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."

Submitter mischaracterises the change.

[vyrus128]

The submitter isn't clear about the fact that this would not apply to everyone who changes software for commercial use but does not redistribute. This applies ONLY when "redistribution" of the software sort-of-occurs, because the software is used to provide a service. For example: any open source software Google uses in its search engine interface does not count as "redistributed", even though it _interacts_ with users of Google, because no actualy _binaries_ were shared with those users. For another example, if I modified the GIMP and then let people use my modified version over the Internet, but not on their machines, I would not have "redistributed" my modifications. This is considered by many to be a "loophole" to be closed.

GPL GNOMES

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Release open source.
2. Change License.
3. Profit!!

Re:Im speechless.....

[kbmccarty]

Please someone tell me that they cant do this retroactively, that its impossible under the current GPLv2 terms.

Your wish is my command. If you look at source code to any GPL-licensed program, you will see something like:

// 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.

Hence any code that was licensed under the GPL before version 3 is released may still be used under the terms of the GPL version 2, at the option of the recipient, not the author. Actually, a number of current projects, including Linux, are licensed GPL-2 only and may be impossible ever to convert to a higher version (permission would be required from too many people to reasonably track down). Hope that helps.

Re:future patches can be v3 only

[Splork]

future submitted patches can be GPL v3 only. the original author already gave permission for all of their work to continue and be relicensed under v3 in the future if the overall project decides to go that way. if that author doesn't like it they don't have to contribute to the project that has moved on to operate under the new version.

Re:*You* misunderstand

[Anonymous Coward]

The language being quoted in this threadlet is from the "how to apply" section, and it's not the part you have to worry about. That's not operant language.

The language to worry about is in section 9:

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.

That second sentence is the one that is the poblem. Like the guy who started this topic points out, if you as the original programmer do not specify the version number, another coder building on it can use any version, even versions unwritten at the time the original programmer produced the original code.

So yeah, failing to specify a version means that a downstream user/coder can put his modified version under GPL Version 1850.

Re:Future versions of the GPL

[confusion here]

Specify [reference.com]
(1) To state explicitly or in detail.

If they state only "Licensed under the GNU General Public License", then they have not specified a version. The fact that they distributed a copy of version 2 with the code is irrelevant.

When it comes to things like licences or contracts, what is "strongly implied" does not matter. What matters is what is actually said. So if you wish to release your code under version 2, simply say "Licensed under the GNU General Public License version 2". Don't beat around the bush.

Re:Don't get Dramatic

[GigsVT]

See, that's the thing, they have to be careful addressing the web services "loophole" to prevent venturing out of the safe harbor of normal copyright and into EULA land.

The output of a program is not covered by the license of the program, unless that output copies parts that are licensed verbatim from the body of the work. That's not GPL, that's copyright law.

Now, the gray area comes in when the output isn't wholly based on the input. Suppose there's an initialization block or a block of comments in the output, copied verbatim from a distribution file, or even a block of error message text. Or something like ghostscript that copies parts of the GPL/AFPL postscript code that ships with it into the output (large parts of what makes up gs are written in postscript).

Those gray areas might trigger copyright protection from the output. I've questioned Artifex on the gs issue, and they said "our intent is not to cover the documents generated with gs under the license you aquire gs under" (paraphrased). Nonetheless, these are gray areas of copyright law there.

One example is that I use gs to dynamically generate documents that are sent to users over the web based on user requests.

If you modify the GPLed code, that automatically can trigger the GPL protections, even though the GPL FAQ says that nondistributed modifications don't, copyright law does apply to even nondistributed devivative works. They chose not to pursue this, but nothing in the GPL says they can't. Only the probably non-binding GPL FAQ.

The GPL could clarify most of these issues, all without ever touching the "web services" loophole directly.

Re:Submitter mischaracterises the change.

[Elwood P Dowd]

If they attempt to make this retroactive, I assure you that the world will come crashing down on the FSF.

Ditto if they attempt to murder strangers in public. Fortunately, neither will happen. If you are using a product under the GPL 2.0 license, then it is yours to use under the GPL 2.0 license.

If someone releases updates to a GPL 2.0 licensed product, but those updates are only available under the GPL 3.0, and you do not want to abide by the restrictions in the GPL 3.0, then you might be SOL for those updates. That's about the worst thing that can happen.

So chill out.

