Some GPLv3 clarifications from the FSF
| From: | GPLv3 Information <info-gplv3-AT-gplv3.fsf.org> | |
| To: | info-gplv3-AT-gplv3.fsf.org | |
| Subject: | [Info-gplv3] GPLv3: recent misleading information | |
| Date: | Mon, 25 Sep 2006 19:25:07 -0400 |
The Free Software Foundation wishes to clarify a few factual points
about the Second Discussion Draft of GNU GPL version 3, on which
recent discussion has presented inaccurate information.
1. The FSF has no power to force anyone to switch from GPLv2 to GPLv3
on their own code. We intentionally wrote GPLv2 (and GPLv1) so we
would not have this power. Software developers will continue to
have the right to use GPLv2 for their code after GPLv3 is
published, and we will respect their decisions.
2. In order to honor freedom 0, your freedom to run the program as
you wish, a free software license may not contain "use
restrictions" that would restrict what you can do with it.
Contrary to what some have said, the GPLv3 draft has no use
restrictions, and the final version won't either.
GPLv3 will prohibit certain distribution practices which restrict
users' freedom to modify the code. We hope this policy will
thwart the ways some companies wish to "use" free software --
namely, distributing it to you while controlling what you can do
with it. This policy is not a "use restriction": it doesn't
restrict how they, or you, can run the program; it doesn't
restrict what they, or you, can make the program do. Rather it
ensures you, as a user, are as free as they are.
3. Where GPLv2 relies on an implicit patent license, which depends on
US law, GPLv3 contains an explicit patent license that does the
same job internationally.
Contrary to what some have said, GPLv3 will not cause a company to
"lose its entire [software] patent portfolio". It simply says
that if someone has a patent covering XYZ, and distributes a
GPL-covered program to do XYZ, he can't sue the program's
subsequent users, redistributors and improvers for doing XYZ with
their own versions of that program. This has no effect on other
patents which that program does not implement.
Software patents attack the freedom of all software developers and
users; their only legitimate use is to deter aggression using
software patents. Therefore, if we could abolish every entity's
entire portfolio of software patents tomorrow, we would jump at
the chance. But it isn't possible for a software license such as
the GNU GPL to achieve such a result.
We do, however, hope that GPL v3 can solve a part of the patent
problem. The FSF is now negotiating with organizations holding
substantial patent inventories, trying to mediate between their
conflicting "extreme" positions. We hope to work out the precise
details of the explicit patent license so as to free software
developers from patent aggression under a substantial fraction of
software patents. To fully protect software developers and users
from software patents will, however, require changes in patent law.
About The Free Software Foundation
The Free Software Foundation, founded in 1985, is dedicated to
promoting computer users' right to use, study, copy, modify, and
redistribute computer programs. The FSF promotes the development
and use of free (as in freedom) software -- particularly the GNU
operating system and its GNU/Linux variants -- and free
documentation for free software. The FSF also helps to spread
awareness of the ethical and political issues of freedom in the use
of software. Their Web site, located at http://www.fsf.org, is an
important source of information about GNU/Linux. Donations to
support their work can be made at http://donate.fsf.org. Their
headquarters are in Boston, MA, USA.
--
John Sullivan
Program Administrator | Phone: (617)542-5942 x23
51 Franklin Street, 5th Fl. | Fax: (617)542-2652
Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA | GPG: AE8600B6
_______________________________________________
Info-gplv3 mailing list
Info-gplv3@gplv3.fsf.org
http://gplv3.fsf.org
Posted Sep 26, 2006 2:24 UTC (Tue)
by error27 (subscriber, #8346)
[Link] (71 responses)
Posted Sep 26, 2006 2:43 UTC (Tue)
by stevenj (guest, #421)
[Link] (69 responses)
So, the answer to your question is maybe, if the authors of your online app chose to include this additional restriction.
Posted Sep 26, 2006 5:10 UTC (Tue)
by JoeF (guest, #4486)
[Link] (40 responses)
Posted Sep 26, 2006 5:26 UTC (Tue)
by atai (subscriber, #10977)
[Link] (6 responses)
Posted Sep 26, 2006 5:36 UTC (Tue)
by JoeF (guest, #4486)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Sep 26, 2006 5:44 UTC (Tue)
by cventers (guest, #31465)
[Link]
One of the aims of GPLv3 is to have a little additional flexibility.
Posted Sep 26, 2006 6:02 UTC (Tue)
by pynm0001 (guest, #18379)
[Link]
If a project doesn't want to use that feature of the GPL, then they
When I put code in kdelibs, it's put in as LGPL or less restrictive in
Posted Sep 26, 2006 7:22 UTC (Tue)
by Los__D (guest, #15263)
[Link]
Posted Sep 26, 2006 16:11 UTC (Tue)
by smoogen (subscriber, #97)
[Link] (1 responses)
A project does not have a central body that gets all copyright assigned to it. Abel is a contributor and makes that he wants this additional part to be valid. Does the entire code then need to have to be distributed by anyone who uses it for a web app, or just his patches?
I would say no, but that would probably need to be litigated and the contract be found valid/non-valid under US/Euro/etc law. Code groups would have to be more diligent in who/how/when they got their patches from to make sure that people knew that their patches were only accepted under the top level license and not any optional license. This in some locales could only be enforced by a signed contract... which is the nightmare scenario that some are worried about.
Posted Sep 26, 2006 20:13 UTC (Tue)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link]
Been there, done that. Remember XFree86 ? This project destroyed itself with this exact type of nonsense. Of course if most contributors will agree that some additional restriction will be good - then it's other story. But single one... don't make me laugh...
Posted Sep 26, 2006 8:58 UTC (Tue)
by Jel (guest, #22988)
[Link] (32 responses)
Posted Sep 26, 2006 16:42 UTC (Tue)
by ccyoung (guest, #16340)
[Link] (31 responses)
Posted Sep 26, 2006 17:41 UTC (Tue)
by Jel (guest, #22988)
[Link] (30 responses)
Posted Sep 26, 2006 19:54 UTC (Tue)
by JoeF (guest, #4486)
[Link] (29 responses)
Posted Sep 26, 2006 21:11 UTC (Tue)
by Jel (guest, #22988)
[Link] (10 responses)
Posted Sep 26, 2006 22:45 UTC (Tue)
by JoeF (guest, #4486)
[Link] (9 responses)
Posted Sep 26, 2006 23:28 UTC (Tue)
by Jel (guest, #22988)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Sep 27, 2006 0:25 UTC (Wed)
by JoeF (guest, #4486)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Sep 27, 2006 9:07 UTC (Wed)
by Jel (guest, #22988)
[Link]
Posted Sep 27, 2006 4:55 UTC (Wed)
by sanjoy (guest, #5026)
[Link] (5 responses)
If you can't use a GPL3-version of a program on a website without giving people the source, then it is a use restriction.
The so-called Affero restriction is a modification restriction. If you get a program subject to the Affero restrction, you are free to run the program as you received it. If the program is a web service and makes its source available to users, then when you run it, it would do the same. You cannot remove those facilities, so your right of modification is restricted.
If the program is not a web service, but you turn it into one, then you have
to make sure that you include "get the source" facilities. That's also a modification restriction: "You are free to modify it so long as you...".
--Sanjoy Mahajan
Posted Sep 27, 2006 6:27 UTC (Wed)
by JoeF (guest, #4486)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Sep 27, 2006 9:07 UTC (Wed)
by xoddam (guest, #2322)
[Link] (3 responses)
No, you can't. Reread section 2.
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html#SEC3
Posted Sep 27, 2006 14:36 UTC (Wed)
by JoeF (guest, #4486)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Sep 28, 2006 1:01 UTC (Thu)
by xoddam (guest, #2322)
[Link] (1 responses)
It was the original choice of the FSF not to make too big a beef about
The Affero clause is an equivalent restriction, prohibiting removal of a
The fundamental difference is not in the way the licence or copyright law
An attempt to enforce clause 2c of the GPLv2 against modifications to
> Thanks for making my point.
The point I have made is that modification restrictions in the GPL have
Somehow I don't think this is the same as the point that you think I've
It has long been argued and agreed that BSD- and MIT-style licences
If you wish, now that you understand that the monopoly granted by
Posted Sep 28, 2006 1:33 UTC (Thu)
by JoeF (guest, #4486)
[Link]
Posted Sep 27, 2006 4:46 UTC (Wed)
by xoddam (guest, #2322)
[Link] (17 responses)
Read the (draft) licence, JoeF.
