| |||||||||||||
GNU's healthy now, and will soon be moresoGNU's healthy now, and will soon be moresoPosted Sep 27, 2013 16:28 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252)In reply to: GNU's healthy now, and will soon be moreso by coriordan Parent article: 30 years of GNU
Neither GnuTLS nor its developers actually left. Really? Have you actually read the article? When main developers of your project (the ones who wrote over 90% of all the code in it) say gnutls is moving outside the infrastructure of the GNU project, actually move it to different place and and relicense the code it's pretty safe to say that yes, GnuTLS have left the GNU project. Well, FSF can insist that GnuTLS stays with GNU but that's will just mean that they'll keep some form on zombie around and real project (under some other name) will live in different place. All major distros still use GCC. Well, all GNU/Linux distributions still use GCC, sure. But that's kind of “by definition”. Non-GNU ones right now are exploring LLVM, but yes, most still use GCC (well, except for MacOS and iOS which are not Linux distributions, obviously). But for them it's question of “when”, not “if”. And non-GNU Linux distributions outnumber GNU Linux distributions today to such a degree that it's not even funny. Much more importantly, if there is any decline in the GPL or copyleft licensing (I've seen people argue for and against this claim, with numbers), then I'm pretty sure it will be temporary. Only time will tell. Most interesting projects as of late don't use the GPL (although some of them do), but as RMS correctly pointed out to be “truly free project” you must embrace the GPLv3+ and most projects are still on GPLv2+ (even some FSFs projects are on GPLv2+ because even FSF knows it can not relicense to GPLv2 and still keep it under their control: GLibC is prime example). As I've pointed out GPLv2 is not “true free software license” — it sits on the border between “free software license” and “open source license” (and RMS himself explained) thus we need to look on GPLv3+ projects. The GPL did such a good job of fostering adoption and keeping free software out of legal problems, that some developers might have gotten the impression that changing the world is a risk-free endeavour. Hardly. GPL was broken by FSFs attempt to improve it. Note: no quotes! FSF truly believed that GPLv3 will improve the situation WRT free software… and back in 2006 this was my hope, too. Unfortunately this attempt backfired, free software and open source camps got a divorce and free software part is slowly withering away. As Landley explains it: Copyleft is dying. Sad, but true. The current multiplication of mega corporation free riders, particularly in the smartphone market is likely to cause a backlash and a renewed interest in copyleft. Probably but unlikely. Since “an universal receiver” option is no longer available it makes it much less attractive. And since GPLv3 basically means that your creation will be rejected by most “serious” players… no, copyleft is not coming back any time soon. In five or ten years it may come back but it'll mean that we've faced a setback of such a cosmic proportions that we basically need to start from the beginning. I hope that we'll never reach that point.
(Log in to post comments)
GNU's healthy now, and will soon be moreso Posted Sep 27, 2013 16:45 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
> Probably but unlikely.
I think so also. If Free software is to succeed it has to do because of merit, not because it forces companies to comply to a world view. Even if you get people participating that seek to distribute proprietary code based on your open source code then largely it is still a net win because they are still participating. Your project wins when giving you patches causes a net win for the company or group giving you patches.
Due to the caustic legal environment we have to exist in the 'copyleft' licenses themselves can serve a important role based on your goals and the type of software you are using, but it's still probably better to pick a license with less restrictions simply to reduce the legal overhead and increase chances of participation when you can.
For GCC, in particular, the GPLv3 plays a role in popularizing LLVM, but I think a much larger and more important factor is GCC's developers introducing hurdles and anti-features into their software to prevent third party plugins. I think the license was much more of a 'huge straw that broke the camel's back' type thing.
I think this was extraordinarily destructive because while you were making life hard for third party proprietary developers from 'stealing' GCC features by working around copyright restrictions, but it was also entirely destructive to any third party open source developer wanting to use GCC features.
It's like shooting yourself in spite of your foot. Extremely destructive and limiting.
People need to realize that when you introduce anti-features into your project to make life harder for proprietary developers you are also making life harder for all developers, free software included.
