| |||||||||||||
Just a question about the GPLv3Just a question about the GPLv3Posted Sep 26, 2006 2:43 UTC (Tue) by stevenj (guest, #421)In reply to: Just a question about the GPLv3. by error27 Parent article: Some GPLv3 clarifications from the FSF 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: 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 So, the answer to your question is maybe, if the authors of your online app chose to include this additional restriction.
(Log in to post comments)
Just a question about the GPLv3 Posted Sep 26, 2006 5:10 UTC (Tue) by JoeF (guest, #4486) [Link] 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 Posted Sep 26, 2006 5:26 UTC (Tue) by atai (subscriber, #10977) [Link] 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 Posted Sep 26, 2006 5:36 UTC (Tue) by JoeF (guest, #4486) [Link] Oh, sure. And how many will? Peer pressure, etc... The "Slashdot crowd", for example...And I suggest not throwing the "FUD" hammer around when it is completely inappropriate. Learn to discuss things. You can scream "FUD" on Slashdot.
Reasons for such a clause Posted Sep 26, 2006 5:44 UTC (Tue) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link] Eben Moglen has emphasized many times something that I feel is animportant 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.
One of the aims of GPLv3 is to have a little additional flexibility.
Just a question about the GPLv3 Posted Sep 26, 2006 6:02 UTC (Tue) by pynm0001 (guest, #18379) [Link] Well, it is FUD though. Your argument that having a feature of GPLv3which 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.
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
Just a question about the GPLv3 Posted Sep 26, 2006 7:22 UTC (Tue) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link] But it is, you make it sound like it's impossible to avoid, and it definitely isn't...
Just a question about the GPLv3 Posted Sep 26, 2006 16:11 UTC (Tue) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link] atai, I think Jeff is thinking of the following:
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.
Just a question about the GPLv3 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...
Just a question about the GPLv3 Posted Sep 26, 2006 8:58 UTC (Tue) by Jel (guest, #22988) [Link] That's just plain wrong. However, you say it like it would be a bad thing. Licenses have beenspecifically 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.
beg to differ Posted Sep 26, 2006 16:42 UTC (Tue) by ccyoung (guest, #16340) [Link] While I
beg to differ Posted Sep 26, 2006 17:41 UTC (Tue) by Jel (guest, #22988) [Link] Oh, well, if you're talking about your own code, then you can choose anylicense 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.
beg to differ Posted Sep 26, 2006 19:54 UTC (Tue) by JoeF (guest, #4486) [Link] And that's a use scenario. GPLv2 is concerned about distribution.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.
beg to differ Posted Sep 26, 2006 21:11 UTC (Tue) by Jel (guest, #22988) [Link] GPLv2 AND v3 are both about ensuring freedoms, not restricting use. Theylimit 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.
beg to differ Posted Sep 26, 2006 22:45 UTC (Tue) by JoeF (guest, #4486) [Link] 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.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.
beg to differ Posted Sep 26, 2006 23:28 UTC (Tue) by Jel (guest, #22988) [Link] The intention with GPLv2 is that you can use the code INTERNALLY, in yourown 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.
beg to differ Posted Sep 27, 2006 0:25 UTC (Wed) by JoeF (guest, #4486) [Link] Nope. That is what you may think.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.
beg to differ Posted Sep 27, 2006 9:07 UTC (Wed) by Jel (guest, #22988) [Link] Well then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
affero clause Posted Sep 27, 2006 4:55 UTC (Wed) by sanjoy (subscriber, #5026) [Link] 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
affero clause Posted Sep 27, 2006 6:27 UTC (Wed) by JoeF (guest, #4486) [Link] Even as a modification restriction, it restricts the freedom more than the GPLv2.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.
modification restrictions in GPLv2 Posted Sep 27, 2006 9:07 UTC (Wed) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] > I can use a GPLv2 program any way I want, including> modifying it in any way I want.
No, you can't. Reread section 2.
modification restrictions in GPLv2 Posted Sep 27, 2006 14:36 UTC (Wed) by JoeF (guest, #4486) [Link] That section talks about "copy and distribute" modifications. Thanks for making my point.
modification restrictions in GPLv2 and the Affero clause Posted Sep 28, 2006 1:01 UTC (Thu) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] You are correct; section 2 of the GPLv2 doesn't emphasise the fact thatmodification 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).
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
modification restrictions in GPLv2 and the Affero clause Posted Sep 28, 2006 1:33 UTC (Thu) by JoeF (guest, #4486) [Link] Your last sentence is of course one of the things that I have come to expect from zealots.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.