Re:Sensationalism at its finest

[GigsVT]

Well, it's wrong in almost every case, and Olsen should be ashamed for saying that. (Though I wouldn't be surprised if an article came out tomorrow saying he was "misquoted").

Nearly all GPL software is released under "v2 or (at your [the user's] option) any later version". If not that, then it's "v2 only".

Never seen "v2, unless there is a later version, then the latest applies" So he's wrong about the retroactivity.

Paying with your wallet isn't even an option with a lot of projects either, most projects with mixed code bases (i.e. they accept patches from many devs) are not at the liberty to relicense under a different license, unless they can contact each and every dev that ever submitted more than a 1 line patch.

So I'm not sure if Olsen's words got very twisted up by the idiot journalist, or he just doesn't understand the GPL. If it is the latter case, that's kinda sad.

Re:They deliver HTML.

[NetNifty]

Well here, [theregister.co.uk] they say that "According to Google, the 1U Linux box can handle 60 queries a minute...", although a quick look at the google appliance site doesnt say its a Linux box, although the article is over 3 years old.

Re:This doesn't sound like a good idea

[jrumney]

That interpretation is wrong. If something is licensed under GPL v2 now, you cannot take that away, unless a court rules that GPL v2 is invalid (which was the original justification for including the "or later" clause). So noone is pulling the rug out from anyone.

Re:Future versions of the GPL

[Nugget]

Almost correct, and nearly totally wrong. :) Since there is no "ASCII code" for those characters (despite that misleading page) using those numbers will only work for some users on some servers with some browsers. Any time the character set is accidently the same as you've assumed it is.

The proper solution is to use the named character entity references [w3.org] -- in this case ampersand + "eacute" + ; which will work regardless of the code page in use.

As refererence, I'd send you to the remarkable joelonsoftware article that explains why your approach fails to work in many cases:

The Absolute Minimum Every Software Developer Absolutely, Positively Must Know About Unicode and Character Sets (No Excuses!) [joelonsoftware.com]

Re:Future versions of the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you'll find he's not retarded. And you are.

Won't Happen

[SwashbucklingCowboy]

I saw a present by Moglen at the OSDL conference and this is not consistent with what he said would happen with GPL v3. I suspect this much ado about nothing...

Re:Future versions of the GPL

[uhoreg]

Anyone who writes software licensed under the GPL should read the section at the bottom entitled "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs". It tells you exactly what you need to do.

Re:Bad, bad, bad!

[kavau]

http://code.google.com/

A real world example

[cavetroll]

Whilst there seems to be a lot of alarmist over-reaction to this story, the principle behind it seems valid. The following is a real world example. crossfire [slashdot.org] is a MORPG (it can't fairly be called massive at this time, since it has dozens rather than hundreds of players). It is released under the GPL 2+ It has been around for years. Graal online is a proprietory MMORPG which charges monthly fees to access. It runs a (now heavily modified) version of the crossfire server. They took the server, tagged on a pretty front end and charged some amount each month. The client is also proprietory. As far as is known there is no stolen code in the client (this is based soley on screenshots though, since the source code to the client is hidden away). However, with the exception of the graphics, it is apparent from the forums that large parts of crossfire are still being served to these clients. Parts of it they have rebranded, but kept otherwise identical. Unfortunatly under the GPL2 there does not appear to be way to get these guys to contribute back, they have taken a Free software game, made some code tweaks and run their own server, which they base their business model around. The clients won't store much if any of the game content, but they are served it by the server. But, since the server binaries are not distributed, nor is the source to it. Unless the clients use some of the original code (and they might do, though this can't be proven), the GPL 2 is not sufficiantly powerful enough to get them to play fair. The GPL 3 however would seem to be. It's just a shame that it wasn't around 3 years ago.

Re:Future versions of the GPL

[LionKimbro]

Whoever controls the FSF, controls the vast majority of GPLed software.

Why are you saying such horrible things?

Do you believe that if v4 said "you must send $1,000 the FSF for every execution of the program," that your v2 or v3 code would suddenly be v4? That your users would suddenly be required to send money to the FSF?

Why do you believe this?

Re:This doesn't sound like a good idea

[node 3]

The idea that you can get someone hooked on software, and then pull the rug out from under them and start charging them is ludicrous.

That's not what's being proposed at all. Not one line of code you currently possess that is under the GPL will be subject to v3 of the GPL unless you deliberately choose to do so.

