Linus Loves GPL, But Hates GPL Lawsuits (cio.com) 238
Long-time Slashdot reader sfcrazy writes: During LinuxCon, Torvalds was full of praise for GNU GPL: "The GPL ensures that nobody is ever going to take advantage of your code. It will remain free and nobody can take that away from you. I think that's a big deal for community management... FSF [Free Software Foundation] and I don't have a loving relationship, but I love GPL v2. I really think the license has been one of the defining factors in the success of Linux because it enforced that you have to give back, which meant that the fragmentation has never been something that has been viable from a technical standpoint."
And he thinks the BSD license is bad for everyone: "Over the years, I've become convinced that the BSD license is great for code you don't care about," Torvalds said.
But Linus also addressed the issue of enforcing the GPL on the Linux foundation mailing list when someone proposed a discussion of it at Linuxcon. "I think the whole GPL enforcement issue is absolutely something that should be discussed, but it should be discussed with the working title 'Lawyers: poisonous to openness, poisonous to community, poisonous to projects'... quite apart from the risk of loss in a court, the real risk is something that happens whether you win or lose, and in fact whether you go to court or just threaten: the loss of community, and in particular exactly the kind of community that can (and does) help. You lose your friends."
And he thinks the BSD license is bad for everyone: "Over the years, I've become convinced that the BSD license is great for code you don't care about," Torvalds said.
But Linus also addressed the issue of enforcing the GPL on the Linux foundation mailing list when someone proposed a discussion of it at Linuxcon. "I think the whole GPL enforcement issue is absolutely something that should be discussed, but it should be discussed with the working title 'Lawyers: poisonous to openness, poisonous to community, poisonous to projects'... quite apart from the risk of loss in a court, the real risk is something that happens whether you win or lose, and in fact whether you go to court or just threaten: the loss of community, and in particular exactly the kind of community that can (and does) help. You lose your friends."
I like GPLv2 too, but there's just one thing (Score:2)
How does GPLv2 fit the web server world? Imagine you have a JS library licensed under GPLv2; what will be the implications of using such for the rest of the site's code? I imagine I could use my own GPLv2'd code without much concern, but if anyone else used it, they'd, in principle, have to open up their whole code base after that.
Or that might not be the case. But then again that *is* the problem as nobody really knows how it works in normal circumstances. Going with BSD is simple because it's a very, very
Re: (Score:2)
Most js libraries were made to help people develop proprietary JS solutions. The GPL is simply nothing their creators would want for them. Similar to game engines, here people want to use them to develop proprietary games with. Non copyleft licenses are good for these use cases. But in other domains, like the kernel or for compilers, copyleft makes just far more sense, otherwise you'll start accumulating proprietary tiny bits and pieces.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no reason you can't make proprietary games based off of (l)GPL code. No games or commercial applications (like Oracle) would exist otherwise. The license of a game engine is completely immaterial.
Except for RMS, no one uses the strict form of GPL for shared libraries and such.
Re: (Score:2)
Businesses occasionally use GPL for a library for which they require copyright assignment of any contributions, so that they can use the GPL tactically as a way to encourage their clients to pay them to dual-license the library for commercial use.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is just that. Geeks do not know the difference between LGPL and GPL. Yes you can not link under GPL without your program being GPL. Go read the license? The game is in violation of the GPL which I assume was RMS point to get rid of proprietary software.
Most think they can write an api and GPL and it can be used for all. Not true.
Re: (Score:3)
I Found it notable Linus felt it important to indicate which version of the GPL met with his approval.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, unless you are giving out binaries of your code then you don't need to worry. GPLv2 doesn't care about who receives the output of the code, just if you distribute the code or a binary compiled from that code.
GPL3
Affero GPL licensed stuff though, if you run a server with it and I get the output, I can ask for the code.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that. I want to open up my code base and let people use it, even commercially. I just want them to release any changes they make to the code I've worked on, not any other code that's unrelated to the code I've worked on. How this works with web servers is far from clear when it comes to using GPLv2 and GPLv3.
