| |||||||||||||
GNU's healthy now, and will soon be moresoGNU's healthy now, and will soon be moresoPosted Sep 27, 2013 17:39 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544)In reply to: GNU's healthy now, and will soon be moreso by khim Parent article: 30 years of GNU
> 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.
(Log in to post comments)
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!
|
|||||||||||||