The GPLv3 draft *permits* a distributor to redistribute GPLv3 code with a
The scenario is this:
Party A, say lwn.net, decides to publish the source code for a web
Party B, say xoddam.com, modifies the code, makes certain enhancements,
Party C, say JoeF.com, downloads the source from xoddam.com and builds a
It would appear that the limitation shoots itself in the foot, because
This is precisely because it cannot impose restrictions on use. Some
I suppose there may be some who would argue that some of the content you
Posted Sep 27, 2006 6:45 UTC (Wed)
by JoeF (guest, #4486)
[Link] (16 responses)
Posted Sep 27, 2006 9:01 UTC (Wed)
by xoddam (guest, #2322)
[Link] (15 responses)
The reason is that copyright extends to the right to prepare derivative
> I provide the output of the program, which is probably not
I was talking (beside the point, as it turns out) about some theoretical
"The output from running it is covered by this License only if the
> So, if [the licence of] an application like a Web service
Copyright can impose no restriction on your use of a work once you have a
What copyright *can* impose is a restriction on your right to modify the
http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html
"If the Program as you received it is intended to interact with users
If you think that's unfair, travel to a country with extra-strong Fair
The draft GPLv3 alone does not contain any such requirement. What it
> So, then, a) why is this clause in the draft,
This clause exists so that code under GPLv3 may be combined with code
If anything, the bit about Web applications was added as an afterthought,
All the restrictions under discussion are restrictions on modification
> b) why do some people feel the need to argue for it with their
I wasn't aware they were. It's a pretty esoteric clause, IMO. In any
Posted Sep 27, 2006 14:50 UTC (Wed)
by JoeF (guest, #4486)
[Link] (14 responses)
That applies to distribution, as the first sentence of section2 states: "You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications"
"b) why do some people feel the need to argue for it with their personal ethics?"
Well, I was referring to somebody else in this thread who accused me of being unethical.
Anyway, I stand by my position that this would be a use restriction which does not belong in an Open Source license.
Posted Sep 27, 2006 15:09 UTC (Wed)
by Jel (guest, #22988)
[Link] (13 responses)
Posted Sep 27, 2006 15:32 UTC (Wed)
by JoeF (guest, #4486)
[Link] (12 responses)
Posted Sep 27, 2006 15:42 UTC (Wed)
by Jel (guest, #22988)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Sep 27, 2006 16:02 UTC (Wed)
by JoeF (guest, #4486)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Sep 27, 2006 16:13 UTC (Wed)
by Jel (guest, #22988)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Sep 27, 2006 17:16 UTC (Wed)
by JoeF (guest, #4486)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Sep 27, 2006 17:39 UTC (Wed)
by Jel (guest, #22988)
[Link]
Posted Sep 28, 2006 1:12 UTC (Thu)
by xoddam (guest, #2322)
[Link] (6 responses)
1. Neither version of the GPL contains any restriction on your right to
2. The GPLv2 and GPLv3 contain essentially the same restrictions on
The GPLv3 does not contain the Affero clause and does not restrict
What it does do is *permit* a downstream redistributor to *add* an
Posted Sep 28, 2006 1:39 UTC (Thu)
by JoeF (guest, #4486)
[Link] (5 responses)
The GPLv3 does point out that your unlimited right to use
the software applies to the *unmodified* version you received
The GPLv3 does not contain the Affero clause
Posted Sep 28, 2006 2:22 UTC (Thu)
by xoddam (guest, #2322)
[Link] (4 responses)
The GPLv2 covers whatever copyright law covers in your country, including
> The current GPLv3 draft tries to limit what I can do with the
The GPLv3 draft DOES NOT DIFFER from the GPLv2 in the essentials of the
If you want to do it in a more public fashion, eg. by running a public
> > The GPLv3 does point out that your unlimited right to
> Yes. And that is where one of the "4 freedoms" is removed.
I'm sure you have a point here, but I'm not sure how it applies to
The Affero licence -- by relying heavily on the limited permission to
from your other reply:
I suggested you might have more fun playing with some other kids and you
Posted Sep 28, 2006 4:28 UTC (Thu)
by JoeF (guest, #4486)
[Link] (3 responses)
I suggested you might have more fun playing with some other kids and you
called me a nasty name. I'm telling Teacher now.
Posted Sep 28, 2006 6:35 UTC (Thu)
by xoddam (guest, #2322)
[Link] (2 responses)
Real lawyers are thin on the ground here, you're in the wrong place if
Nor had I read the licences as closely as I should have before
Posted Sep 28, 2006 8:17 UTC (Thu)
by JoeF (guest, #4486)
[Link]
Posted Sep 30, 2006 22:04 UTC (Sat)
by h2 (guest, #27965)
[Link]
The fact that other people are not able, or willing, to match your level will hopefully not dissuade you from continuing to post. Since this type of non-discourse is a given in any public forum, all I can do is thank you for the patience you've shown to others who clearly do not grasp the question nearly as well as you do, which is personally more than I would have been able to do.
Posted Sep 26, 2006 10:37 UTC (Tue)
by mingo (guest, #31122)
[Link] (27 responses)
The problem is that the GPLv3 treats such "additional permissions and restrictions" in an unequal way, and creates an unjust and unfair "pressure" towards a pure, permission-less GPLv3.
Let me explain. Under Section 7/c:
" When you convey a copy of a covered work, you may at your option
remove any additional permissions from that copy, or from any part
of it. "
This means that anyone who conveys (i.e. who copies or distributes the code) can remove an additional permission. Anyone. Code that was written with specific additional permissions can be taken and incorporated into a "pure" GPLv3 project with those permissions removed. But can I do what that person did to my code, can I include his fixed/improved version of my code into my "GPLv3 + permissions" project? I might not be able to do it, because under Section 7/b:
"You may place additional permissions, or additional requirements as
allowed by subsection 7b, on material, added by you to a covered work,
for which you have or can give appropriate copyright permission."
This unequal pressure towards a "purification" of the GPLv3 codebase i understand as a sign that the writers of the license dont look at extra permissions with symphaty, and want to eliminate them, slowly but surely.
What would be fair was if the process of "extensions" was fundamentally symmetric (fair): if i could take any GPLv3 code and incorporate it back into my GPLv3+permissions project. That would be fully democratic: the success of the projects would be the metric of what permissions are the best. Not the unequal playing rules hardcoded into the license.
Posted Sep 26, 2006 11:06 UTC (Tue)
by michich (guest, #17902)
[Link] (20 responses)
That would be unreasonable, because then you could effectively do
whatever you wanted with any GPLv3 code. Example: 1. You start a dummy GPLv3 project with an additional permission which
says something like "Anyone can distribute derivative works of this
program as proprietary software". 2. Then you grab any GPLv3 sources you like and copy them into
your project. 3. You distribute your project to a friendly proprietary
software-making company of yours. 4. The company can now do what it wants with the code that was supposed
to stay free.
Posted Sep 26, 2006 11:23 UTC (Tue)
by mingo (guest, #31122)
[Link] (19 responses)
Yes - i would not suggest that as a license text. And that's why i think the GPLv2 method of having a single body of code is better. Trying to add "extensions" inevitably leads to either balkanisation, inequality of treatment or to a loss of meaning of those extensions.
What we should recognize is the fundamentally free-spreading nature of source code within a GPL ecosystem. We take and add code freely. Xen for example includes big chunks of the Linux kernel and thus it also carries my copyrights for example - despite me never having directly contributed to the Xen supervisor itself.
So any attempt to recognize some "extensions" inside a GPL body of code is fundamentally futile, because there's just no fair way to keep things from "infecting each other". That's the /goal/ in fact of the GPL: let free software be used and reused within itself.
We should only take a look at LGPLed projects: they have constant trouble linking to GPL-ed libraries (for example readline), and they obviously cannot freely take GPL-ed code. So LGPLed projects are constrained to a few well-selected areas where the LGPL is an absolute technological necessity - and even those projects are often isolated from the rest. And even then it's still quite a hassle. Also, flames whether something should be GPL or LGPL are not uncommon. And that's just a _single_ license split, not dozens (or more)!
We should also realize that maintaining a list of "extensions" (of various granularity which might be as highly granular as per-function) is fundamentally cumbersome for developers to do. And because the GPLv3 allows the /free dropping/ of additional permissions, what do you think most lazy developers like me will do: i'll just drop them, accidentally most of the time. So to maintain a clean body of GPLv3+permissions code will be a constant hassle against the 1) fundamental inequality hardcoded into the GPLv3 2) human laziness. I'd not voluntarily pick a battle against any of these factors, let alone both of them ;)
Posted Sep 26, 2006 11:33 UTC (Tue)
by alexbk (subscriber, #37839)
[Link]
Posted Sep 26, 2006 11:39 UTC (Tue)
by robilad (guest, #27163)
[Link] (5 responses)
That has been going on since 1992, or so.
Posted Sep 26, 2006 11:49 UTC (Tue)
by mingo (guest, #31122)
[Link] (4 responses)
Would you mind to elaborate on what kind of additional permission there is in the Linux kernel's license? I'm not aware of any, and i'm a copyright holder of the Linux kernel.
Posted Sep 26, 2006 12:05 UTC (Tue)
by robilad (guest, #27163)
[Link] (3 responses)
I may be completely off base here, but I was under the impression that the kernel had a clarification/permission for exported interfaces facing glibc that their use does not consititute a derivative work of the GPLd kernel?
Posted Sep 26, 2006 12:21 UTC (Tue)
by robilad (guest, #27163)
[Link]
NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
on top of GPLv2 in the file COPYING in the Linus kernel. I think it serves to clarify the licensing status of the kernel regarding works using it by normal means through an addition to the GPL.
I would argue that such a permission in the kernel has not led to dire consequences that balkanisation predicts. I am unaware of any Linux forks without such an addition to the GPL.