You know, people can't really go and grab someone's code and use it without caring for how it's licensed. I want to provide all of my code under a proper license so that people can freely use i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
GPL: Forcing riff-raff to contribute back
BSD: Make the world a better place by sharing
The only good code is code given willingly. GPL is made by forced labor in North Korean sweat shops and BSD is made by freedom loving hippies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This was very informative, I'll have to read up on it.
if nobody enforced the GPL by litigation (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:if nobody enforced the GPL by litigation (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, sounds like Linus likes the sausage but is disgusted by how it's made.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean those greedy capitalists that employee and make products like Cisco, Juniper, PF Sense, MacOSX? All were based on BSD because it was more free and have contributed to everyone both users, venture capitalists, and customers who want to buy. Everyone won.
Apache and XORG are BSD/MIT and so is Samba. They make great free software you use reading this. I have no problem with Apple, Google, and even MS using these. Visual Studio 2015 community edition has node.js support and so does the MS code editor wh
Re: (Score:2)
ask that question to a few Microsoft employees
Communities have to exclude some people (Score:2)
The reason the GPL (or any other licence) is enforced, is specifically to try and exclude people.
Every community has rules and responsibilities it places on its members, if there are people or groups that actively work against the interests of the community, then they should be excluded.
The well defined expectations set out by the FSF (4 freedoms) are what define the community, and what separates it from BSD crowd, whos community has not grown to the same extent.
There is an community around the GPL specific
"Ensures" is going a bit far (Score:3)
The GPL ensures that nobody is ever going to take advantage of your code.
Is that like how laws against murder ensure that no-one ever gets murdered?
Ensuring freedom requires enforcement (Score:3, Informative)
Just as we come closer to ensuring no murders when we enforce laws against murder, we come closer to ensuring the software freedom described in the GPL when we enforce the GPL.
It's telling that Linus Torvalds said "I really think the license has been one of the defining factors in the success of Linux because it enforced that you have to give back, which meant that the fragmentation has never been something that has been viable from a technical standpoint." and hates enforcement ("Lawyers: poisonous to open
Re: (Score:2)
The fork of the Linux kernel Torvalds distributes contains the "fragmentation" he claims isn't viable—Torvalds' variant of Linux contains proprietary binaries in it. These blobs of code are removed in the fully-free GNU Linux-libre kernel [fsfla.org].
Hold up now, mr. FSF.
The kernel that Linus distributes is the Linux kernel, by definition.
Linux-Libre is a fork for FSF puritans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
GPL was definitely right for Linux (Score:2)
And this valid experience obviously colored Torvalds' worldview.
Linux showed that the benefits of a common foundation far outweighed the marginal dollars lost from lock-in. So much so that if you waved a magic wand and got rid of the GPL restrictions, you'd still have everybody and his brother trying to push changes upstream. Because it's a hell o
Re:GPL was definitely right for Linux (Score:4, Insightful)
Lots of entities would share their code in that circumstance because its in their best interests to do so. But a lot MORE companies (especially companies running Linux on all kinds of embedded hardware like routers and phones and tablets and such) wouldn't share if they didn't have to because its in THEIR best interests NOT to share their code.
Me personally, I think there should be MORE enforcement (via lawsuits if talking directly to the company that is violating the license doesn't work) of the GPL against companies who use the Linux kernel and dont share their code when legally required to.
Plenty of companies violate the GPL on the Linux kernel and many companies are well known as repeat offenders (taking months or even longer to release the source code corresponding to a new device or a new firmware update, releasing code that is incomplete or wont compile, releasing code that doesn't match the binaries or otherwise not properly following the GPL)
Re: (Score:2)
I used Xenix in 1988 and it was as awesome as linux was in 1994. If it wasn't for infighting and "not invented here" at Redmond we could have had a wave of cheap *nix workstations on PC hardware that could give Win98 a run for it's money, but in 1990!
The license is useless Linus.... (Score:5, Insightful)
... unless you can, and do, enforce it.
Re: (Score:3)
Words of wisdom from Linus (Score:2)
quite apart from the risk of loss in a court, the real risk is something that happens whether you win or lose, and in fact whether you go to court or just threaten: the loss of community, and in particular exactly the kind of community that can (and does) help. You lose your friends."
Lawsuits always create divisions and force people to take sides. It can be really fun. But it's also probably something you shouldn't do to colleagues and friends because computer science is a small world.
CAD licence (Score:2)
The funny thing about humans is that different humans care about different things. (Perhaps this signal becomes harder to detect as an Act III BDFL of a sprawling monoculture.)