GNU's healthy now, and will soon be moreso Posted Sep 27, 2013 17:01 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] For GCC, in particular, the GPLv3 plays a role in popularizing LLVM, but I think a much larger and more important factor is GCC's developers introducing hurdles and anti-features into their software to prevent third party plugins. GPLv3 had nothing to do with creation of LLVM. That is crystal clear: Apple hired Chris Lattner before start of GPLv3 process. But GCC's switch to GPLv3 in 2008 certainly changed things: after that point it was not about “if gcc will be replaced with clang” but about “when gcc will be replaced with clang”. Apple never used any GPLv3 code (which means that all GNU programs in MacOS are quite old by now) and there are other companies like that.
GNU's healthy now, and will soon be moreso Posted Sep 27, 2013 17:57 UTC (Fri) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link]
> Apple never used any GPLv3 code (which means that all GNU programs in MacOS are quite old by now) and there are other companies like that.
That is because Apple LOVES embrace and extend, as does other companies; it's a "make easy money" scam. At any point in the future the many contributors to the "liberally-licensed", non-copylefted software ecosystems will probably get bitten in their collective arses by this fact, and when (not if) it happens, they will come back running to copylet.
GNU's healthy now, and will soon be moreso Posted Sep 27, 2013 21:07 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
> collective arses by this fact, and when (not if) it happens, they will come back running to copylet.
There are a huge and growing number of non-copyleft free software projects out there and have been for years. Nobody has had their 'arses bitten' that I can tell.
GNU's healthy now, and will soon be moreso Posted Sep 27, 2013 22:23 UTC (Fri) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link]
He, he. Lots of BSD'd projects just died (or almost just died) in the 1990s because their code was being legally used under proprietary -- better developed -- software. Microsoft Windows being one of the offenders (which BSD socket library was used, anyway?)
But you don't have to believe me, just wait half a dozen years and tell me I was wrong. Or the other way around.
GNU's healthy now, and will soon be moreso Posted Sep 27, 2013 23:31 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
> He, he. Lots of BSD'd projects just died (or almost just died) in the 1990s because their code was being legally used under proprietary
BSDi products were sued because they were violating copyright and ended up settling out of court with Novel.
> better developed -- software. Microsoft Windows being one
Excuse me for the selective edit, but frankly that is BS, because; Microsoft Windows is not better developed, Microsoft didn't really have a operating system that was competitive with Unix (proprietary or free) until 2000, and the whole 'using BSD code' is entirely overblown and was the entire point of having TCP/IP stack cheaply licensed.
BSDi getting sued in the early 1990's doesn't support your contention at all, IMO. The only thing that it does illustrate is the destructive and toxic nature that copyright restrictions (and other IP) have on technological advancements.
GNU's healthy now, and will soon be moreso Posted Sep 28, 2013 1:55 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Microsoft Windows is not better developed, Microsoft didn't really have a operating system that was competitive with Unix (proprietary or free) until 2000 What are you talking about? Windows NT was released back in 1993. Sure, version suitable for desktop (with accelerated 3D and other goodies) was not released till 2000, but Windows NT was used on quite a few workstation in that period. BSDi getting sued in the early 1990's doesn't support your contention at all, IMO. The only thing that it does illustrate is the destructive and toxic nature that copyright restrictions (and other IP) have on technological advancements. Sure, but what this has to do with anything? Yes, BSDs suffered from BSDi processing and lost couple of years as a result but when USL v. BSDi case was resolved Linux was still pretty weak OS which was clearly inferior to BSD. But managed to take over (as even some BSD guys admit). The question is still open if it was because of copyleft of if it was because of something else (Linus personality?), but it looks that copyleft actually helped. But that was different era: era when people (and not corporations) were main actors in FOSS projects, era when ASF tended to it's server and had no interest in office suites and, of course, era when copyleft meant tit-for-tat and nothing else. We still don't know how new and improved GPLv3-based copyleft will affect the balance. So far we are observing both positive and negative effects from it. E.g. Samba. Samba 4 will probably open some new opportunities but at the same time we can't use Samba with our Android devices (at least not on stock roms) because it's GPLv3-licensed now. Only time will tell which way this whole thing will go. Ditto for other GPLv3-based projects.
GNU's healthy now, and will soon be moreso Posted Sep 28, 2013 10:44 UTC (Sat) by jengelh (subscriber, #33263) [Link]
>Linux [...] managed to take over[...]. The question is still open if it was because of copyleft of if it was because of something else (Linus personality?), but it looks that copyleft actually helped.