I would argue that's for a simple reason: removing freedoms that have been granted before by yourself and other generous contributors to the kernel would only leads to a less useful code base, and serve to shut out existing stake holders. As such, the forked code base would be less useful than the existing project, so no such forks would be as successful.
I'd furthermore argue that a similar argument would hold for any tightening of licensing conditions by removing additional permissions from GPLv2/v3 licensed code.
Posted Sep 26, 2006 12:27 UTC (Tue)
by mingo (guest, #31122)
[Link] (1 responses)
What constitutes derived work isnt Linus' job to determine: it's a matter of law. (the GPLv2 is pretty silent on the issue so what controls is copyright law)
Posted Sep 26, 2006 13:21 UTC (Tue)
by robilad (guest, #27163)
[Link]
My point above was that some large projects find it useful to clarify or extend the permissions contained in their GPLv2-based licensing terms through such additions to the GPLv2. That practice has so far not had the negative consequences alluded to in gregkh's piece, despite going on for a long time.
Open Source seems quite alive, actually. :)
Posted Sep 26, 2006 11:47 UTC (Tue)
by hummassa (subscriber, #307)
[Link] (6 responses)
You are right that clause 7 is biased towards "purification". And that is intentional IMHO, so "balkanization" is less likely to occur. If you can compatibilize "things with additional permisisons" with "things with no additional permissions" under the "things with no additional permissions" umbrella, then balkanization is not occurring (at least from the point of view of "things with no additional permissions".) OTOH, if you can compatibilize "things with (some, restricted) additional requirements" with "things with no additional requirements" under the umbrella of "things with additional requirements, that don't apply to the whole body equally". Which, although not as simple, is not very different from the situation today, applied to multi-holders, multi-license systems like the the linux kernel (that has BSD/2clauses code, BSD/3clauses code, v2-only code, v2+ code...)
So, yes, there is a bias in clause 7 towards the distribution of works under the "pure" v3 conditions. But this is really intentional.
Posted Sep 26, 2006 12:00 UTC (Tue)
by mingo (guest, #31122)
[Link] (5 responses)
And dont you see a fundamental problem with that approach, if what to you is an "additional permission" is another person's "core value"?
Dont you think the FSF's answer: "oh, just use extensions by the way" is insufficient to such people, because a fundamental bias towards a "pure" set of morals is codified?
Dont you think that such an answer could be outright offensive as well, not just plain insufficient, if that "core value" is also a "belief" of that person, and if that person sees the real question of "whether we should be dictating morals to begin with" being (it appears to me, intentionally) dodged and a non-answer "use extensions" answer being provided?
Posted Sep 26, 2006 14:09 UTC (Tue)
by Zack (guest, #37335)
[Link] (4 responses)
If this person wants to use a license to propagate these core values and make them non-removable she should not use the GPL.
The core values the GPL set out to protect are the four software freedoms.
I'm sure there are lots of people who would rather not have their software used by the for example the military or in baby mulching machines, but it is not the job of the FSF to steer the GPL in that direction.
>Dont you think the FSF's answer: "oh, just use extensions by the way" is insufficient to such people, because a fundamental bias towards a "pure" set of morals is codified?
To my understanding the additional permissions are not there to address new ethical questions, but simply to make it easier to distribute software using code that is licensed under a free but GPL-incompatible license. (such as the CDDL, which would allow for GNU/Solaris)
The GPL3 is the vision of the FSF as to how to defend the four freedoms they set out to defend. If the four freedoms are a '"pure" set of morals', then yes, there is a fundamental bias towards that. In fact, it is the very foundation of the GPL.
>Dont you think that such an answer could be outright offensive as well, not just plain insufficient, if that "core value" is also a "belief" of that person, and if that person sees the real question of "whether we should be dictating morals to begin with" being (it appears to me, intentionally) dodged and a non-answer "use extensions" answer being provided?
Only if that person is offended that the FSF will not alter their original goal at her behalf.
I would be very disappointed if the FSF would codify new ethics into the GPL even if I would completely agree with the goal these new restrictions would aim for.
Posted Sep 26, 2006 14:49 UTC (Tue)
by hummassa (subscriber, #307)
[Link]
Posted Sep 26, 2006 16:08 UTC (Tue)
by sepreece (guest, #19270)
[Link] (2 responses)
I basically agree with everything you said, but it's worth noting one thing here: If the point of allowing additional permissions is to make it possible to combine code with code written under other, more permissive licenses, it's important to note that removing those permissions removes the ability to make that combination, so a downstream redistributor would have to strip out any code that was no longer compatible with the more restrictive license.
I think the whole question of compatibility and of distributing mixed-license code is under-addressed in the license and in licensing discussions in the community.
The FSF site says a license is GPL-compatible if it allows distribution under the GPL. That's somewhat misleading. The code [in most cases] remains licensed under its original terms. The compatibility is that the terms of the other license are not violated by distribution under the terms of the GPL - you're still distributing the included software under the terms of its own license, because those are the only terms that allow you to distribute it.
Posted Sep 27, 2006 1:08 UTC (Wed)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link] (1 responses)
David Lang
Posted Sep 27, 2006 9:01 UTC (Wed)
by hummassa (subscriber, #307)
[Link]
Posted Sep 26, 2006 15:16 UTC (Tue)
by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454)
[Link] (4 responses)
The great value of the GPL v2 is the simple way it's expressed, the fact there is only one of it, and a project does not need a dedicated lawyer to handle it. So either the so-called optional conditions are reasonable, simple and useful enough to be folded in the main license, or they should just be dumped. Being compatibe with every OSI license under the Sun via plugins is not simplifying the current mess, it's keeping it under a GPL label.
For the same reasons I support the language clarifications of the GPL v3. The US asumptions of the current license may be transparent to US developpers but they're a real cost to projects in other countries.
Likewise I support adopting common patent and DRM clauses. If the GPL continues to ignore other areas of IP law, the GPL will lose any practical value, as it's simplicity and unicity will be consumed by the specific patent and DRM agreements used in parallel.
Now finding a good simple and clear patent/DRM wording may be hard. But if the FSF with all the FLOSS community input can not find it, do you really expect your average corp lawyer to do better ?
No generic patent/DRM clause means the return of specific obfuscated arbitrary lawyerspeak. If you think the optional GPLv3 clauses are painful, you havent seen anything about what patent agreements of DRMs will require
Posted Sep 26, 2006 16:34 UTC (Tue)
by mingo (guest, #31122)
[Link] (3 responses)
The software patent changes i do support - but DRM is not really a "new area of IP", it is something that has existed for a long time and which roots in plain copyright. (and i have mentioned many reasons against trying to over-regulate in this area in the other threads so i wont repeat them here.)
Software patents are embodied in source code and are mostly orthogonal to classic copyright, so an extension of the Quid Pro Quo (from which the four freedoms derive) covering source code to software patents is only fair.
Posted Sep 27, 2006 9:25 UTC (Wed)
by hummassa (subscriber, #307)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Sep 27, 2006 10:00 UTC (Wed)
by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454)
[Link]
It's much easier to convince a judge/MP the wordings pushed by the Universals of the word are harmful/dangerous/unreasonable if you can confront them to actual existing binding legal documents such as a license.
If you're only backed by general philosophy/economic considerations OTOH you'll lose to their general feeling, which is "hackers" are bad "protecting IP" is nice, and hobbyists will adapt
Posted Sep 27, 2006 9:33 UTC (Wed)
by xoddam (guest, #2322)
[Link]
Copy-protection mechanisms themselves have indeed existed for a long
And far more significantly than that, the DMCA is new. Copy-protection
> (i have mentioned many reasons against trying to over-regulate...)
The GPLv3 is not "trying to over-regulate". It is a mild attempt at a
Dear Ingo and fellow kernel-developers,
A GPLv3 operating system kernel would be a great boon to freedom. Please
Regards,
Jonathan Maddox (xoddam)
Posted Sep 26, 2006 11:12 UTC (Tue)
by alexbk (subscriber, #37839)
[Link]
Posted Sep 26, 2006 11:21 UTC (Tue)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Sep 26, 2006 11:35 UTC (Tue)
by mingo (guest, #31122)
[Link] (1 responses)
yes, that's my point - it makes no sense either way. There's just no solution i can see at all but to get all developers in the GPL ecosystem agree - anything else will result in inequality on either the "restrictive" (pure) side or on the "permissive" side.
The reason for that inequality is that in an assymetric licensing model there's just no technical way to determine who put how much effort into some code, hence there is simply no mechanism to be fair - the only solution is equal treatment.
I see the GPLv2 as a pretty well working "agreement" that isnt perfect but seems to unify alot of people who ended up writing a body of code that currently consists of 300+ million lines of code and who are currently producing tens of millions of new lines of code per year. Trend: "accelerating exponentially". I'd be very, very careful to mess with that powerful machinery.
Posted Sep 26, 2006 19:38 UTC (Tue)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link]
Say I modify a GPLv2 and add some permissions. Now that's not GPL proper anymore, but basicly it's the the same thing as saying GPLv2 + permissions.
