GPL 3 Forking Risks Discussed 356
sebFlyte writes ""I fear a lot of unpleasant forking action when the GPLv3 comes out." The words of Debian maintainer Matthew Palmer. ZDNet has an interesting look at the possibility of forking when GPLv3 emerges, with lots of reassurance from Eben Moglen (the FSF's chief lawyer)."
Re:Is it just me... (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod parent up (Score:5, Insightful)
If we didnt patch the linux kernel and left security holes in it we would have alot of massive problems , the license is like any other code(all be it legal code) bugs will arise and it will need to grow to support new platforms and new inovations
Thus the clause in the license that the parent states gives the backwards and forwards compatibility if you want it
unplesant forking will rarely occur
An impractical question (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And from the Linux Kernel "COPYING" file (Score:5, Insightful)
Can't see the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Most distributions include demo versions of commercial software, software in the public domain and software under other licences.
Apache is included in most distributions and apache is under the Apache License and apache aren't entirely convinced their licence is compatible with the GPL...
If Apache can be included, where's the problem?
Just some early morning thoughts...
Stop being afraid of Change (Score:5, Insightful)
But after 14 years, GPL/2 is starting to age. Yes, it addresses current problems, but remember that software written and licensed today must still be protected and viable in 15 years' time.
There is absolutely no point in postponing the introduction of GPL/3. There must be a migration, and there will be a period of overlap.
But change is not something to fear in itself. It's something to plan and to manage, and in this case, it's essential.
Last thing: if you followed the FSF's recommendations as to how to use the license, your code would contain this text:
# This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
# modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
# published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of
# the License, or (at your option) any later version.
Which all my company's GPL software contains.
Thanks to Moglen, and the FSF for their fantastic work.
Re:I wouldn't trust RMS (Score:5, Insightful)
They can't do that. If you have written the code you can do whatever you wish with it. GPL allows you to use the software under it commercially.
It's time for something that follows pragmatic wishes of most free software developers rather than one person's political agenda.
I don't know about you but I value my freedom with free software. The pragmatical POW is too narrow.
Re:An impractical question (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Is it just me... (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't the issue. Even if GPL v3 is good and lots of people want to move to it, projects that are licensed exclusively under GPL v2 (e.g. the Linux kernel) are going to have trouble moving forward to the new license. There are a lot of copyright holders to contact and agree to the change in order for it to happen. All that people are saying is that lots of forking could happen. Assuming everyone agrees to the changes presented in v3, it won't that much of a problem, but there's still work to do to change over to the new license.
There are MANY licenses in use by the FOSS world right now, and adding a new version (which addresses international copyright laws and patent issues) will not cause Linux to split into multiple camps.
If you haven't noticed, each license essentially creates its own community around it. You can't take code from the Linux kernel and put into into the BSDs. The problem with a new GPL version is that these incompatibilities will occur within an already established community, and break it apart unless everyone changes.
Re:I wouldn't trust RMS (Score:3, Insightful)
From what I see, people are escaping the leaking GFDL ship like crazy, with FSF manuals and Wikipedia being the biggest bastions.
The former is governed by RMS, the latter is simply too big to allow relicensing.
Re:Misunderstandings (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but anyone who exercises that option may possibly find himself in the sad position of seeing commericial projects modify and re-release her code, without giving source OR compensation.
The "or later" clause gives RMS (or whoever takes over the FSF someday) the option to do ANYTHING with any code released with GPL version X "or later". It sounds a little insane, but we should remember that Microsoft has enough dollars to buy almost anything, included the FSF!
Re:Mod parent up (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow, (Score:5, Insightful)
if you don't trust RMS then why the fuck are you using his license?
People change. They can turn greedy and resentful. They may grow old and senile. And inevitably, they will die, and the organizations they lead will be repopulated with other people whose ideas are non-identical.
Someone's past actions are infinitely more trustable than his future.
If you trust RMS today, then use the GPL. If you trust RMS and all his succssors in the future forever, certain they can never be bought, bribed, or bludgeoned, then use GPL plus "at your option, any later version"
Not that easy (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing the GPL3 can do and still be compatible with GPL2 is to have fewer restrictions. In which case, what's the point, we already have BSD.