With respect to Linux (both in the sense of kernel and as operating system bundles called distributions), "quality of implementation" is the reason for many a user. Lately with all the security agency crap going on, I would prospect that open source (just open, not necessarily free) would garner an increase in followers.
GNU's healthy now, and will soon be moreso Posted Sep 30, 2013 0:45 UTC (Mon) by jra (subscriber, #55261) [Link]
khim wrote:
> E.g. Samba. Samba 4 will probably open some new opportunities but at the
You certainly can use Samba on your Android devices. You chose not to as you don't want to obey the license.
Don't use the word "can't" when you mean "won't". It's misleading.
GNU's healthy now, and will soon be moreso Posted Sep 30, 2013 8:53 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Don't use the word "can't" when you mean "won't". It's misleading. That's why I use “can't” when I mean “can't”. Samba is not something you can just add to your stock Android because it requires root access to be actually usable (you can install it on non-standard port, but then Windows will not able to see it which makes it less then useful for most users). You either need to root the device or install special rom. In both cases you, most likely, will lose the warranty. Instead we are forced to use MTP, PTP, or something like Dropbox/Google Drive. You certainly can use Samba on your Android devices. You chose not to as you don't want to obey the license. Me? I've chosen nothing (well, except maybe for the phone model, but they all are identical WRT Samba support). Android developers have chosen not to use Samba—and most likely because it's license is GPLv3 now. Android tends to avoid even GPLv2 components and GPLv3 is big no-no.
GNU's healthy now, and will soon be moreso Posted Oct 3, 2013 8:06 UTC (Thu) by madhatter (subscriber, #4665) [Link] I'm sorry, but I think it's disingenuous to suggest that GPLv3 software can't run on Android phones. I open up my F-Droid client, and the screenful of freshly-released software, all ready to be installed on my Android phone, lists along with the packages ready to go, their licences: four GPLv3, three GPLv3+, and one MIT.Much of the software I'm already running from f-droid is GPLv3-licenced, including Angulo, the APV PDF viewer, the Dasher text input client, the FasterGPS NTP client, and Vector Pinball. It might be fair to say that you haven't chosen a handset that makes this choice easy, or that you haven't chosen to use your handset in a way that makes this choice easy, but I don't think it's fair to say that it's in some inherent way impossible. For me, jra's point about "can't" vs "won't" stands.
GNU's healthy now, and will soon be moreso Posted Oct 3, 2013 11:24 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] I'm sorry, but I think it's disingenuous to suggest that GPLv3 software can't run on Android phones. Who said anything about random pieces of software? Of course you can do that! But if you are creating software which is supposed to be used by OS ( It might be fair to say that you haven't chosen a handset that makes this choice easy, or that you haven't chosen to use your handset in a way that makes this choice easy, but I don't think it's fair to say that it's in some inherent way impossible. Really? What kind of handset I should have used instead? Note: I've clarified in the very beginning: at least not on stock roms. Of course if you root your phone or install custom firmware then you can use anything you want including
GPLv3 is incompatible with OS distribution? Posted Oct 3, 2013 20:11 UTC (Thu) by kmacleod (guest, #88058) [Link] But if you are creating software which is supposed to be used by OS (samba or libstdc++) and it's distributed under GPLv3 then no, you can not do that. Either it's distributed separately (libstdc++) or it can not be used at all (samba). Can you provide a link to an in-depth article or previous thread that gives background and details on "GPLv3 is incompatible with OS distribution"? An FSF statement along those lines would also work.
GPLv3 is incompatible with OS distribution? Posted Oct 3, 2013 22:26 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Can you provide a link to an in-depth article or previous thread that gives background and details on "GPLv3 is incompatible with OS distribution"? And before you'll say “hey, but they could have just opened up their system” you need to read another article. Actually you need just three lines from said article: Mobile phone sales is not like cameras or cars or clothing. In all those other industries, if you make a good product and offer it at competitive prices, you will have success in the market. In mobile, even if you have the best phone ever made, it is utterly IRRELEVANT if the carriers decide not to support it. Combine these two articles—and here is your answer. It's as simple as 1-2-3: You can notice that Apple does not cede control over iPhone to carriers (there are no carrier logos, etc). That's true, Apple certainly managed to pressure carriers more then any other handset manufacturer to date. But carriers still have some measure of control: even if technically Apple (and not you!) decides how your phone behaves carriers still decide many things. For example carriers determine if your iPhone will support tethering or not. P.S. Situation is slowly changing but I think it'll be few more years till anyone will be able to create truly successful phone which will be successful despite carriers opposition.