If you regard your code as a means to an end (e.g. authoring a great web site) then perhaps it's a perfectly reasonable stance not to "care" about your code the way Linus cares about his code.
Licence of the day: Craftspeople with Attachment Disorder. Be there, or be square.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can do whatever you want with your code. Linus just thinks that the BSD license is only good for code you don't care about... but, dude, that's, like, just his opinion, man.
Re: (Score:3)
Yup, it's his [incorrect] opinion of how I think about my code. :)
ROTFL. That's your opinion.
Re:Oh yawn... (Score:5, Insightful)
They aren't. They are concerned about derivative works of THEIR OWN code, concerns that they are legally entitled to have by virtue of having the copyright on the code that they wrote. The fact that a derivative work might have your own code in it is entirely superfluous, if it is a derivative work then you still need the original copyright holder's permission to do something with it. The GPL outlines the terms necessary to receive such permission. Nothing more, and nothing less.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair observation. In addition to the cases that you noted, there is also the concept of fair use, which because it does not require explicit permission from the copyright holder, it would not require you to agree to abide by the terms of the GPL either... as long as fair use can be deemed applicable. There are probably other cases too that I can't think of right off the top of my head, but these are typically exceptions to copyright and not the general rule. As such, it would probably have been more corr
Re: (Score:2)
So if he says I prefer BSD license because I don't care about my code
You have a big problem with comprehension. He's not saying it's THE reason why YOU prefer it. He's saying it's a good match IF you don't care what others do with the code. He's talking about what the licence is good for, not about the people who use it.
Re: (Score:2)
So if he says I prefer BSD license because I don't care about my code
You have a big problem with comprehension. He's not saying it's THE reason why YOU prefer it. He's saying it's a good match IF you don't care what others do with the code. He's talking about what the licence is good for, not about the people who use it.
No, really. I was talking to Linus just the other day over latte's and scones, (such an eclectic fellow our lad is) and he was telling me, "There's this fucking programmer that goes by QuietLagoon, and I can't stand that damned idiot. Always fucking disagreeing with me, and piss on that" (oh, our salty tongued lad, that Linus is)
But he closed with saying "I know this fucking QuietLagoon and his ways. I'll be watching that bastard, because this is personal between me and the him."
Re:Oh yawn... (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, it only directly implies that people who use BSD licensing think less about derivative works from their code than people who use the GPL. This is perfectly fine, but since derivative works would typically contain substantial portions of the original code, by extension, the lack of care about derivative works of their ccde thereby reduces to a lack of care about their own code, from that perspective.
Re: (Score:3)
The only extra restriction the GPL has over BSD is "you can't add more restrictions to this code". Saying BSD is more free than GPL is a bit like saying anarchy is more free than democracy because you can imprison/enslave whoever you like. In practice you end up being
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oh yawn... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think if you want to build an empire around your projects, that BSD is probably not the best way to go. It's too easy for anyone to setup a business and overshadow your contributions. (it's why the wine project switch to GPL)
I tend to use ISC, MIT, or BSD myself. But I'm not looking to be the be in charge of the next Linux, GIMP, GTK, etc.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Each open source license has its goals and principles, and none is "bad" or "evil" from itself.
Re: (Score:2)
How does that "sue you for it" work?
Re: (Score:2)
Their source is closed and yours is open. They make changes and you make changes. You can't see their changes, but they can definitely see your changes. If they may a certain change first, and they see you make a subsequent change that looks remarkably similar to their changes, they can take you to court for possibly stealing their code.
And before you come back saying "oh, but that will never fly in court" - you would
Re: (Score:3)
It sounds very, VERY theoretical. Particularly since they'd have to show that YOU had access to THEIR work. Not to mention why are they bothering to track the people whose work they are using in order to sue them? It's a bit like saying that every 60 million years a killer asteroid shows up, so we better spend our days looking up at the sky, just in case. There are more worthwhile things to worry about.
Re: (Score:3)
You missed the point about the American system. They can have the flimsiest of cases but they can still threaten to bankrupt you without trying to win.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Their source is closed". Let's change it to "Their source is incompatible with BSD".