Now that code is still GPL compatable and a person can strip away those permissions and use it in a "GPLv2" proper. The original author now can't turn around and use code from that GPLv2 proper program and add permissions without special agreement with the copyright holders.
So that is the way the GPLv2 works right now, is it not?
Isn't this part of the 'viral' nature of the GPL and the sort of thing people having to work with 'GPL compatable' licenses have to deal with on a regular basis?
To me it's no difference between GPLv2 and GPLv3 in this regard. I think that this GPL+permissions language was added to make the GPL to be more 'universal' and work the same way in more countries as it works in the U.S. or most places in Europe. Different countries may not interprete the GPL in the same way as their copyright laws maybe different or they use different conventions. But you'd have to ask the FSF people about that.
Posted Sep 26, 2006 16:44 UTC (Tue)
by smoogen (subscriber, #97)
[Link] (1 responses)
If 7c allows anyone to remove an extra permission/rule.. why have them in the first place? It would also seem to be an even bigger impediment for dual licensed code than before.
My reading of it is that if I get code under MPL/GPLv3 then I can release the code again as GPLv3 only with only small changes to the code (if any?). I can see the reason that the FSF does not want to have multiple licenses.. but this seems a bit draconians
One License to rule them all, One License to find them,
Posted Sep 26, 2006 23:44 UTC (Tue)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link]
Isn't that what Microsoft says is going to happen?
You guys are nuts. It seems that your are on a anti-GPLv3 rampage and are refusing to look at it objectively or completely fail to understand how the GPLv2 works right now!
The GPL is the 'lowest common demominator' in a Linux based system.
When all software is GPL-compatable then that means something to the end users. This is very attractive and it means that everything is 'Free' software. Sure there are licenses that are not GPL compatable and are free, but for each one of those it causes huge headaches.
Could you imagine if everything was based on the MPL, for instance?
I've seen projects that are using Mozilla stuff that have closed portions of the program, they have other portions of the source code which you can't use if your doing something the original author politically incorrect, then they have other portions you are only allowed to use for non-commercial purposes unless your a paticular company. All these incompatable and conflicting licenses in a single work of software. It's hugely distructive.
A program like that has no future.
People have perfectly good Free software licenses in their code right now that are GPL-incompatable but are acceptable by most people. It's a pain in the neck for distributers like Debian or Redhat to sometimes deal with the fact that although they are using Free software it is incompatable with the 70% of the rest of the operating system that is using the LGPL (sure they can link, but they can't be used in those libs) or GPL.
Now with GPLv3 many more of them will be compatable and cause much less headaches for end users and distributers.. And now people are accusing the drafters of GPLv3 in attempting to 'steal' code from these other projects and turn them all into FSF controlled software?
I have news for you.. This is exactly how the GPLv2 operates and it has been very very successfull. Insanely successfull... and the vast majority of those projects which currently use GPL-compatable licenses are still completely outside the control of FSF, GNU, RMS, and friends.
What your saying is FUD.
Posted Sep 26, 2006 12:53 UTC (Tue)
by kirkengaard (guest, #15022)
[Link]
Who doesn't want that? It's GPL Free software. You're putting it out there. What are you afraid of here?
Posted Sep 26, 2006 11:13 UTC (Tue)
by sveinrn (guest, #2827)
[Link] (12 responses)
What if the company is distributing not a single program but a complete Linux distribution? If for example IBM is selling a workstations with a complete Ubuntu (or even worse: Debian) distribution, how many man-years of work do they need to check every application and library against all their [software] patents?
So I agree that software patents are bad, and I think it's only fair that the company cannot sue anybody over code they have themselves distributed. But if that clause causes enough companies to stop both distributing and contributing to the program, I think that will be what is causing the greater harm.
Posted Sep 26, 2006 11:34 UTC (Tue)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link] (7 responses)
Were on earth do you think that the GPLv3 can do that?
Quite simply all the GPLv3 is trying to prevent:
Get it? Pretty simple concept I figure.
Nobody said that IBM couldn't sue you for using Microsoft software in your product that violates their patents if they just happen to distribute Ubuntu software that also violates it. Patent law doesn't work like that. IBM is perfectly able to selectively choose when and were to sue people for patent infringment and still retain all rights granted by the patent law.
The patent protection covered by IBM agreeing to the terms of the GPL only follows the GPL code. It doesn't apply to anything else.
This is the same thing on how Sun's CDDL works. Sun agrees to not sue you for using their CDDL software. Your patent protection as given by the CDDL does not extend to code being used by Microsoft or unrelated code used in other Free software licenses.
If IBM refuses to abides by the GPLv3 license and refuses to protect users of software distributed by them from being sued by them, then obviously they are not able to distribute the GPLv3 software.
I'm not a lawyer btw. This is just my personal understanding.
Posted Sep 26, 2006 13:36 UTC (Tue)
by sveinrn (guest, #2827)
[Link] (6 responses)
>It simply says
So if I were a competing company, I could look for a suitable program licenced under GPLv3 and distributed as part of any Linux-distribution that IBM had ever included with a workstation or server and covered by one or more of the licenses I needed. Then I could "improve" the program, probably in a way that was completely unusable for anyone else, and include it as a standalone utility distributed with my own application suite. And of course still distributed under GPLv3. Then IBM would have "lost" one of its patents.
The fact that one of IBM's patens was just "lost" is only a good thing. But if it stops IBM distributing and contributing to Linux, it's (in my view) a bad thing.
Posted Sep 26, 2006 13:58 UTC (Tue)
by mjthayer (guest, #39183)
[Link]
Posted Sep 26, 2006 15:53 UTC (Tue)
by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Sep 26, 2006 18:31 UTC (Tue)
by sveinrn (guest, #2827)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Sep 26, 2006 19:23 UTC (Tue)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link] (1 responses)
But it's very contrived.
Also say bundling GPLv3 software in a distribution doesn't affect other software in that distribution. It's that derived work thing.
For instance if i have program A which is GPL and program B which is BSD and I stick them on a CDROM together or put them in a distribution then B would still be BSD. The GPL software simply by being present or distributed with other software doesn't affect it.
You would have to stick the code in a library or something so that ALL the software your running on your system uses code distributed from IBM.
The thing is that while some companies would hate to have this... Other companies would LOVE to have the GPLv3 patent language. There is a definate very corporate-friendly reason why Sun choose to do the patent language in the CDDL the way they did.
The way things are going if your talking about corporate acceptance of Linux NOT having patent language in the license is going to start hurting it a lot more then having it.
So keep that in mind. This GPLv3 patent protection stuff is something that many businesses realy want to have, for obvious reasons.
As a business, say your HP. Do you want to ship IBM source code in your products and end up being sued by IBM for patent infringment?
Think about that one.
Posted Sep 26, 2006 20:29 UTC (Tue)
by sveinrn (guest, #2827)
[Link]
We have one large application suite where I work where the main application is proprietary software, but much of the functionality we need and use come as stand-alone programs that are called from the main application without being linked against it or any of its libraries. Many of these "modules" are free software with none or only minor modifications.
One of those "modules" _could_ have come from GPLv3-software that IBM distributed as part of a Linux-distribution. It could also have been heavily "improved". And the result would be that, as long as the original program as distributed by IBM is covered by IBM's patents and as long as I don't link the program against any non-GPL libraries, my application suite would appear to have the functionality covered by IBM's patents, but still being protected by the GPL.
It would of course be very nice if the patents "leak" away in this manner. But I don't think IBM would like it...
Posted Sep 27, 2006 10:02 UTC (Wed)
by xoddam (guest, #2322)
[Link]
The paragraph in question reads:
> "You receive the Program with a covenant from each author and
"the party's essential patent claims in the material that the party
The term "covered work" can only sanely apply to any single version, not
In any case, if IBM has provided you with a GPLv3'd program and thus
Posted Sep 26, 2006 12:19 UTC (Tue)
by pinky0x51 (guest, #40742)
[Link] (3 responses)
They have to do something which is much more work: They have to check the
software against all software patents because otherwise they risk
to violate patents and get sued!
Posted Sep 26, 2006 13:53 UTC (Tue)
by sveinrn (guest, #2827)
[Link] (2 responses)
I have read a couple of software patents, and with the convoluted language they are written in, I am usually only able to get som very faint idea about what is being covered. So I don't think that is possible.
So I think that IBM's strategy is that if any real software company sues IBM for violating their patents, IBM will defend itself with at least ten times as many violations of IBM's patents. Of course a company with only patents and no products could be dangerous, but very few of those companies have the resources necessary for years of litigation against IBM's lawyers.
Posted Sep 26, 2006 16:18 UTC (Tue)
by sepreece (guest, #19270)
[Link]
Posted Sep 26, 2006 23:39 UTC (Tue)
by pinky0x51 (guest, #40742)
[Link]
maybe it isn't possible. I'm even sure it isn't possible.
Even if i accept your argument (only in the discussion with you, in a talk
to
someone like IBM i would take the position described above) than you have
to look at the irony in it. They cross-license with their competitors. So
they can promise not to sue the competitor, but they can't promise not to
sue their customers? As a customer i wouldn't buy anything from a company
which sells something to me and says "but maybe we will sue you with our
patents if you use the thing you have bought from us in a way we don't
like".