GPLv3 is incompatible with OS distribution? Posted Oct 4, 2013 1:33 UTC (Fri) by kmacleod (guest, #88058) [Link]
Ah, I misunderstood your post. I thought you meant a technical/legal incompatibility.
GPLv3 is incompatible with OS distribution? Posted Oct 4, 2013 10:28 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] In mobile, even if you have the best phone ever made, it is utterly IRRELEVANT if the carriers decide not to support it.This is, of course, not true in most of Europe. It's a US thing, I think. The thought of not being able to choose my mobile provider and phone independently is baffling. Why on earth would anyone want to cut themselves off from choice like that? Oh yes, because that way they get a 'free' phone (and an increase in contract cost that means they pay much more in the next year or two than they would have done to get the phone). i.e., it's a phone mortgage. I'm not really sure that phones cost enough to be worth taking out a mortgage for them -- particularly not when a side-effect is to greatly restrict your choice of phone.
GPLv3 is incompatible with OS distribution? Posted Oct 4, 2013 11:14 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
In the US, if you try to get phone service without the contract and 'free phone', you really don't save very much. I'm going through this process right now, and you really have to hunt around and _not_ go with the main carriers to save anything. A few years ago I purchased a tablet that could take a SIM card and when I went to get service, most of the phone stores I went to didn't understand what I was talking about. That's getting better now, but still only AT&T and T-Mobile can get you a SIM, The other two major carriers (Sprint and Verizon) require different models of the devices that only work with their networks.
And like it or not, the US is a huge block of customers for phone companies. the EU may or may not have more total phone users, but that market is far more fragmented in terms of the advertizing needed, the different language versions needed etc.
in the US, most phone manufacturers spend exactly zero money on advertizing, it's only in recent years that you would find any phone advertizing from Samsung or HTC (Motorola and Apple have been advertizing for a lot longer). Since the vast majority of users get their phone from their carrier, based strictly on what the carrier has on display in their store, there hasn't been much need.
One good thing about the 'smartphone wars' is that people are seeing that there are a bunch of different options, and so people are getting interested in getting a specific phone rather than just picking whatever is in stock.
as for developing fully open phones, if you were a phone manufacturer and knew that investing a large chunk of money into your own system would anger the carriers that control access to a very large number of customers, would you be eager to do so?
GPLv3 is incompatible with OS distribution? Posted Oct 5, 2013 14:56 UTC (Sat) by kleptog (subscriber, #1183) [Link]
Actually, in the EU there is a huge market for SIM only plans, I think largely *because* of the fragmentation. Given that your mobile phone plan really only cheap in the country you bought it, it's not uncommon to buy an extra SIM when you go on holiday.
There are even providers that specialise in this: you select a country, a time period and a number of MB/minutes and they'll mail you a SIM card which you pop in when you reach your destination and pop out again when you go home. They don't even really need to advertise either, people who need it will go looking for them. But it does make locked phones somewhat worthless for normal use.
Ofcourse, for europeans going to the US, they can buy one SIM for one large area, which is reasonably attractive. I imagine this market will slowly disappear when the cost of roaming becomes more reasonable, either by competition or government regulation.
GNU's healthy now, and will soon be moreso Posted Oct 4, 2013 11:05 UTC (Fri) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
Again, as others have already have pointed out, you are using "can't" when you really mean "won't".
Nothing stops someone putting together a phone and using GPLv3 licensed software, if they are willing to abide by the GPLv3.
GNU's healthy now, and will soon be moreso Posted Sep 28, 2013 6:39 UTC (Sat) by did447 (guest, #49454) [Link]
> I think this was extraordinarily destructive because while you were making life hard for third party proprietary developers from 'stealing' GCC features by working around copyright restrictions, but it was also entirely destructive to any third party open source developer wanting to use GCC features.