Re:Linux: GPL2 *and* GPL3 (Score:4, Insightful)
That would be pretty stupid. Being forced to distribute source if you elect to distribute the binary is one thing. Being forced to distribute ANYTHING when you are just USING the software, however, is too ornerous to be tolerated. I would actively look for a GPLV2 fork of the code or use a closed source alternative before I would accept a license like that. And I sure as hell wouldn't recommend it to any of my clients.
dead copyright holder. (Score:3, Insightful)
It might not be possible to distibute it under gplv3, but that part was licences under gpl v2. and ssince you licenced it under gplv2 it may still be distibuted under point 4:
4.
That makes the gpl inrrevokeable.
Nice thought expriment, but i would liked to have seen the part of the licence that would be violated.
but Bill could probably sue the shit out of them all anyways.
As always this is true. He could be "not right" but still sue, as the sco tries. MS could sue many many small competitors to death.
I trust Eben (Score:2, Insightful)
a problem either way (Score:3, Insightful)
one of two possible scenarios exists here:
a) this new version of the gpl is going to cause a real problem, and there will be all sorts of forking and license incompatibility issues; or
b) this is a non-issue, but nevertheless the community now has to deal with clearing up a bunch of misconceptions, muddy water, and FUD.
either way, it's a problem. why does there even have to *be* a new version of the gpl? didn't they write it properly the first two times? personally, i admire the ethical intent of the gpl, but it's this kind of aggravation that makes the BSD license the only way to go.
Re:Linux: GPL2 *and* GPL3 (Score:2, Insightful)
Being forced to distribute ANYTHING when you are just USING the software, however, is too ornerous to be tolerated.
I don't think that's the idea. I think the idea is to require that you give source to anyone if you distribute binaries to anyone. Right now you only have to give source to the person you distribute the binaries to.
Transitioning linux to GPL 3 (Score:2, Insightful)
What I am worried about though is how will large projects like the linux kernel transition to the new version? You'd have to hunt down all developers and request permission from each and every one of them. This seems like a next to impossible task for a project that's comming up on its 14th year birthday.
This isn't a problem for projects that either put "or later" in the license, or that transfer the copyright of all contributions to a central body. But neither seem to be the case with the kernel, or did I miss something?
Re:acces to source. (Score:2, Insightful)
By definition, YES! Let me give you a hint...YOU CAN'T RUN A PROGRAM FROM SOURCE! Besides, you are using it not distributing it (see below)...
"do you have the executable if you access a device of the LAn,"
You are using the program not distributing it (see below)...
"do you have a executable if you run an application on a gpl webserver?"
You are using it not distributing it (see below)...
Using a program is not covered by the GPL and shouldn't be covered by it. Distributing is however. If you distribute binaries then according to the GPL you also have to distribute source. It is that simple. So unless you were the manufacturer of the washing machine, LAN device, and web application then the GPL only applies to you if you modify and DISTRIBUTE.
Hope that clears it up for you..
B.
Vaporware issues.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, seriously, yes, there are grave concerns, and its a hideously important document. However, there is no reason why they cant put v2 into a wiki, add some proposed changes, and start working with the community on modifications.
This is at least the 10th story that has discussed A DISCUSSION OF WHAT WILL BE IN THE NEW VERSION!
Its not even 5 pages long. They've already mentioned the high points of areas they want to improve/change (patents, webservices), and everyone is well informed!
So just get on with it, and stop playing the vaporware game.
In the meantime, the only GPL-like license that actually closes the web services loophole (the Affero GPL), which is mentioned as a template for the GPLv3, ISNT GPL compatible!
It would be nice to have a GPLv2 compatible license that closes that loophole, so I'm waiting anxiously for a look at a license that will do it.
Enough talk - WRITE!
Ha. (Score:2, Insightful)
That's not important though.
And you wonder why OSS hasn't taken off more.
Re:And from the Linux Kernel "COPYING" file (Score:4, Insightful)
Many rich people have left behind a foundation of money. Those who end up running the foundation often donate to political causes opposite of the ones the origional guy would have supported.