You can make it even easier. You don't have to be a lawyer to
understand the GPL you only have to be a lawyer if you want to find holes
in the licence. But if you want to use the license in honor you just have
to understand the simple idea: I sell you the program and you have the
right to use it for any purpose, study and modify it, share it and copy
modified versions under the same license. I think it's not hard to
understand it and exactly this
is the spirit in which you should act and nothing can happen. But if you
think that you can make this promise through copyright and than cancel it
through technology like DRM, through patent law or through any other law
or technology which could be appear in the future than you should better
stay away from GPL code and never use or distribute it because than the
license makes promises you can't abide.
Posted Sep 26, 2006 15:27 UTC (Tue)
by arcticwolf (guest, #8341)
[Link] (4 responses)
IANAL, and I don't know too much about licenses and copyright law, but here's something I'm wondering about: it's often said (and correctly so) that the GPL is a license, not a contract. As such, how would it be possible to force a corporation (or anyone really) to "lose" one of their patents against their will?
Obviously, if a company distributed GPLv3 code and then asserted patent claims against someone concerning the use of that code, the company would be in violation of the license. However, just like the inclusion of GPL code in a (propietary) project cannot force the author of that project to put it under the GPL, the company would not "lose" the patent here.
What would happen would be that they'd have to come into compliance with the license again. Agreeing not to assert the patent in question, as required by the license, would be one way to do so; this would be akin to GPL'ing a project after GPL'ed code was found to be included in it. However, just like you can - alternatively - simply remove the GPL'ed code to come into compliance again (damages, the loss of the right to use GPL'ed software etc. nonwithstanding), it would be just as possible to stop distributing the code in question, wouldn't it? (In practice, this might be a bit hairy, of course, since you'd have to deal with past distribution of the GPLv3'd code that you cannot just undo anymore - but the same also applies when you incorporate GPL'ed (any version) code into a proprietary project.)
In other words, there's always a choice, and patents are not automatically "lost" or anything like that. Or am I missing something?
Posted Sep 26, 2006 16:25 UTC (Tue)
by sepreece (guest, #19270)
[Link] (3 responses)
The problem (which the FSF release misses) is that the current language is insufficiently clear about exactly what those circumstances are. The high-level description in the FSF blurb is more-or-less fine. However, the language saying that the grant applies also to works based on the covered work is open to interpretation. It isn't clear that it limits the scope to the work that the conveyer actually conveyed, or whether an entire "work based on the covered work" becomes covered by the covenant.
Since a "work based on the covered work" could do absolutely anything, there is room for a claim that the covenant protects against suit for infringing anything in the conveyer's portfolio. The claim might or might not be accepted by a court, but it apparently makes at least some lawyers uneasy.
Posted Sep 26, 2006 17:00 UTC (Tue)
by sanjoy (guest, #5026)
[Link]
It isn't clear that it limits the scope to the work that the conveyer actually conveyed, or whether an entire "work based on the covered work" becomes covered by the covenant.
It's both. The covenant applies to an entire work based on the covered work. But the covenant covers your patent claims only in the covered work.
So others can take the covered work, modify it, and still not worry about your patent claims in the covered work, which you distributed, but they still need to worry about your other patent claims.
I think the GPLv3 is very good on this point, though maybe they could reword it to make the above distinction more clear.
--Sanjoy Mahajan
Posted Sep 26, 2006 17:14 UTC (Tue)
by arcticwolf (guest, #8341)
[Link] (1 responses)
THey don't "lose the patent", but they voluntarily give up the right to sue for infringement of the patent under certain circumstances. Do they, though? That's just what I mean: given that the GPL is not a contract, how could someone give up the right to sue for patent infringement by distributing GPLv3'ed code? Of
course they'd be in violation of the license if they did, and of course they'd have to remedy that - they'd have to come in compliance one way or another. But it's not as if they signed a binding contract that states they gave up the right to sue.
Posted Sep 26, 2006 18:44 UTC (Tue)
by k8to (guest, #15413)
[Link]
That is the enforcement "stick", and why it is generally viewed as a
Say if you have an online app and it's GPLv3, do you have to give the source code away to the people who use it online?Just a question about the GPLv3.
Not under the stock GPLv3 (draft). However, the GPLv3 allows the copyright holders to optionally impose a few additional terms under section 7. One of those options, 7b4, allows the copyright holder to require:
Just a question about the GPLv3
if a modified version of the material they cover is a work intended to interact with users through a computer network, that those users be able to obtain copies of the Corresponding Source of the work through the same network session
Since it takes just one author to make this a requirement, and pretty much every non-trivial Open-Source application has more than one author, it is completely bogus to have this as an "optional" requirement. It essentially would become a standard requirement.Just a question about the GPLv3
What is this? FUD? A project can decide if they will impose this requirement or not, and to accept code contributions from someone with a different view from the maintainers' or not. One can imagine a project like an OS kernel will not impose this, but a content management system will. Just a question about the GPLv3
Oh, sure. And how many will? Peer pressure, etc... The "Slashdot crowd", for example...Just a question about the GPLv3
And I suggest not throwing the "FUD" hammer around when it is completely inappropriate. Learn to discuss things. You can scream "FUD" on Slashdot.
Eben Moglen has emphasized many times something that I feel is an Reasons for such a clause
important fact to invoke at this juncture. The drafting process of the
GPLv3 means that the Free Software Foundation is currently engaged in
making decisions about a license that will lay the ground rules for
future dealings in copyleft. The license impacts not only garage hackers
in Pakistan but multi-national corporations with billions of dollars of
interest in free software.
There are some people who expected this license to enforce redistribution
of modifications in the case of web services; however, many believe that
would go too far. The FSF's answer to this has been to default to the
conservative case while allowing a GPLv3 user to individually decide this
matter for themselves.
Well, it is FUD though. Your argument that having a feature of GPLv3 Just a question about the GPLv3
which is optional will become standard because some individuals will use
smacks of the whole GPL-as-cancer argument that used to be trumpeted by
Microsoft.
won't. Developers who don't abide by the license in use by the project
will not be allowed to contribute code, just as with any other open
source project. What's so hard to understand?
order to match the existing license. I don't get to cherry pick my
terms. If I tried to do so the code would be reverted, and rightfully
so.
But it is, you make it sound like it's impossible to avoid, and it definitely isn't...Just a question about the GPLv3
atai, I think Jeff is thinking of the following:Just a question about the GPLv3
Just a question about the GPLv3
That's just plain wrong. However, you say it like it would be a bad thing. Licenses have been Just a question about the GPLv3
specifically written in the past to enforce what you're suggesting is bad, and I think it's a very
important step forward, for the modern web. Why shouldn't users be able to get the source code
for a website and make an improved version, if they think the original is incomplete somehow? Do
you really want to keep using a broken website, when someone could improve it? Should users
really be forced to use a particular website because the people who make the website want to keep
their minor modifications to public code as a secret? No, they shouldn't.
While I beg to differ
My main business is a vertical web-based service. If I were to give away my code I would literally be giving away my business. No one paid me to write the code. I wrote it to perform execute this business. I am sure I am not alone.
Oh, well, if you're talking about your own code, then you can choose any beg to differ
license you want, including "GPLv3, except for section X". I'm talking
about the many websites that are based on OTHER people's GPL'd code, but
don't let other people enhance those sites.
And that's a use scenario. GPLv2 is concerned about distribution.beg to differ
So, GPLv3 seems to restrict use, and that's exactly what the Linux kernel people are concerned about.
Restricting use is a very slippery slope.
GPLv2 AND v3 are both about ensuring freedoms, not restricting use. They beg to differ
limit the freedom to limit use. It's a core reason for the existence of
the GPL, and that's precisely why GPLv3 is just a natural follow-up to
v2.
If you can't use a GPL3-version of a program on a website without giving people the source, then it is a use restriction.beg to differ
With GPLv2, you can modify sources as much as you want without giving out the source, as long as you don't distribute the code. That's a big difference. GPLv2 does not put restrictions on the use, it puts restrictions on the distribution only.
The intention with GPLv2 is that you can use the code INTERNALLY, in your beg to differ
own organisation, without giving out the code. Again, the "restrictions"
of the GPL are restrictions AGAINST restricting freedom. The freedom to
enslave people is not a freedom that most ethical people miss. The GPL
simply stands up for such ethics, and makes sure that people are not
enslaved, by guaranteeing technological freedom via restrictions in line
with those ethics. You can argue that you'd like the restrictions
removed, but I'm afraid you will then be taking an unethical stance that
I have no interest in.
Nope. That is what you may think.beg to differ
The fact is that the GPLv2 restricts distribution. Use, be it internal or external, is not restricted.
Again, the GPLv3 restricts the use, and therefore goes against the freedom you so stress. The GPLv3 restricts the freedom to use an application. Plain and simple. And that is bad.
And I would appreciate if you stopped accusing me of being unethical. It is you who is completely out of line with your slavery comparison.
If I would use your line of "argument", I would have to argue that the GPLv3 enslaves people, by restricting the use of software.