Absolutely, if you read compiler conferences papers most (all?) use LLVM now, even when they release their own code as GPL3 software!
GNU's healthy now, and will soon be moreso Posted Sep 29, 2013 17:54 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] a much larger and more important factor is GCC's developers introducing hurdles and anti-features into their software to prevent third party plugins.Since this never happened, I doubt it. No 'hurdles' or 'anti-features' were ever introduced (the developers would be unlikely to do that, given that they were almost universally in *favour* of plugins!). Rather, the major improvements that *could* have happened earlier to improve the modularity of the huge ball of hair that was GCC didn't quite happen as early as they might have. That's all. It's still a ball of hair, certainly compared to LLVM, with a much higher learning curve.
GNU's healthy now, and will soon be moreso Posted Sep 27, 2013 17:39 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]
> Have you actually read the article?
Yes. But unlike you, I also checked to see to see what happened afterwards. The article was about Nikos taking GnuTLS out of GNU, but all the GNU releases since the article have all been made by... Nikos.
> GPLv3 basically means that your creation will be rejected by
GPLv3 means your software will be rejected by corporations that never wanted users to get the freedoms anyway. If your goal is to do unpaid work for corporations, then GPLv3 is not for you. If your goal is for users to be free to use, modify, run and redistribute, then GPLv3+ is your best bet.
GPLv3 didn't drive anyone away. It just unmasked a few hangabouts that weren't our friends to begin with.
GNU's healthy now, and will soon be moreso Posted Sep 27, 2013 18:10 UTC (Fri) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link]
> GPLv3 didn't drive anyone away. It just unmasked a few hangabouts that weren't our friends to begin with.
YES. Thank you. I agree 100%.
Sure, does Apple (or Google) produce great quality software? Yes, it does! Does it produce software that is guaranteed to stay free forever? Uh-oh. Wait and see. I will support copylefted software as long as I am alive, for this reason alone.
GNU's healthy now, and will soon be moreso Posted Sep 28, 2013 3:39 UTC (Sat) by wahern (subscriber, #37304) [Link]
It's free as long as you have the source code with the permissive license. And a company shipping GPL code could stop updating it at any time--e.g. MySQL.
Also, unfortunately, no GPL code authored by a real person is guaranteed free forever, because US copyright law gives individuals an inalienable right to terminate a license at 35 years after publication, regardless of the terms of the license. (In practice this is nothing to worry about, but corporate lawyers like to bring this up and it's caused no end of bickering between Stallman, the FSF, and proprietary software advocates.)
Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-GPL. But the differences between GPL and BSD, et al licenses are more subtle. Does the GPL nudge companies to contribute more? In some cases, yes; in others, no, because they simply avoid it.
For example, my company encourages me to work on and release Free Software (and I have, and Apple and Google and Hulu use my FOSS software), but they ask I use a BSD or MIT license. GPL licenses give them headaches and they don't want to be hypocrites about it. GPL licenses have real costs when distributing products, because even if compliance isn't a roadblock, it still takes time and effort. This is why everybody appreciated the U. of California Regents rescinding the advertising clause from the original BSD license.
GNU's healthy now, and will soon be moreso Posted Sep 27, 2013 20:41 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] I also checked to see to see what happened afterwards. Hmm… really? Have you checked the GNU ftp site? The article was about Nikos taking GnuTLS out of GNU, but all the GNU releases since the article have all been made by... Nikos. You mean non-GNU releases on non-GNU sites? Last GNU versions are 3.0.26/3.1.5. All versions after that (3.0.32/3.1.14/3.2.4 currently) are released not as part of GNU project and they are not released via usual GNU channels. Sure, they were made by Nikos. And FSF was even provided redirects from old addresses @ http://www.gnu.org/software/gnutls/ to new addresses @ http://www.gnutls.org/. That's cool: this means that they kept enough common sense to understand that even if legally they can try to keep GnuTLS as GNU “zombie project” it'll just make them a laughing stock. But the fact remains: GnuTLS have left the GNU project and it's not coming back. GPLv3 means your software will be rejected by corporations that never wanted users to get the freedoms anyway. Sure. Few corporations do. If your goal is to do unpaid work for corporations, then GPLv3 is not for you. If your goal is for users to be free to use, modify, run and redistribute, then GPLv3+ is your best bet. Well, that's one way of saying it. Another way is to say that if you do care about users then GPLv3 is not for you. If you do care only about software freedom (and it does not matter for you if users will ever see or care about your software) then yes, GPLv3 is your best bet. As I've said before: GPLv3 separated people who think about software as means of doing something and people who think about software (and software's freedom) as goal. And most people care more about people then they care about unfeeling bytes.