No restrictions on use. Posted Sep 27, 2006 4:46 UTC (Wed) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] > So, GPLv3 seems to restrict use
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
No restrictions on use. Posted Sep 27, 2006 6:45 UTC (Wed) by JoeF (guest, #4486) [Link] 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...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.
The GPLv3 draft does not impose any use restrictions -- it imposes *modification* restrictions. Posted Sep 27, 2006 9:01 UTC (Wed) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] I reread the draft more closely, and it turns out that my conclusionabove (that the Affero licence restriction is ineffectual) is completely wrong. I'm sorry if I've misled anyone :-)
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
The GPLv3 draft does not impose any use restrictions -- it imposes *modification* restrictions. Posted Sep 27, 2006 14:50 UTC (Wed) by JoeF (guest, #4486) [Link] 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)
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.
The GPLv3 draft does not impose any use restrictions -- it imposes *modification* restrictions. Posted Sep 27, 2006 15:09 UTC (Wed) by Jel (guest, #22988) [Link] 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. Posted Sep 27, 2006 15:32 UTC (Wed) by JoeF (guest, #4486) [Link] 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. Posted Sep 27, 2006 15:42 UTC (Wed) by Jel (guest, #22988) [Link] *sigh* Well, we're going around in circles here. Again, we'll have toagree to disagree I guess. Sorry we couldn't find more common ground.
The GPLv3 draft does not impose any use restrictions -- it imposes *modification* restrictions. Posted Sep 27, 2006 16:02 UTC (Wed) by JoeF (guest, #4486) [Link] Well, if you had better arguments than accusing me of being unethical...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.
The GPLv3 draft does not impose any use restrictions -- it imposes *modification* restrictions. Posted Sep 27, 2006 16:13 UTC (Wed) by Jel (guest, #22988) [Link] I didn't accuse you of being unethical. I said that the position you'retaking 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.
The GPLv3 draft does not impose any use restrictions -- it imposes *modification* restrictions. Posted Sep 27, 2006 17:16 UTC (Wed) by JoeF (guest, #4486) [Link] Well, your analysis of the issue is deeply flawed, then.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.
The GPLv3 draft does not impose any use restrictions -- it imposes *modification* restrictions. Posted Sep 27, 2006 17:39 UTC (Wed) by Jel (guest, #22988) [Link] Well, again, I disagree, and stand by my points. Take them or leavethem.
The GPLv3 does not contain the Affero clause Posted Sep 28, 2006 1:12 UTC (Thu) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] Wrong on two counts.
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
The GPLv3 does not contain the Affero clause Posted Sep 28, 2006 1:39 UTC (Thu) by JoeF (guest, #4486) [Link] Modification is not "use".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.
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
The GPLv3 permits essentially the same modifications as the GPLv2 Posted Sep 28, 2006 2:22 UTC (Thu) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] > The GPLv2 covers copyright, i.e., the right to copy the code.
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
The GPLv3 permits essentially the same modifications as the GPLv2 Posted Sep 28, 2006 4:28 UTC (Thu) by JoeF (guest, #4486) [Link] The GPLv3 draft DOES NOT DIFFER from the GPLv2 in the essentials of the permission it grants to modify.Oh, that "essentials" is such a good legal term. Is that all you can come up with?
I suggested you might have more fun playing with some other kids and you
called me a nasty name. I'm telling Teacher now.
That's all, folks Posted Sep 28, 2006 6:35 UTC (Thu) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] > Oh, that "essentials" is such a good legal term.> Is that all you can come up with?
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
That's all, folks Posted Sep 28, 2006 8:17 UTC (Thu) by JoeF (guest, #4486) [Link] I don't need your help to "decipher" legalese. I can do so much better on my own, thank you very much.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.
That's all, folks Posted Sep 30, 2006 22:04 UTC (Sat) by h2 (guest, #27965) [Link] xoddam, your posts have been consistently informative and well thought out. As well as coherent. Thanks.
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.
GPLv3 & additional permissions/restrictions Posted Sep 26, 2006 10:37 UTC (Tue) by mingo (subscriber, #31122) [Link] However, the GPLv3 allows the copyright holders to optionally impose a few additional terms under section 7.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." And I might not be able to get that "permission" from a "pure GPLv3" project ... even if the code i want to merge back was largely my code to begin with.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.
GPLv3 & additional permissions/restrictions Posted Sep 26, 2006 11:06 UTC (Tue) by michich (subscriber, #17902) [Link] 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. 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.