What is next, restricting the use of GPLed software in stem-cell research, because that goes against the ethics of some people? Keep your political stand out of software licenses.
Well then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.beg to differ
affero clause
Even as a modification restriction, it restricts the freedom more than the GPLv2.affero clause
And modification is a case of use. I can use a GPLv2 program any way I want, including modifying it in any way I want.
> I can use a GPLv2 program any way I want, includingmodification restrictions in GPLv2
> modifying it in any way I want.
That section talks about "copy and distribute" modifications. Thanks for making my point.modification restrictions in GPLv2
You are correct; section 2 of the GPLv2 doesn't emphasise the fact that modification restrictions in GPLv2 and the Affero clause
modification is also covered by the licence. Basically for most classes
of software if your modification is kept private no-one is going to know
or care. But in most countries you simply don't have the right to modify
the code except as the licence permits (and except, in a few countries,
for fair use rights, as Dan J "you don't need a licence" Bernstein of
qmail fame insists: http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html).
restricting modification. But you are nevertheless prohibited by clause
2c from removing copyright, warranty and licence announcements or menu
options from an interactive program (that's not how it's worded, because
furthermore they want you to *add* those things if you turn a
non-interactive program into an interactive one). That's true even with
GPLv2 and even for modifications you only make in private.
feature. The difference is, that in the case of a web application
available to the public, your modifications are on show to the world, so
a 'private modification' infringement is not private at all. It is
visible and meaningful in a way that it isn't for something you only use
within your own organisation.
works, but in the nature of the application and in the fact that this
kind of breach is actually visible. The language of the Affero clause
therefore chooses to emphasise a different point of law.
your own copy of emacs would be frivolous. But the legally-equivalent
Affero clause has teeth.
no effect on your right to use the copyrighted software you received
under the GPL. Nor do they have any effect on your right to *use* your
own modified versions -- but you have no right to make a modified version
except as the licence permits.
made for you. People seem to think that because they are granted certain
permissions in respect of a particular version of a program, all possible
versions should carry the same permissions. That is not the case. The
licence actively prohibits some of those possible versions.
are "more free" than the GPLv2. The Affero General Public Licence and
the GPLv3 are, in different ways, each slightly "less free" than the
GPLv2, but in exactly the same way as the GPLv2 is "less free" than BSD:
they are copyleft licences which relax but do not overstep the bounds of
copyright.
copyright includes the exclusive right to prepare derivative works, to
join the good old BSD crew and bash the GPL for being un-free, go ahead.
The GPL camp won't miss you.
Your last sentence is of course one of the things that I have come to expect from zealots.modification restrictions in GPLv2 and the Affero clause
It is the GPL way or the highway...
Guess what, this elitist attitude is what will be the GPLs downfall.
Sad to see that GPL "defenders" are indeed on the same level as the average religious nut case.
> So, GPLv3 seems to restrict useNo restrictions on use.
slightly different licence, namely 'GPLv3 plus extra conditions'. Such
extra conditions are of a very limited type. The one you've been
discussing is a requirement that downstream redistributors not remove a
feature of the code.
application under the GPLv3.
including a feature which adds a little link in the corner of each page
saying 'download the source code for the running version of this website'
which works as advertised. xoddam.com redistributes this version of the
software (say it's a fork as lwn.net didn't like some or all of xoddam's
changes) but also adds a restriction to the licence, saying that
downstream redistributors must continue to provide the download feature.
new website using the source code. JoeF is permitted to modify the
source code without redistributing its own changes -- but it implicitly
*does* redistribute, by virtue of providing the 'download the running
source code' link. If JoeF wishes to remove this link, it may -- but
then it simultaneously ceases to have any right to redistribute the
program it received from xoddam.com.
the only right that the licence is able to take away is the one whose
exercise the extra restriction is trying to *encourage*.
developers might like to have a licence imposing a restriction that
actually prevents people from publishing websites based on such closed
modifications, but the GPLv3 is not that licence. Such a licence wold
necessarily overstep the clear boundaries of copyright law, into dubious
click-wrap contract territory: "By downloading this code you agree..."
see when using a web application is part of the software and that the act
of responding to the HTTP request is therefore a partial act of
distribution of the software in 'binary' form (which is by the definition
in the GPL any form other than source code). My non-lawyerish opinion on
the matter is that this is the kind of discussion that could result in a
lot of wasted lawyers' fees, if it were not that any such content could
easily be replaced so that it is recognisably no longer subject to the
copyright of the upstream author.
Well, my position is that if I put a program, e.g., a Web service, up, I am not distributing it. I provide the output of the program, which is probably not under the GPL. Otherwise, the output of gcc, regardless of if it is used to compile a proprietary program or another GPL-ed program, would be under the GPL as well. That would be a sure way to kill FOSS...No restrictions on use.
So, if an application like a Web service licensed under GPLv3 requires me to put up a link to the source, it is a use restriction. If it only requires that if I wish to redistribute my modified program, fine. No problem with that. But for that, the GPLv3 is not required. That works fine with the GPLv2, since if I redistribute a program, I have to make the source and my changes available, and it is trivial to find the differences (the usage of diff should be quite well known...)
So, then, a) why is this clause in the draft, and b) why do some people feel the need to argue for it with their personal ethics? Limiting the use of a program based on some personal convictions is just wrong. One person doesn't like the use in military applications, another doesn't want the use in some pornographic context, the next one has something against certain religions, the forth one doesn't want his software to be used by a specific political party, etc.
Limitation of use, for any reason, is just plain wrong for FOSS software, and doesn't belong in a FOSS software license. If my use is limited by the license, it is not Open Source anymore.
I reread the draft more closely, and it turns out that my conclusion The GPLv3 draft does not impose any use restrictions -- it imposes *modification* restrictions.
above (that the Affero licence restriction is ineffectual) is completely
wrong. I'm sorry if I've misled anyone :-)
works. The GPL grants you permission to modify a program, *with
restrictions* (this is nothing new to version 3). In some countries the
principle of fair use applies; if the restrictions in question are
somehow 'unfair' they may be unenforceable.
> under the GPL. Otherwise, the output of gcc, regardless of
> if it is used to compile a proprietary program or another
> GPL-ed program, would be under the GPL as well.
way someone might try to use their exclusive right over distribution to
force you to use their work in a particular way. They can't. They
*particularly* couldn't do so using the GPL, because the GPL (all
versions, text taken from the current GPLv3 draft) contains the
assurance:
output, given its content, constitutes a covered work."
> ... requires me to put up a link to the source, it is a
> use restriction.
copy, and the GPL explicitly acknowledges this -- the chief difference
between version 2 and version 3 is that the GPLv2 doesn't qualify it
with "unmodified". This may be the ultimate source of our confusion.
work, so if the code you received implements a certain feature, the
licence may prohibit you from removing it. The GPL does contain such a
restriction (clause 2c of version 2, or 5c of the draft of version 3):
You must include prominent copyright and licence information in an
interactive program, unless the original work was interactive and does
not do so. (By the by in this day and age of source control I believe
GPLv2 clause 2a, requiring prominent notice of modifications within the
modified files, is honoured mostly in the breach) The Affero General
Public Licence is a licence derived from GPLv2 by adding a clause 2d,
which disallows removal of their "download the source" feature:
through a computer network and if, in the version you received, any user
interacting with the Program was given the opportunity to request
transmission to that user of the Program's complete source code, you must
not remove that facility from your modified version of the Program or
work based on the Program, and must offer an equivalent opportunity for
all users interacting with your Program through a computer network to
request immediate transmission by HTTP of the complete source code of
your modified version or other derivative work."
Use rights before violating the licence :-)
*does* do is allow people who are redistributing things under the terms
of the licence to use a (slightly) different licence. One of the
permitted additional restrictions is an "Affero clause".
under another licence which already has restrictions that *aren't* in
GPLv3. The result may be developed and distributed under the
intersection of the permissions in the two licences. The GPLv2 does not
permit this, as *no* extra restrictions may be imposed. In general terms
this is about expanding the GPL ecosystem, and a specific short-term goal
is to allow the efforts of the Apache Foundation and the Free Software
Foundation to develop free Java class libraries to be combined and
distributed together under a "GPLv3 + Apache patent clauses" licence.
because one company has already produced software under a licence which
is GPLv2 plus the restriction under discussion. This means that Affero
can move to "GPLv3 + Affero clause" when the GPLv3 is ready, and that
third parties may combine GPLv3 code with such Affero code without
worrying about licence incompatibility -- once again, this isn't possible
with the GPLv2.
and redistribution, not use.
> personal ethics?
case, if they were arguing for the actual text, they weren't arguing for
use restrictions. For what it's worth, the FSF argues for its licence
changes not from 'personal' ethics but from the ethics of the 'Four
Freedoms', which I'm sure I don't need to repeat.
What copyright *can* impose is a restriction on your right to modify the
work, so if the code you received implements a certain feature, the
licence may prohibit you from removing it. The GPL does contain such a
restriction (clause 2c of version 2, or 5c of the draft of version 3)The GPLv3 draft does not impose any use restrictions -- it imposes *modification* restrictions.
No problems with that.
