No restrictions on use. [LWN.net]

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 conclusion
above (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
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.

> 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.

I was talking (beside the point, as it turns out) about some theoretical
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:

"The output from running it is covered by this License only if the
output, given its content, constitutes a covered work."

> So, if [the licence of] an application like a Web service
> ... requires me to put up a link to the source, it is a
> use restriction.

Copyright can impose no restriction on your use of a work once you have a
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.

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):
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:

http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html

"If the Program as you received it is intended to interact with users
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."

If you think that's unfair, travel to a country with extra-strong Fair
Use rights before violating the licence :-)

The draft GPLv3 alone does not contain any such requirement. What it
*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".

> So, then, a) why is this clause in the draft,

This clause exists so that code under GPLv3 may be combined with code
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.

If anything, the bit about Web applications was added as an afterthought,
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.

All the restrictions under discussion are restrictions on modification
and redistribution, not use.

> b) why do some people feel the need to argue for it with their
> personal ethics?

I wasn't aware they were. It's a pretty esoteric clause, IMO. In any
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.

The GPLv3 draft does not impose any use restrictions -- it imposes *modification* restrictions.

Posted Sep 27, 2006 14:50 UTC (Wed) by JoeF (subscriber, #4486) [Link]

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"
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.

"b) why do some people feel the need to argue for it with their personal ethics?"
I wasn't aware they were.

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 (subscriber, #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 to
agree 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 (subscriber, #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're
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.

The GPLv3 draft does not impose any use restrictions -- it imposes *modification* restrictions.

Posted Sep 27, 2006 17:16 UTC (Wed) by JoeF (subscriber, #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 leave
them.

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
use the software you received. Modification is not "use".

2. The GPLv2 and GPLv3 contain essentially the same restrictions on
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.

The GPLv3 does not contain the Affero clause and does not restrict
modification any further than the GPLv2 already does.

What it does do is *permit* a downstream redistributor to *add* an
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.

The GPLv3 does not contain the Affero clause

Posted Sep 28, 2006 1:39 UTC (Thu) by JoeF (subscriber, #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
Yes. And that is where one of the "4 freedoms" is removed. And that's what I object to.

The GPLv3 does not contain the Affero clause
Neither does the GPLv2. So, again, no change needed.

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
preparation of derivative works if copyright covers that where you are.

> The current GPLv3 draft tries to limit what I can do with the
> code in the privacy of my own home.

The GPLv3 draft DOES NOT DIFFER from the GPLv2 in the essentials of the
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.

If you want to do it in a more public fashion, eg. by running a public
web service based on an unauthorised modification of a copyrighted work,
see a lawyer.

> > The GPLv3 does point out that your unlimited right to
> > use the software applies to the *unmodified* version you received

> Yes. And that is where one of the "4 freedoms" is removed.
> And that's what I object to.

I'm sure you have a point here, but I'm not sure how it applies 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.

The Affero licence -- by relying heavily on the limited permission to
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.

from your other reply:
> ... I have come to expect from zealots.

I suggested you might have more fun playing with some other kids and you
called me a nasty name. I'm telling Teacher now.

The GPLv3 permits essentially the same modifications as the GPLv2

Posted Sep 28, 2006 4:28 UTC (Thu) by JoeF (subscriber, #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.
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.

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
you want legal advice. I'm not a lawyer and didn't claim to be.

Nor had I read the licences as closely as I should have before
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.

That's all, folks

Posted Sep 28, 2006 8:17 UTC (Thu) by JoeF (subscriber, #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.