GNU's healthy now, and will soon be moreso Posted Sep 27, 2013 23:16 UTC (Fri) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link]
>Well, that's one way of saying it. Another way is to say that if you do care about users then GPLv3 is not for you. If you do care only about software freedom (and it does not matter for you if users will ever see or care about your software) then yes, GPLv3 is your best bet.
Come now, "user's freedom" is precisely what the GPL was written to ensure. Users, by definition, are those that use the code. Those who don't use the code, aren't users, and are irrelevant in this equation.
Now, encouraging folks to use that code is another matter entirely, but that is precisely their choice to make.
GNU's healthy now, and will soon be moreso Posted Sep 27, 2013 23:27 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]
> really? Have you checked the GNU ftp site?
Why yes, I have. It contains a README saying it's a GNU project, and an AUTHORS file saying FSF is the copyright holder. Got any other evidence that proves I'm right?
> Another way is to say that if you do care about users (...)
First, that makes no sense because if they only care about users, to the point that they give up on software freedom, then why use a free software licence in the first place? (And "because we can trick people into unpaid work" isn't valid.)
Second, this mass exodus that you base your claims on never happened. Some companies walked away. That's a pity. But if the only way to keep them was to promise they could circumvent the licence, then we just have to accept that their presence was just a fad and there was no way to keep them.
I don't have links or stats about GPLv3, but John Sullivan of FSF makes a solid case for there being a big increase in the use of GNU licences:
http://faif.us/cast-media/FaiF_0x23_Is-Copyleft-Framed_sl...
Slides 14 to 17 show that between 2005 and 2011, the percentage of Debian packages under GNU licences went from 71 to 93. That's looking pretty healthy.
GNU's healthy now, and will soon be moreso Posted Sep 28, 2013 1:26 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] It contains a README saying it's a GNU project, and an AUTHORS file saying FSF is the copyright holder. Really? For GnuTLS 3.2.4? Perhaps you are living in some other universe then me. Transdimensional communication is probably bigger discovery then mere squabbles between “free software” and “open source” proponents! We should investigate this phenomenon further… Got any other evidence that proves I'm right? Not really. It's kinda pointless to offer evidence to someone who refuses to admit that black is black and white is white. First, that makes no sense because if they only care about users, to the point that they give up on software freedom, then why use a free software licence in the first place? Not free software license. Open source license. ESR explained why quite well in his well known book. It has nothing to do with “free software” jihad, it's just a better software development model. Well, it's better in certain circumstances and worse in some other cases, but I digress. I don't have links or stats about GPLv3, but John Sullivan of FSF makes a solid case for there being a big increase in the use of GNU licences: One phrase from said “solid case” says it all: When it comes to looking at a di fferent, well-vetted frame of software — like what's in Debian GNU/Linux — GPL family use is very high. If you ignore the fact that most software novadays are developed not for inclusion in traditional Linux distributions but for the Web, Android and iOS then yes, you can conclude that GPL use is growing. But it's not because copyleft is winning. That's because developers are moving in other directions and develop things for other platforms. Also note that even in said “well-vetted frame of software” GPLv3 only managed to grab 10-20% of all GPL packages. And we know that if you value freedom you should use GPLv3, not GPLv2, right?
GNU TLS copyright Posted Sep 28, 2013 7:15 UTC (Sat) by oldtomas (guest, #72579) [Link] coriordan It contains a README saying it's a GNU project, and an AUTHORS file saying FSF is the copyright holder.khim Really? For GnuTLS 3.2.4? Perhaps you are living in some other universe then me. Transdimensional communication is probably bigger discovery then mere squabbles between “free software” and “open source” proponents! We should investigate this phenomenon further... OK. Let's see. Just downloaded from gnutls.org The AUTHORS file (at top level) says, among other things: GnuTLS AUTHORS -- Information about the authors. Copyright (C) 2000-2012 Free Software Foundation, Inc. See the end for copying conditions. The copyright holder for GnuTLS is Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA. So I seem to be living on coriordan's universe (I guess I like it more there, btw.)