Because you know what? "Open Source GPL" is just as guilty of "closing off" BSD code as
Re: (Score:2)
"Their source is closed". Let's change it to "Their source is incompatible with BSD". Because you know what? "Open Source GPL" is just as guilty of "closing off" BSD code as closed-source is.
What utter nonsense. Think about the scenario I outlined for a second. If they (the GPLd project) sees that you've made a change to your BSDd code that looks like theirs... that means they already HAVE YOUR CODE. Why would they then "sue" for copyright infringement when, for all intents and purposes, they were able to get their code back, from their point of view?
In short,anyone claiming BSD sucks over GPL because of locking up code is a hypocrite, because GPL locks up BSD code just as well as closed-source licenses do.
How does GPL lock up the code when you can ACQUIRE THE CODE? The point of GPL over closed source is that you can't SEE the closed source. Don't eq
Re: (Score:2)
Citation please?
Re: (Score:2)
How do you get from "I think this is bad" to "stop telling me what to do"?
Re: (Score:2)
If you actually wrote it entirely yourself, none. If it's a derivative work, however, Torvalds has the same rights as any copyright holder would over derivative works from their stuff... you need the original copyright holder's permission first. The GPL really only outlines what the requirements are to *get* such permission so that no other explicit written permission is necessary, which is what would typically be o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
License it how you like. If you want it included in the kernel, you'll have to license that submission with GPLv2. As the copyright remains with you, you can choose to multilicense it as much as you like.
Re:Oh yawn... (Score:4)
"Some people love the BSD license. Some people love the proprietary licenses. I understand that. If you want to make a program and you want to feed your kids, it makes a lot of sense to have a proprietary license and sell binaries. I think it makes less sense today, but I really understand the argument. I don't want to judge. I'm just giving my view on licensing."
Re:We love you, mr. Torvalds (Score:4, Insightful)
I have always preferred permissive licenses like MIT and BSD. However, Linus has created the world's most successful open-source software, so perhaps it's worth considering how the license has helped shape the software and its supporting community.
Re: (Score:2)
That's debatable, considering the amount of BSD source code that has made its way into both open AND closed source projects. For example, the BSD TCP/IP networking stack.
Re:We love you, mr. Torvalds (Score:5, Insightful)
If I was building a Tivo today I'd probably start with a BSD license. It's what Sony did with the PlayStation 4.
Having actually seen that done, both with Linux and FreeBSD (as operating systems in routers), I can tell you a) that I would choose Linux every time and that b) the reason is the license and the lawyers.
For the first year or so you will be concentrating on adding features. Making things you probably benefit from keeping private. With Linux you make these in user space which might occasionally make things more difficult. You will eventually want to add some low level functionality and add it to the kernel.
At the point you start low level work, if you used a BSD licensed kernel, there will be a discussion between lawyers and management and likely you end up keeping your functionality private a) because you can and b) because your competition might use it otherwise. If you have a GPL licensed kernel, you will likely decide to publish and push upstream a) because the license pushes you to and b) because even if your competition uses it you will get the benefit back.
After some time, if you don't contribute upstream, you will find that you have incompatibilities with new software versions and you will stick to a stable version. Eventually you will stop benefiting from the evolution of the upstream software. Long term this is a nightmare for the developers. You lose a tiny bit by being "forced" to contribute back. You actually gain a huge amount back from the community because they continue working on your software.
This has happened often; commercial derivatives of BSD operating systems either fork completely or die. 386BSD, JunOS, OSX, IPSO etc. etc. It's very hard to do long term commercial contributions into a complex BSD environment because technically you are giving away shareholder value with no visible recompense.
BSDL vs GPL (Score:2)
But BSDL allows you to mix and match BSDL licensed code w/ code of any other license - be it GPL, CDDL, QPL, Apache, et al - even Proprietary. If you are the software developer, you already have the choice of taking the code of the functionality you don't want to release, and make that part of it downright proprietary. Heck, that's what Apple did - while XNU and the lower level layers are open sourced, Quartz is proprietary: when was the last time you saw Quartz source code anywhere outside Cupertino?
I
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how the GPL forces you to push your contributions upstream.
"Forces" is too strong, but there's a powerful incentive to upstream changes. Not upstreaming them means that you end up maintaining a library of patches that you have to port to each new version that's released. Over time this gets to be really difficult and expensive.
