor one protocol over another, please explain how the 'download button' will work for an IMAP mail server, or for a DNS server.

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

Posted Sep 26, 2005 5:04 UTC (Mon) by jamesh (subscriber, #1159) [Link]

If you really wanted such a feature for an IMAP server, one possible way would be to provide a read-only folder that contains a single message with the source code as an attachment. If the folder isn't subscribed by default, then it wouldn't annoy users that aren't looking for the source.

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

Posted Sep 26, 2005 5:18 UTC (Mon) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link]

it's not a question of wanting to add it, it's a question of will GPLv3 _REQUIRE_ you to add it.

and while IMAP does have a mechanism that can be twisted into providing this (as long as the attachment isn't too large) not all protocols are as easy to manipulate, DNS being one good example.

Self-advertising protocols

Posted Sep 26, 2005 17:28 UTC (Mon) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link]

Not to quibble, but DNS is perfectly capable of delivering a URL. Even ping can do that. So can old-standard SMTP. New protocols seem increasingly likely to have a place to paste in a URL.

As for how vague the legal definition of "public performance" must be, applied to software: if in doubt, put in the URL. If anyone you don't know downloads the code, it must have been a public performance.

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

Posted Sep 27, 2005 2:39 UTC (Tue) by jamesh (subscriber, #1159) [Link]

As far as I can tell, the term they are talking about would forbid you from removing such a feature, rather than requiring you to add it.

This is similar to the existing GPLv2 provision that interactive derivative works should print a copyright and warranty notice on startup, which is waived if the original version was interactive but didn't print such a message.

It's a bit hard to say any more without knowledge of the actual terms being considered.

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

Posted Sep 27, 2005 3:48 UTC (Tue) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link]

I wasn't aware of such a provision, could you please clarify which clause requires it?

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

Posted Sep 27, 2005 6:54 UTC (Tue) by jamesh (subscriber, #1159) [Link]

Section 2 (c), which deals on creating and distributing modifications to GPL covered software:

c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
License.  (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
the Program is not required to print an announcement.)

So this clause has the following implications:

If you modify an interactive GPL'd program that prints a copyright message such that the derivative work is also interactive, then the derivative must also print a copyright message.
If you modify an interactive GPL'd program that does not print a copyright message, you are not required to print a copyright message in the derivative.
If your derivative is not interactive, then it doesn't need to print the copyright message on startup.
If you modify a non-interactive GPL'd program such that the derivative is interactive, you need to print a copyright notice on startup.

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

Posted Sep 27, 2005 10:16 UTC (Tue) by job (subscriber, #670) [Link]

How about reading the article? What is this, Slashdot?

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

Posted Sep 26, 2005 17:31 UTC (Mon) by pontus (guest, #3701) [Link]

Somebody is missing the point here. The proposal was not that every remote service must offer the source code for download through that service. The proposal was that if there is already such a function in the service, it must not be removed.

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

Posted Sep 26, 2005 17:48 UTC (Mon) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link]

but that won't close the 'ASP loophole' becouse the software the ASP is providing may not have been web enabled in the first place so it wouldn't have the download function.

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

Posted Sep 26, 2005 20:43 UTC (Mon) by dd9jn (subscriber, #4459) [Link]

At least it gives fair competition back to the developers who decided to release the software with such an ASP source retrieval command. As it stands now it is pretty easy to grab some high value software, write a simple frontend and marginalise the orginal version - using the advantage of having a way to hide the actual software.

Well, this is actually not only an ASP problem but extends to many applicance vendors.