Single-company free software [LWN.net]

Single-company free software

Posted Oct 11, 2005 5:29 UTC (Tue) by szoth (subscriber, #14825)
In reply to: Single-company free software by lutchann
Parent article: Single-company free software

Do you think its possible that the people who think that public domain is
a better way to distribute source code than under the GPL might have a little more influence on that wikipedia article that other folks?

The article seems to be refering to the legality of shrink wrap lisences. If it's a problem for the GPL it would be a problem for all kinds of other licenses too.

As for the GPL not being tested, that's some popular FUD your peddling. Even if it were true it would still be FUD, but it is more fiction that fact. To your credit you say that it is _mostly_ untested, a subjective statement and impossible to refute. However I will claim that the GPL is _mostly_ tested:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050225223848129

(Log in to post comments)

Single-company free software

Posted Oct 11, 2005 15:59 UTC (Tue) by lutchann (subscriber, #8872) [Link]

Geez, don't get so defensive, this isn't Slashdot.

I specifically linked to the article where the information came from so that everyone could draw their own conclusions as to the accuracy and bias of the source. I don't put a lot of stock in the journalistic quality of Wikipedia material, so I'm not going to take anything written there as fact without verifying it first, and I don't expect anybody else to.

I stand by the claim that the GPL is mostly untested, although I don't mean "tested" in the FUD sense. The GPL is generally considered to be a valid, well thought-out license, and nearly all of the code I write is released under the GPL or LGPL because I have faith in the legal soundness of those licenses. However, the interpretation of many of the terms in the GPL is still unclear.

To take a well-worn example, there is considerable controversy over where the line is drawn regarding dynamic linking of GPL code to closed code, particularly with regard to the Linux kernel. When proprietary software companies find an unanswered question regarding their own license, they promptly revise their license terms to clarify their intentions. However, since there is such a large body of code that will forever be licensed under the GPLv2, it is up to the courts to resolve ambiguities in the license, and that doesn't seem to happen very often.

Single-company free software

Posted Oct 13, 2005 6:40 UTC (Thu) by ekj (subscriber, #1524) [Link]

To take a well-worn example, there is considerable controversy over where the line is drawn regarding dynamic linking of GPL code to closed code, particularly with regard to the Linux kernel.

Yeah, that example is worn, allthough not well-worn. I've debunked it before, guess I'll do so again;

You are correct that it is not always 100% clear what exactly constitutes a "derived work", for example, in the case of the Linux kernel there's some disagreement as to if a kernel-module is a derived work of the kernel or not.

However, this confusion has absolutely --zero-- to do with the GPL, but is instead a general problem with copyright.

"derived work" is defined in law, and license-writers are not free to redefine it. Or put another way: if they redefined it, that redefinition would carry no weight anyway, what matters is what is, in the eyes of the law, a derived work.

If I write my own "EPL" (Eivinds Public License) in which I state that all software running on the same computer as my software is to be considered "derived" and must be released under the EPL, that would never stand up in court. If the law considers that non-derived (and that's a fair bet) there's nothing I can write to change that -- I'm not the lawmaker in any country.

Oposite, writing that I consider something *not* to be derived (even though legally it may be) will also not change the meaning of derived work. It migth however be interpreted as a permission from me to do so. (In other words I say: "I don't consider loadable modules derived from my work", the court may hear that as: "I permit loadable modules with other licenses")

Yes, it's sometimes unclear what exactly constitutes a "derived work", this is however fully a unclarity in the law, and nothing that *any* license can change.

Single-company free software

Posted Oct 13, 2005 15:24 UTC (Thu) by lutchann (subscriber, #8872) [Link]

Thank you, that is a much better explanation regarding the binary module debate than I could have managed. This particular area of confusion effectively illustrates why we desparately need more case law to shape the legal framework we've created for open source development. As you've pointed out, these issues arise not just from ambiguities in the GPL, but from ambiguities in copyright law that affect us more than commercial developers who rely instead on contract law to enforce their software licenses. Again, until we see more court cases, we can't be sure about a lot of the "common knowledge" surrounding open source software.

Single-company free software

Posted Oct 11, 2005 16:37 UTC (Tue) by jwb (subscriber, #15467) [Link]

The GPL is not a shrink-wrap license, and it is unlike almost any other commercial software license. The GPL grants you extra rights you do not normally have. If you don't agree to the GPL, you don't have the extra rights. Most licenses, including shrink-wrapped EULAs, take away rights you normally have. The difference between the two is fundamental.

Single-company free software

Posted Oct 14, 2005 0:49 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

If you don't agree to the GPL, you don't have the extra rights.

Small technical correction: GPL is not a contract (aka agreement), ergo, there's nothing to agree to. What you mean is that if you don't perform the conditions of the GPL, you don't have the extra rights.

The difference is one of timing: in a contract, you agree to it and then can be forced to perform (by the person with whom you agreed) at a later date. With a license condition, you perform the condition, and then you have the license. You have no future commitment. There's nothing to breach.