Note that this is also true for BSD code... except that in the BSD world there are some legal counter-incentives that discourage you from upstreaming. Too many people will argue that because the license allows you to keep your code to yours
Re: (Score:3)
If I was building a Tivo today I'd probably start with a BSD license. It's what Sony did with the PlayStation 4.
Having actually seen that done, both with Linux and FreeBSD (as operating systems in routers), I can tell you a) that I would choose Linux every time and that b) the reason is the license and the lawyers.
For the first year or so you will be concentrating on adding features. Making things you probably benefit from keeping private. With Linux you make these in user space which might occasionally make things more difficult. You will eventually want to add some low level functionality and add it to the kernel.
At the point you start low level work, if you used a BSD licensed kernel, there will be a discussion between lawyers and management and likely you end up keeping your functionality private a) because you can and b) because your competition might use it otherwise. If you have a GPL licensed kernel, you will likely decide to publish and push upstream a) because the license pushes you to and b) because even if your competition uses it you will get the benefit back.
After some time, if you don't contribute upstream, you will find that you have incompatibilities with new software versions and you will stick to a stable version. Eventually you will stop benefiting from the evolution of the upstream software. Long term this is a nightmare for the developers. You lose a tiny bit by being "forced" to contribute back. You actually gain a huge amount back from the community because they continue working on your software.
This has happened often; commercial derivatives of BSD operating systems either fork completely or die. 386BSD, JunOS, OSX, IPSO etc. etc. It's very hard to do long term commercial contributions into a complex BSD environment because technically you are giving away shareholder value with no visible recompense.
Um yeah a competitor won't use it? bahaha. They rip off Linux code all the time which is why the point of lawyers are brought up. Shoot some companies like banks have ANTI GNU policies to protect themselves. Linux can not be used as a simple link to GPL infects the whole program making it viral. Look it up? I am not a troll here. PRoblem is most GNU geeks do not know the difference between GPL and LGPL and assume anyone can use their API. It is not true and it pisses me off.
Sorry the BSD/MIT license is the
Re: (Score:2)
Um yeah a competitor won't use it? bahaha. They rip off Linux code all the time which is why the point of lawyers are brought up.
Actually, given the vast usage of Linux worldwide, it's astonishing how rare such abuses are.
Shoot some companies like banks have ANTI GNU policies to protect themselves.
Some companies are still clueless enough to do that, yes.
Linux can not be used as a simple link to GPL infects the whole program making it viral.
Poppycock. Programs running on Linux do not link to Linux. It's well-accepted that the GPL does not affect programs that merely make syscalls.
I am not a troll here.
Interesting that you feel the need to make that statement.
GNU geeks do not know the difference between GPL and LGPL and assume anyone can use their API. It is not true and it pisses me off.
Also nonsense. Most F/LOSS software developers understand perfectly the distinction between GPL and LGPL, and choose appropriately based on whether they want to a
Re: (Score:2)
...no two flavors of linux run the same kernel let alone have a compatible ABI.
But they all have compilers.
Re:The problem with GPL (Score:4, Insightful)
[...] You can't have freedom if there's a "but only if..." attached to it, [...]
I'm free to swing my fist, but only if I don't hit you.
Now, based on this example, please explain again what kind of freedom you are looking for that has no "but only if ..." attached to it.
Re: (Score:3)
The GPL isnt about YOU having freedom, its about the SOFTWARE having freedom despite you.
Re: The problem with GPL (Score:2)
The GPL is a free licence in the same way that the USA is designed to be a free country: it doesn't remove all impositions from those who use it, but the few impositions that it carries are intended to protect the overall independency of its users, so that no single group can impose a non-free version of the whole thing.
Re: (Score:2)
No it does not. I can not use it at work. If I write a program and want to link to a GPL library it then infects my programs forcing me to open source it. I can not sell my product or company either which makes the asset value to 0.
How is that fair to me?
Re: (Score:2)
No it does not. I can not use it at work.
There's nothing intrinsic in the GPL which prevents you using it at work. Your employer may have such a restriction, but that's a feature of your employer, not of the GPL.
If I write a program and want to link to a GPL library it then infects my programs forcing me to open source it.
Saying "infects" is using a deliberately emotive word to try to hide the truth.
Two points here.
1) Libraries generally use the LGPL for precisely this reason.