But limiting my right to modify the work as I wish, if I don't distribute it, is just wrong. That's what proprietary software does. At that point, GPLv3 software would not be free as in freedom anymore, it would be free as in beer.
I wasn't aware they were.
The GPL is not an open source license, it's a free software license.The GPLv3 draft does not impose any use restrictions -- it imposes *modification* restrictions.
The GPLv2, yes. GPLv3 is not a free software license, because it restricts the use. Unless you define free as in "free beer".
The GPLv3 draft does not impose any use restrictions -- it imposes *modification* restrictions.
*sigh* Well, we're going around in circles here. Again, we'll have to The GPLv3 draft does not impose any use restrictions -- it imposes *modification* restrictions.
agree to disagree I guess. Sorry we couldn't find more common ground.
Well, if you had better arguments than accusing me of being unethical...The GPLv3 draft does not impose any use restrictions -- it imposes *modification* restrictions.
A license that restricts my use of a software is not free. Proprietary licenses restrict my freedom to use the software any way I want. A free license should not do that, or it ceases to be free.
I didn't accuse you of being unethical. I said that the position you're The GPLv3 draft does not impose any use restrictions -- it imposes *modification* restrictions.
taking on this issue is unethical. There's a difference. One is an
attack against you, whilst the other is just an analysis of an issue,
which you will not take personally if you're objective. As for the
quality of my argument... the burden of proof is on you; you're the one
claiming that GPLv3 is somehow different from GPLv2, despite the authors
saying that it's a logical continuation, and me agreeing with them.
Anyway, without wanting to cause offense, I don't find this discussion
very interesting, so I'm going to leave it here.
Well, your analysis of the issue is deeply flawed, then.The GPLv3 draft does not impose any use restrictions -- it imposes *modification* restrictions.
The issue is if the GPLv3 would restrict the use of a GPLed program. And it seems that it does. That makes the current GPLv3 draft unfree. I am sorry if you are unable to see that.
Well, again, I disagree, and stand by my points. Take them or leave The GPLv3 draft does not impose any use restrictions -- it imposes *modification* restrictions.
them.
Wrong on two counts.The GPLv3 does not contain the Affero clause
use the software you received. Modification is not "use".
modification. The GPLv3 does point out that your unlimited right to use
the software applies to the *unmodified* version you received, where the
language of the GPLv2 permits you to read it as an unlimited right to use
any possible version. In neither case is it the copyright licence which
grants the right to use the program -- this is just a reminder.
modification any further than the GPLv2 already does.
Affero-type clause -- which would results in relicensed software, in
exactly the same way as it is possible to take BSD code and put it in a
proprietary or GPL program. "GPLv3 + Affero clause" is not the same as
plain GPLv3.
Modification is not "use".The GPLv3 does not contain the Affero clause
Why not? I see this claim, which I consider wrong. I have the source code, and I have the freedom to do with the source code as I please.
The GPLv2 covers copyright, i.e., the right to copy the code. The current GPLv3 draft tries to limit what I can do with the code in the privacy of my own home. That's fundamentally wrong, if you value your freedom.
Yes. And that is where one of the "4 freedoms" is removed. And that's what I object to.
Neither does the GPLv2. So, again, no change needed.
> The GPLv2 covers copyright, i.e., the right to copy the code.The GPLv3 permits essentially the same modifications as the GPLv2
preparation of derivative works if copyright covers that where you are.
> code in the privacy of my own home.
permission it grants to modify. The GPL version 2 *ALSO* permits only
certain changes. If you do it in the privacy of your home, no-one is
going to sue you, not even if you do it to qmail or proprietary software
which you have no permission to modify whatsoever. That's fair use.
Exactly the same doctrine applies to making copies in the privacy of your
own home, but no-one will claim copyright doesn't grant an exclusive
right to make copies.
web service based on an unauthorised modification of a copyrighted work,
see a lawyer.
> > use the software applies to the *unmodified* version you received
> And that's what I object to.
copyleft licences or to copyright law. The GPL has *always*, and
*deliberately*, prohibited certain things which the "4 freedoms" in their
broad interpretation allow. For instance removal of copyright notices
and the licence itself. The GPLv3 doesn't change this limited
restriction of freedom IN ANY WAY.
modify in the way that simple copyleft does not require -- does take
copyleft a step further than the GPL ever did. Many of us were not even
aware that copyright includes the exclusive right to make derivative
works -- I've argued the opposite myself on these pages -- so it is
indeed a qualitative change in the way copyright law is wielded. But
even so, it's not a major change to the kind of permission granted.
> ... I have come to expect from zealots.
called me a nasty name. I'm telling Teacher now.
The GPLv3 draft DOES NOT DIFFER from the GPLv2 in the essentials of the
permission it grants to modify.The GPLv3 permits essentially the same modifications as the GPLv2
Oh, that "essentials" is such a good legal term. Is that all you can come up with?
What a witty reply... You are such a good boy. Did you come up with it all on your own? That's a contender for "quote of the year".
Go play with the other kids in the sandbox. Call back when you have grown up.
> Oh, that "essentials" is such a good legal term.That's all, folks
> Is that all you can come up with?
you want legal advice. I'm not a lawyer and didn't claim to be.
participating in such a flamefest. If the posts above are the thanks I
get for spending my time deciphering legalese on your behalf, then yes,
that is all I will come up with for you, sir.
I don't need your help to "decipher" legalese. I can do so much better on my own, thank you very much.That's all, folks
And indeed, your attempt to decipher legalese has led you to some wrong conclusions. Instead of recognizing that, you lash out at people who may have a better grasp of it (while I am not a lawyer, I deal with US-style legalese pretty much daily, and I even somewhat enjoy it.)
Fact is and remains that the current GPLv3 draft would restrict my freedoms to use GPLed software. No amount of insults like calling my position "unethical" changes that. On the contrary, I consider it unethical to call opposing viewpoints unethical. Nobody who actually is interested in a real discussion would do that. Only people who want to avoid discussion could even come up with the idea to call other viewpoints "unethical".
Granted, it wasn't you who hurled that insult, but your posts were only marginally more civil, with your (paraphrased) "it's the GPL way or the highway." That's hubris and arrogance, and if you become arrogant, you end up being just another Microsoft.
I use the GPLv2 in my own software because I value the freedoms it provides. And that includes the freedom to use GPLv2-licensed software any way I like, provided I don't distribute it. And using it in a Web service is not distributing it. It is "using" it, modifications of the source or not. It is not a distribution of the work in any sense of the word.
I do not wish to be told by anybody, not even RMS, that these freedoms are all of a sudden not all that important, and that RMS and the FSF know what's best for me. Of course, the FSF can take these freedoms away in the GPLv3, that's their prerogative. But then it's not a free license anymore, not in the sense that RMS has been going around for years talking about freedom.
xoddam, your posts have been consistently informative and well thought out. As well as coherent. Thanks.That's all, folks
However, the GPLv3 allows the copyright holders to optionally impose a few additional terms under section 7.
GPLv3 & additional permissions/restrictions
GPLv3 & additional permissions/restrictions
What would be fair was if the process of "extensions" was
fundamentally symmetric (fair): if i could take any GPLv3 code and
incorporate it back into my GPLv3+permissions project.
That would be unreasonable, because then you could effectively do whatever you wanted with any GPLv3 code.
GPLv3 & additional permissions/restrictions
Perhaps these two factors could be defeated by the the fact that GPLv3+permissions code has much GPLv3 & additional permissions/restrictions
bigger license compatibility. Might be worth it for all that extra non-GPL code you can combine it
with :)
GPLv3 just codifies existing practice in this area, where large projects with many stake holders like gcc, or the Linux kernel have used their specific exceptions to the GPL to make sure recepients of the code receive additional permissions that are not in the GPLv2, per se, or clarify the recepients obligations.GPLv3 & additional permissions/restrictions
GPLv3 just codifies existing practice in this area, where large projects with many stake holders like gcc, or the Linux kernel have used their specific exceptions to the GPL to make sure recepients of the code receive additional permissions that are not in the GPLv2, per se, or clarify the recepients obligations.
GPLv3 & additional permissions/restrictions
Thanks for the correction, Ingo.GPLv3 & additional permissions/restrictions
I meant the textGPLv3 & additional permissions/restrictions
services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
that was never meant to be an additional permission. See:
this collection of emails from Linus.
GPLv3 & additional permissions/restrictions
Oh, I fully agree with that, I'm just pointing out that the kernel itself has an additional note on top of the GPLv2 regarding the desired interpretation of the permissions in the license. There is nothing wrong in that, and I don't mean to nitpick whether it's a mere clarification, or an additional permission, or something else.GPLv3 & additional permissions/restrictions
Either the additional terms clause 7 will cause "balkanization" or it will cause "trending-to-purification", and your argument is just swinging between those instances.You can't have it both ways.
So, yes, there is a bias in clause 7 towards the distribution of works under the "pure" v3 conditions. But this is really intentional.
You can't have it both ways.
>And dont you see a fundamental problem with that approach, if what to you is an "additional permission" is another person's "core value"?You can't have it both ways.