There's a case to be made if the GPL strays from it's free nature, but that's true of every license, not just Free/Open Source licenses. Where the GPL (and others) stands apart from proprietary licenses, in this regard, is that you get to choose whether to accept updated terms. If the new terms are unacceptable, then people will just fork. No big deal. Try that with proprietary software!

Re:Future versions of the GPL

[LionKimbro]

The key thing is who you got the code from. Let's play that Richard Stallman goes insane, and makes v5 of the GPL ''evil.'' If you got some GPL'ed code under the terms of the Evil version, then you are bound by the Evil GPL when you use ''that instance of the code.''

But if you go on the Internet, and find the code with no version number, then you can use ''that instance of the code'' under any GPL that you like. You could use it under v1, v2, v3, vWhatever.

It sounds silly, because it's the exact same code, just from a different person, right?

But, this is actually how it works.

Consider this: If Disney were to sell you a video under the terms that you could only use it in your own domicile, then that video they give you is indeed under those terms.

But then, perhaps for a higher price, they could sell you ''the exact same video,'' but perhaps with the license option that you are ''also'' allowed to watch it at your friends' domiciles.

You could, if you wanted to, buy both! They'd be two identical copies, in terms of what you are physically holding in your hand. But the legal permissions around them would be totally different.

(I believe. I'm not a lawyer. This is just my understanding of the situation.)

Same with the GPL. If you can find a v1 version of some code somewhere on the Internet, then you are welcome to use it under the terms you found it under.

The basic idea is that: Software developers are likely (in theory) to release their new software under the most recent version of the code. (Provided they don't think it's evil, and all.) They can take all their old GPL v2 code, and automatically upgrade it to v3, without conflict. Now they are release GPL v3 code.

Now, if on some FTP server somewhere, someone finds the v2 code, and wants to use it- that's their right. They can do that.

They can use that v2 code under the v2 terms. If v3 says that you have to either publish your changes or pay someone (or whatever,) they don't have to do that: Because the code they received was licensed v2.

If they want to play by v3 rules, they can. But, they don't have to.

(Again, I'm not a lawyer. But, I also think that this is true. This is my understanding.)

Re:Future versions of the GPL

[Ed Avis]

Now steady on. I don't think RMS has ever said that the GPL should force the release of code that is used in a 'public' way like yahoo.com but not otherwise distributed. All we've seen is interviews with other FSF folk like Eben Moglen who have said that this issue among others is being considered, and that there will be an extra long consultation period before version 3 is released.

In fact, RMS has explicitly said [gnu.org] that a licence that doesn't allow private versions of software is non-free. The original APSL required you to publish any changes you made to the code - much stricter than the GPL which says only that what you do release, you must release under the GPL. RMS quite rightly said that this makes the original APSL non-free. You might like to read what RMS actually says before deciding that he disagrees with you.

Finally, isn't it most sensible to allow GPL version 2 or any later version *at your option*, and let the users decide whether they wish to move to the new version of the GPL when it's announced? If the new version is unreasonable, people will be free to stick with v2.

More clauses please!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine, I'm evil MySQL Inc. Company.

I've dual licences, the mine to sell commercially products secret-cleaned & the ass license GPL for stupid morons.

Moreover, i impose my rules to win money, money, money, money, $$$, $$$, ... and the morons have not possibility to win money, hahahaha, the morons must to pay for me because of my stranger license, hahahaha.

Too, the morons are forced to give me theirs modifications or patches of my forever dirty &amp buggy GPL sourcecodes.

.

.

Why GPLed SmallEiffel's sourcecode is so cryptic or humanly non-readable?

--- Signed by a dying man ---.

Re:Future versions of the GPL

[Magic Thread]

With the others, you replace them with other versions. Glibc isn't the *only* c library. Bash isn't the *only* shell (hell, it isn't even the only Bourne shell.)

What happens when you take out coreutils? Bye-bye stat, rm, ls, etc. Do you know what the g in gzip stands for? GNU tar? grep? Yes, it is possible to take out everything GNU and replace it and have a working OS. When you do that, feel free to not call it GNU. You want to know something that's much easier to do? Replace Linux [debian.org]. The FSF only asks you to say GNU/Linux because "Linux" is a term people have heard of. A more correct name would be simply GNU.