GPLv3 & additional permissions/restrictions Posted Sep 26, 2006 11:23 UTC (Tue) by mingo (subscriber, #31122) [Link] That would be unreasonable, because then you could effectively do whatever you wanted with any GPLv3 code.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 ;)
GPLv3 & additional permissions/restrictions Posted Sep 26, 2006 11:33 UTC (Tue) by alexbk (subscriber, #37839) [Link] Perhaps these two factors could be defeated by the the fact that GPLv3+permissions code has muchbigger license compatibility. Might be worth it for all that extra non-GPL code you can combine it with :)
GPLv3 & additional permissions/restrictions Posted Sep 26, 2006 11:39 UTC (Tue) by robilad (guest, #27163) [Link] 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.
That has been going on since 1992, or so.
GPLv3 & additional permissions/restrictions Posted Sep 26, 2006 11:49 UTC (Tue) by mingo (subscriber, #31122) [Link] 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.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.
GPLv3 & additional permissions/restrictions Posted Sep 26, 2006 12:05 UTC (Tue) by robilad (guest, #27163) [Link] Thanks for the correction, Ingo.
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?
GPLv3 & additional permissions/restrictions Posted Sep 26, 2006 12:21 UTC (Tue) by robilad (guest, #27163) [Link] I meant the text
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.
GPLv3 & additional permissions/restrictions Posted Sep 26, 2006 12:27 UTC (Tue) by mingo (subscriber, #31122) [Link] that was never meant to be an additional permission. See: this collection of emails from Linus.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)
GPLv3 & additional permissions/restrictions Posted Sep 26, 2006 13:21 UTC (Tue) by robilad (guest, #27163) [Link] 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.
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. :)
You can't have it both ways. Posted Sep 26, 2006 11:47 UTC (Tue) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link] 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 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.
You can't have it both ways. Posted Sep 26, 2006 12:00 UTC (Tue) by mingo (subscriber, #31122) [Link] So, yes, there is a bias in clause 7 towards the distribution of works under the "pure" v3 conditions. But this is really intentional.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?
You can't have it both ways. Posted Sep 26, 2006 14:09 UTC (Tue) by Zack (guest, #37335) [Link] >And dont you see a fundamental problem with that approach, if what to you is an "additional permission" is another person's "core value"?
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.
<AOL>I agree</AOL> Posted Sep 26, 2006 14:49 UTC (Tue) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link] Zack responded to mingo exactly the way I would. Thank you.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.
You can't have it both ways. Posted Sep 26, 2006 16:08 UTC (Tue) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] "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)"
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.
You can't have it both ways. Posted Sep 27, 2006 1:08 UTC (Wed) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link] 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?
David Lang
Simple... Posted Sep 27, 2006 9:01 UTC (Wed) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link] The GPL demands all changes to be logged.
GPLv3 & additional permissions/restrictions Posted Sep 26, 2006 15:16 UTC (Tue) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link] This is the only point where I agree with the current criticism.
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
GPLv3 & additional permissions/restrictions Posted Sep 26, 2006 16:34 UTC (Tue) by mingo (subscriber, #31122) [Link] Likewise I support adopting common patent and DRM clauses.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.
criminalization of un-DRM-ing.... Posted Sep 27, 2006 9:25 UTC (Wed) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link] is a DMCA (2000? 1999?) thing. You must remember that PSP/tivo hacking isactually a criminal offense in some countries. And no, that was NOT the case before the DMCA.
criminalization of un-DRM-ing.... Posted Sep 27, 2006 10:00 UTC (Wed) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link] 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.
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
DRM is not new, but the GPLv3 is over-regulating. WTF? Posted Sep 27, 2006 9:33 UTC (Wed) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] > 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.
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)
GPLv3 & additional permissions/restrictions Posted Sep 26, 2006 11:12 UTC (Tue) by alexbk (subscriber, #37839) [Link] LGPL has allowed this kind of relicensing into pure-GPL for years and no evil purification hasoccured. 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.
GPLv3 & additional permissions/restrictions Posted Sep 26, 2006 11:21 UTC (Tue) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] "" 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 Posted Sep 26, 2006 11:35 UTC (Tue) by mingo (subscriber, #31122) [Link] 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.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.
GPLv3 & additional permissions/restrictions Posted Sep 26, 2006 19:38 UTC (Tue) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] I think that how it is stated in GPLv3 is how GPLv2 works right now.
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.
GPLv3 & additional permissions/restrictions Posted Sep 26, 2006 16:44 UTC (Tue) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link]
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,
GPLv3 & additional permissions/restrictions Posted Sep 26, 2006 23:44 UTC (Tue) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] "One License to rule them all, One License to find them,One License to bring them all and in the FSF bind them."
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.
|
|||||||||||||