Zack responded to mingo exactly the way I would. Thank you. <AOL>I agree</AOL>
That's the point: If you want to GPL your work (and make it automagically
compatible with lots of things "in the wild" to mix and match) those are
the rules. And the rules exist to protect the Four Freedoms.
"To my understanding the additional permissions are not there to address new ethical questions, but simply to make it easier to distribute software using code that is licensed under a free but GPL-incompatible license. (such as the CDDL, which would allow for GNU/Solaris)"You can't have it both ways.
how is any downstream distributer (especially years later) supposed to know what the source for all the bits of code were so that they can strip out the bits of code that 'needed' that extra permissions to be there?You can't have it both ways.
The GPL demands all changes to be logged.Simple...
This is the only point where I agree with the current criticism.GPLv3 & additional permissions/restrictions
Likewise I support adopting common patent and DRM clauses.
GPLv3 & additional permissions/restrictions
is a DMCA (2000? 1999?) thing. You must remember that PSP/tivo hacking is criminalization of un-DRM-ing....
actually a criminal offense in some countries. And no, that was NOT the
case before the DMCA.
Making GPLed software use incompatible with maximalist interpretations of the OMI treaty (father of DMCA and EUCD) is actually a feature, as media companies worldwide are trying very hard to convince legislators their clauses will be a boon for the media sector without harming everyone else.criminalization of un-DRM-ing....
> DRM is not really a "new area of IP", it is something thatDRM is not new, but the GPLv3 is over-regulating. WTF?
> has existed for a long time and which roots in plain copyright.
time, but they did not come to Free Software until the Tivo, long after
the GPLv2 was introduced. In that sense, DRM is new.
and tamper-prevention are one thing; laws prohibiting workarounds in the
absence of any actual violation of "plain copyright" are another.
workaround for legislative over-regulation in the form of the DMCA and
the equivalent laws imposed by governments around the world who are
tripping over themselves to sell their countries' wealth and freedom to
private interests.
consider providing one.
LGPL has allowed this kind of relicensing into pure-GPL for years and no evil purification has GPLv3 & additional permissions/restrictions
occured. If you don't want removal of extra permissions/requirements, use a different license where
those are not allowed to be removed; the good thing is that it can still be combined with GPLv3
code.
"" What would be fair was if the process of "extensions" was fundamentally symmetric (fair): if i could take any GPLv3 code and incorporate it back into my GPLv3+permissions project. That would be fully democratic: the success of the projects would be the metric of what permissions are the best. Not the unequal playing rules hardcoded into the license.""
So following your logic wouldn't that make ALL GPLv3 code essentially "GPLv3 + permissions" pretty much automaticly?
And how would it be democratic to force authors who may want their code to be
"GPLv3 pure" and have other people make it "GPLv3 + permissions"?
Maybe I am just tired, but none of that realy makes sense to me.
What they are stating in the the license seems to me just clarification on how copyright licensing law works rather then a additional restriction, subtle manipulation, or "pressure". Even if they left the sentence out of the license which you qouted it would still absolutely work that way.
In other words it is simple "clarification".
You can take any code and make it GPL or incorporate it into GPL programs as long as the original license does not impose any additional restrictions. You can take 'BSD licensed' code and incorporate it into a GPL'd program, but those BSD authors can't turn around and make GPL'd code from that program and license it BSD code without consent from all the relevent copyright holders, correct? Same thing with MIT and a dozen other licenses.
GPLv3 & additional permissions/restrictions
So following your logic wouldn't that make ALL GPLv3 code essentially "GPLv3 + permissions" pretty much automaticly? And how would it be democratic to force authors who may want their code to be "GPLv3 pure" and have other people make it "GPLv3 + permissions"? Maybe I am just tired, but none of that realy makes sense to me.
GPLv3 & additional permissions/restrictions
I think that how it is stated in GPLv3 is how GPLv2 works right now.GPLv3 & additional permissions/restrictions
GPLv3 & additional permissions/restrictions
One License to bring them all and in the FSF bind them.
"One License to rule them all, One License to find them,GPLv3 & additional permissions/restrictions
One License to bring them all and in the FSF bind them."
If you have a GPL app, you must provide the source to it anyways. By "have", I am assuming that you mean authorship or maintainership. This has always been the case. All the Affero-option does is give people who run your program the ability to link directly to the source so that even usage of your fine program becomes an opportunity to distribute and create additional developer interest. Now, instead of merely giving source to anyone who downloads your program from your site, any end-user is also able to become aware of exactly what they're running, and run it themselves. Also, any user of your online application can audit your code.Understand that this is not a radical change to GPLv2
>Contrary to what some have said, GPLv3 will not cause a company toSome GPLv3 clarifications from the FSF
>"lose its entire [software] patent portfolio". It simply says
>that if someone has a patent covering XYZ, and distributes a
>GPL-covered program to do XYZ, he can't sue the program's
>subsequent users, redistributors and improvers for doing XYZ with
>their own versions of that program. This has no effect on other
>patents which that program does not implement.
Agreeing to abide by the license GPLv3 does not make IBM agree to give up on enforcing every patent that may cover some random part of GPLv3 software.Some GPLv3 clarifications from the FSF
IBM distributes Ubuntu.
You use Ubuntu as obtained from IBM in your servers.
IBM sues you for using the Ubuntu software you obtained from them.
I'm not sure if we are talking about the same thing: Some GPLv3 clarifications from the FSF
>that if someone has a patent covering XYZ, and distributes a
>GPL-covered program to do XYZ, he can't sue the program's
>subsequent users, redistributors and improvers for doing XYZ with
>their own versions of that program.
The part which isn't GPL 3'ed probably doesn't count as a derived work Some GPLv3 clarifications from the FSF
though.
I believe that this trick would only work if you could con IBM itself into distributing the modified program that infringes on one of its patents.
Some GPLv3 clarifications from the FSF
No. It's enough that both IBM's version and my own "improved" version does XYZ, where XYZ is covered by the patent I need but don't want to pay for. Some GPLv3 clarifications from the FSF
Ya sure it could work that way.Some GPLv3 clarifications from the FSF
I don't think my example is far-fetched. Some GPLv3 clarifications from the FSF
> No. It's enough that both IBM's version and my own "improved""essential patent claims" in "covered works"
> version does XYZ, where XYZ is covered by the patent I need
> but don't want to pay for.
> conveyor of the Program, and of any material, conveyed under
> this License, on which the Program is based, that the covenanting
> party will not assert (or cause others to assert) any of the party's
> essential patent claims in the material that the party conveyed,
> against you, arising from your exercise of rights under this License.
> If you convey a covered work, you similarly covenant to all
> recipients, including recipients of works based on the covered work,
> not to assert any of your essential patent claims in the covered
> work."
conveyed" makes it pretty clear that it only refers to the version
distributed by the patent holder. The only *possible* ambiguity is that
the covenant is restated in the opposite direction ("you similarly
covenant...") in slightly less explicit language.
to "the covered work as distributed by you, or any parent work from which
that work is derived, or any other work derived from any such parent
work". Such an interpretation allows frivolous and nonsense arguments
like "the FSF stole my whole patent portfolio".
covenants not to sue you for any patent claims implemented therein, what
difference does it make whether your exercise of such patents is in the
program as provided by IBM or as modified by you? From my reading, if
you implement anything *extra* for which IBM has a different "essential
patent claim", you're fair game.
>What if the company is distributing not a single program but a
complete Linux distribution? [..] how many man-years of work do they need
to check every application and library against all their [software]
patents?
Some GPLv3 clarifications from the FSF
IBM is a supporter of software patents so i don't think that they have any
problem to check all their software distributions against
all software patents and so it shouldn't be a problem or a namable
extra time to
check GPLv3 software against their own patents.
>so i don't think that they have any problem to check all their software distributions against all software patentsSome GPLv3 clarifications from the FSF
More important, to IBM, they cross-license their patent portfolios with the companies they are most likely to infringe, so they can't sue each other.Some GPLv3 clarifications from the FSF
>>so i don't think that they have any problem to check all their
software distributions against all software patentsSome GPLv3 clarifications from the FSF
>I have read a couple of software patents, and with the convoluted
language they are written in, I am usually only able to get som very faint
idea about what is being covered. So I don't think that is possible.
But that's the point. IBM is pro software patents, IBM tells governments
that software patents are a great idea and that their is no problem to
deal with them and than i take them by their word and say "you can deal
will all the patents out their, than you shouldn't have a problem to deal
with your own patents". We shouldn't allow them to take one position if
they speak to
politicians and another position if they speak to the Free Software
Community. They have to
decide if software patents are a good idea or not and if they can deal
with them in a honor way. They have decided that it's a good idea and that
they can deal with it now they have to deal with it.
Regarding the concerns about the patent clause...Some GPLv3 clarifications from the FSF
THey don't "lose the patent", but they voluntarily give up the right to sue for infringement of the patent under certain circumstances.Some GPLv3 clarifications from the FSF
Some GPLv3 clarifications from the FSF
Some GPLv3 clarifications from the FSF
That is exactly correct. If this clause is transgressed, then they will Some GPLv3 clarifications from the FSF
no longer have the right to distribute the work.
reasonable clause, because the consequences are not so out-of-line with
the whole concept of a software license.