GNU TLS copyright Posted Sep 28, 2013 14:16 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Close, but no cigar. khim: Hmm… really? Have you checked the GNU ftp site? coriordan: Why yes, I have. It contains a README saying it's a GNU project, and an AUTHORS file saying FSF is the copyright holder. Got any other evidence that proves I'm right? khim: Really? For GnuTLS 3.2.4? oldtomas: OK. Let's see. Just downloaded from gnutls.org The AUTHORS file (at top level) says, among other things: $ whois gnutls.org Does it look like GNU ftp to you? It's impossible to call out copyright assignments thus obviously copyright for old code will remain with FSF forever (well, forever less one day, but who's counting). But note that “(C) Free Software Foundation, Inc.” notices mostly cover 2009-2012. New code (in
GNU TLS copyright Posted Sep 28, 2013 19:04 UTC (Sat) by oldtomas (guest, #72579) [Link] Oh, for $DEITY's sake, khim!. We were discussing the license of the GNUTLS code, not the owner of the ftp site whence the sources come from. Let's stay focused, pretty please. New code (in gnutls_dtls.c, heartbeat.c, rsa_psk.c and dozen other files) are “Copyright (C) 2013 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos”, “Copyright (C) 2013 Frank Morgner”, “Copyright (C) 2013 Adam Sampson <ats@offog.org>”, etc. Which means that copyright is no longer assigned to FSF.There you might have a point. Now, if the current maintainer doesn't change the AUTHORS file (which he would be free to do: not removing the copyright by FSF, mind you, but augmenting it, like he very well does in the file mentioned by you, e.g.: * Copyright (C) 2009-2012 Free Software Foundation, Inc. * Copyright (C) 2013 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulosthen I'd tend to assume that he's fine seeing the overall copyright in the hands of the FSF). Still it's a departure of the assignment model preferred by the FSF, so I'll concede you a partial one on that. A far cry from "leaving", as you posted in your original article, though).
GNU TLS copyright Posted Sep 28, 2013 20:15 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Oh, for $DEITY's sake, khim!. We were discussing the license of the GNUTLS code, Really? Sorry, to disasppoint you, but we were talking about an article which clearly says the development of gnutls is moving outside the infrastructure of the GNU project and that Nikos (one of two principal developers of GnuTLS) no longer consider GnuTLS a GNU project. Nothing more, nothing less. coriordan made ridiculous claim that neither GnuTLS nor its developers actually left and another even more ridiculous one that all the GNU releases since the article have all been made by… Nikos. This is what we discussing. not the owner of the ftp site whence the sources come from. Why? Let's stay focused, pretty please. Well, let's. One property of GNU project is that it's source is distributed via ftp.gnu.org: we strongly recommend using A far cry from "leaving", as you posted in your original article, though. Really? License itself is important sign of GNU project, but far from the only sign. It's not even the most important one: there are plenty of non-GNU projects under GNU license. But if author of GnuTLS says that he no longer consider GnuTLS a GNU project, stops assigning copyright to FSF, no longer uses GNU-provided facilities, switches from GPLv3 back to GPLv2 (note that zombie project which proudly claims that this project is part of the GNU Project still as proudly claims that it's license is GNU General Public License v3 or later, too) then what exactly ties it to GNU project? One measly file? For all practical purposes GnuTLS have left the GNU project, if they are keeping few attribution files to keep the name I would not blame them.
GNU TLS copyright Posted Sep 29, 2013 18:04 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] One property of GNU project is that it's source is distributed via ftp.gnu.orgGNU is more vaporous and less dictatorial than you seem to believe. Note that both GNOME and Bazaar are 'officially' GNU projects (in the sense that 'RMS says they are'), and neither is distributed from ftp.gnu.org. Heck, RMS stamps TeX and X with the GNU imprimatur (they are 'part of the GNU operating system'), but in that case not even the projects' maintainers would agree. Even 'developed by GNU' is a woolly thing. A few core things were originally developed by funding from the FSF, but even those were mostly not developed by RMS, and many of them are still maintained by their original developers. Some of those have got pissed off with RMS and said 'we are no longer GNU' -- but this is just semantics. It makes almost *no* difference, because GNU is no longer the sole, nor even primary, umbrella under which free software sits. The world is bigger than GNU now -- GNU has transmitted its message effectively enough that it is no longer as important as it was. And this is a *good* thing, not a thing to be afraid of.