Sure today RMS is in charge and will keep the GPL pure. RMS will not live forever, in fact he could be dead now having been hit by a bus on the way to work, and in a few moment the story will make /. Unlikely, but it could happen. Once he is gone who is to say corporate interests won't take over and made a version 4 license that allows unlimited modification and distribution without making any source public. Linux is protected, while everything v2 or latter is not!
Of coruse Linux is taking the risk that something illegal will be found in the v2 license. That seems unlikely, but laws change all the time.
Make it compatible with the CPL and the Apache 2.0 (Score:4, Insightful)
Being able to use Apache code and Eclipse with GPL projects would give a great boost to GPL Java projects.
Re:And from the Linux Kernel "COPYING" file (Score:5, Insightful)
It gives the licencee more options, hence it is a more free licence.
and thus the code quickly becomes less free.
No, the code is always there licenced under the original terms, and so as free as it ever was. The worst that can happen is that someone else decides not to open up their work.
The point of the GPL is to sacrifice a little freedom in order to encourage the creation of further open source software.
The relevant point is that later licences can not restrict anyone's options, only open up more options. This means that all that is being `risked' is that encouragement to the creation of further open source derivatives, and that only if the FSF fundamentally changes it's nature.
On the other hand, congrtess could pass a bill, or a judge make a decision, tomorrow which changed the impact of the GPL, say making the linux kernel unusable in commercial shops. Wouldn't that give Bill a stiffie. Who do you think Bill would be more likely to manage to buy off, the FSF or some congresscritters?
The existance of a mechanism to patch a system is a security issue. The lack of any ability to do so is a limit to the useful lifetime of the system in a changing world.
Re: I didn't find this comment in the COPYING file (Score:3, Insightful)
If as seems likely GPLv3 is incompatible with GPLv2 (thereby forcing projects that use it to use it exclusively) the only issue would be submitting GPLv3 code to a GPLv2 only project, which would not be allowed.
Re:codegraves on sourceforge (Score:3, Insightful)
Another reason, especially here on Slashdot, is that some programmers just want to do something because they can. They host it on Sourceforge because it's a good, free hosting solution, and later lose interest in the project. I've done this several times, but I try to always notify Sourceforge that they can remove the project (save them some storage space, and allow someone else to use the project name).
I'm actually about to do this next week - I'm writing an assembler, about 70% of the code is done (it scans, it parses, it just doesn't "assemble" yet), and when I get to a working assembler, I'll start a project and put it up.
A lot of those dead projects are just people that start a project whenever they think of a cool idea, and then later lose interest or give up. (Or never get out of the planning stage...)
It's an interesting system, I'll give you that.
Re:And from the Linux Kernel "COPYING" file (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you talking about this?
-------
Neither the name of the nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
-------
Source; http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.ph
If yes, then what you say is untrue - you can talk about it but not use your name or organization to **endorse** the products **without permission**.
That is to say, you can't hawk a BSD appliance shouting (for example) "Come on folks, only $999, here's a router appliance with AT&T routing programs!" unless you've got a permission.
>The intention of the GPL is to open up the code to any type of freedom imagineable.
Riiight.
I want to sell a mail server appliance based on a modified Postfix MTA and keep those Postfix modifications to myself.
Pray tell, how can I excercise such freedom?
The only truly free license would not have any duties, obligations or restrictions whatsoever.
GPL and suchlike licenses are full of rules and restrictions, for Christ's sake.
Re:Not that easy (Score:2, Insightful)
Not true. Depends on what your project claims to be licensed under. See section 9 of the GPL:
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
In other words, the GPL v3 could be the MS EULA, and if your product claims to be licensed under v2 or any later version people would be allowed to consider it licensed to them via the MS EULA.
The big irony is that GPL upgrades are the only way to introduce more restrictions on how GPL'd code can be licensed. Any other license applied to the same code must have the same or fewer restrictions as the GPL, but the new versions of the GPL itself get a free pass.
Re:And from the Linux Kernel "COPYING" file (Score:2, Insightful)
That's a non-response. The effect is identical to having added nothing at all. (Prospective modifiers can ALWAYS ask the original author to re-release under another license)