GPL 3.0 to Penalize Google, Amazon?

Michael Ferris writes "Is this the start of a shakedown by the GNU folks? Michael Singer writes that Eben Moglen and the folks rewriting the GPL are looking at a proposal where companies would be required to pay money if they use GPLed software, even if they don't redistribute the software." From the article: "The current version of the GPL, which was last updated in 1991, fails to trigger the open source license if a company alters the code, but does not distribute its software through a CD or floppy disk...the [current] rule does not apply to companies that distribute software as a service, such as Google and eBay, or even dual-license companies like Sleepycat."

FSF?

[panxerox]

Shouldent that be FAIBFSF? Free as in beer free software foundation?

Yes...PLEASE!

[Anonymous Coward]

Such a clause will really ensure BSD never dies.

Re:Future versions of the GPL

[Dayze!Confused]

That's handing control of the licencing of your code over to whoever is allowed to write GPLv1851, if I'm reading it correctly.

I'm worried about GPLv1984 myself.

Re:Who what when where?

[PHPgawd]

The payment model could be based on a simple royalty each time each subroutine is accessed. The easiest way to implement this would be an opaque wrapper on all GLPed APIs, which in turn could be easily implmented in a new version of gcc.

The wrapper code could then count the number of calls, the function name called, and the company calling them, and this in turn could append a text file that is stored somewhere and automatically sent once a month to the FSF which will then use the file to send the company a bill. The FSF would then distrubute the money to each of the authors of the given API calls.

I will volunteer to make the necessary modifications to gcc. This of course will require all GPL'd code to call my APIs, which will of course be the first to implement this new system.

Re:FSF?

[nacturation]

That's GNU/Beer to you, pal.

Re:Yes...PLEASE!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the BSD license at least.. it will be the last little reminder.

Re:Future versions of the GPL

[Dysan2k]

Well, if you license under GPL, you're supposed to include the LICENSE file which includes the GPL in it's entirity. Now, if you haven't been including the license in your package, that's a problem you need to remedy. The license itself has the version number at the top, so it's easy to identify. You may want to clarify from here on out, which version you are licensing under, but from the usual standpoint, it falls something like this:

Developer: It doesn't have a version number, so it refers to the earliest version
Business: It doesn't have a version number, so it must be the most recent
Reality: It has no version number, so it would apply to the current version upon creation of the software
Legal: Pay me lots o' cash, and I'll make something up and back it in court. *Crosses-fingers*

Re:Where did this mindset come from?

[alexo]

> There code , there license

There cave, there bear, Og go cave, Og kill bear, Og eat bear, Og rest, Og write GPL 3.0 !

Re:Future versions of the GPL

[Electroly]

1. Yes, I'm pretty sure you're the only one.

2. What shows are you watching that girlie product advertisers would target? Don't lie now.

Re:Future versions of the GPL

[aichpvee]

He only hacks a little on Emacs these days.

Then he certainly isn't my madman! All my madmen hack on vi.

You're completely wrong

[amake]

It's "voila"