GNU TLS Posted Sep 30, 2013 11:55 UTC (Mon) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]
This discussion started with your claim of a "slow decay of GNU tower" and you've proved nothing to support that claim.
All you've shown is that there have been some arguments within one GNU project and the main developer of that project has decided to start keeping his copyrights (possibly because he wants to enforce the licence against someone).
From there, you dramatise, make assumptions, and exaggerate a few details to make a claim that GnuTLS is no longer part of GNU, and from there you jump to the claim that GNU is decaying.
Do you really expect a 30 year project, with a hundred sub-projects and thousands of developers, to produce as much software as GNU has, without any internal arguments? This is par for the course in such a massive undertaking and the continued existence and growth of GNU is a tribute to the rarely-praised management skills of RMS!
GNU's healthy now, and will soon be moreso Posted Sep 27, 2013 18:26 UTC (Fri) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link]
> • “GPLv2 or later” give to both but can't take code from either one.
Sure it can. It only has to choose when it does.
If I combine a program that is v2+ with a v2 patch, I can redistribute the result under v2-only license.
And so on.
GNU's healthy now, and will soon be moreso Posted Sep 27, 2013 19:26 UTC (Fri) by southey (subscriber, #9466) [Link] All of your examples are illegal! These all require changes in the license especially as each change further restricts the original license. You cannot relicense any code unless you are the only copyright holder. While you could redistribute the package under a different but compatible license, it is would be wrong include all included code under that compatible license. Rather the original program will always remain GPL v2 or later and only your patch will be covered under the compatible license you choose.
GNU's healthy now, and will soon be moreso Posted Sep 27, 2013 22:19 UTC (Fri) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link]
You are not relicensing. You are distributing under the terms the copyright holders allowed you to distribute. Go read all the terms of the GPLv2 and v3 a couple of times and you'll get some illumination after some time.
GNU's healthy now, and will soon be moreso Posted Sep 27, 2013 22:33 UTC (Fri) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link]
I will clarify this a little bit:
When you say:
"You can redistribute this work (and derivatives) under the terms of the GPL, version 2 or later", then you are saying:
A. you can redistribute this work (and derivatives) under the terms of the GPLv2
and so on.
If you need to redistribute some work that is a derivative of both a GPLv2 work (terms under letter A, above) and a GPLv2+ work (A|B|C|...), you still have the option of distributing it under the terms of A. Likewise, if you need to redistribute some work that is a derivative of both a GPLv3+ work and a GPLv2+ work (B|C|... and A|B|C|... respectively) then you still have the option of distributing it under the terms of B|C|... etc etc.
GNU's healthy now, and will soon be moreso Posted Sep 27, 2013 22:26 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]
There's no legal problem.
The only way to distribute a combination of v2+ and v3+ is to abide by v3 (or a later version when one is published). So it's fair to tell people that the project "is under v3". It's simplifying slightly, but not to the extent of being misleading.
To be precise, the project doesn't have a licence. The works (authors' works) have licences.
(If I unilaterally claimed that every part of the project, including the v2+ parts written by others, was v3+, or if I edit all the other authors' copyright notices to say v3+, then yes, either of those acts would be illegal, but that's not the case here.)
GNU's healthy now, and will soon be moreso Posted Sep 29, 2013 18:03 UTC (Sun) by jzbiciak (✭ supporter ✭, #5246) [Link]
The main issue is that the original project is unlikely to want to change its license terms in order to accept a contribution into its mainline. So, while you can legally combine code in the ways you list and redistribute the result in the resulting intersection between licenses, the original project would probably reject the submission because it changes the licensing for the whole project.
I'm pretty sure that's what was meant by "give to both but can't take code from either one." If my project starts as a GPLv2+ project and wants to remain a GPLv2+ project, it cannot accept a V2 patch, V3 patch or V3+ patch into mainline.
|
|||||||||||||