2) Even if you've found a library licensed under the GPL, it doesn't require you to open source your program. However, if you choose to distribute the program then you need to pass o
Re: The problem with GPL (Score:2)
Who the hell would buy my asset if they had to give it away to competitors for free?
Sure the code is free for the user but not for the developers or owner which is my point. BSD is free for both as tax payers came from both. Everyone wins. I think it's immoral to force people to do things they don't want to do.
I am also capitalistic. If someone wants to make money and needs resources from people full time and not volunteers they should do just that. BSD allows this
Re: (Score:2)
Who the hell would buy my asset if they had to give it away to competitors for free?
You don't have to give it away to anyone.
Sure the code is free for the user but not for the developers or owner which is my point. BSD is free for both as tax payers came from both.
It's anyone's guess what either of these sentences is meant to mean.
I think it's immoral to force people to do things they don't want to do.
True enough, but since no-one is forcing anyone to do anything, not really relevant to the issue under discussion.
I think perhaps you should actually read the GPL carefully. You have an awful lot of misconceptions about it. Summarised in a rather simplified form it says,
"Here's some code. You can do anything you like with it except restrict what other people can do with it."
Yes, that annoys freelo
Re:The problem with GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
The only restriction the GPL imposes is to prevent you to take away freedom. Thus, the GPL is only "non-free" to those who want to restrict or remove freedom.
Well there is one exception of course, its compatibility with other copyleft licenses. See the whole ZFS license debacle. But that's a negative side effect, and not what the GPL was designed for (however precisely what the CDDL was designed for, but thats a different story).
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
My own freedom is unaffected if someone takes my software, uses it commercially and does not share those modifications with me.
Re:The problem with GPL (Score:4, Insightful)
It's completely okay to not care about flow on effects, but please admit you're not thinking about the big picture.
Lawyers and other political animals.. (Score:2)
Once upon a time I asked the x264 people if I could ship the x264 installer inside a bundle of software I was selling.
note: I didnt ship it, I politely asked if that would be ok.
The answer I got back was, in short 'That makes your whole system GPL, please give us your details so we can pass them to our lawyers'
Now, I thought that was a little crazy, so, again, I politely asked why they thought that would apply if I did ship their installer.
'You have linked our code as a core part of your system, therefore y
Re: (Score:2)
Linux being under the GPL doesn't make all programs on the whole ubuntu or fedora ISO gpl licensed. It all depends on the situation. Yes, the GPL needs more care to work with, and there are certainly more risks than with BSD licenses, but you have risks with BSD licenses as well. E.g. imagine if someone took some non open source code and licensed it under BSD without any agreement by the copyright holder. Then if you use that code thinking all fine its bsd licensed get into trouble as well.
The GPL is very i
Re: (Score:2)
No the GPL takes away my freedom to develop software the way I like and use. The BSD license gives me freedom to do whatever I want like making a firewall product or a cloud app without having to give out my investor funded work away and I can sell my company as it's assets have value because they are not free.
A license should never telll you what to do. Even a MS EULA doesn't tell me what I can do with the software I use or create. Only how much I need to pay for extra usage or features.
In this way the GPL
Re: (Score:2)
Even a MS EULA doesn't tell me what I can do with the software I use or create
The GPL doesn't restrict _usage_ of a program. If you just run GIMP to create an image, that image's copyright is yours, and yours only. If you use GCC to compile a program, that program is yours (its a bit more complicated here, as there is a tiny statically linked part but that has an extra exception from the GPL that turns off the copyleft part). The GPL only restricts redistributions of the program, or parts of it. I am pretty sure that the MS EULA completely forbids you to redistribute any parts of the
Re: (Score:2)
Binary blobs don't violate the GPL.
Yes they do, but I wasn't talking in particular about the firmware issue, if that's what you mean. I'm talking about the requirement to release source code as an "essential freedom" [gnu.org]:
The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Re: (Score:2)
My freedom to own you as a slave is imposed on by your freedom not to be a slave.
Being a slave owner involves force over another, making them take actions against their will.
The developer's freedom to release a binary blob without source imposes on the user's freedom to change the functionality of that blob later.
There is no force on the user to accept the binary in the first place. Once they have the binary, they are free to change it as they wish. To require the developer to also release the binary is to force an action on his part.
Freedom involves complex choices. If you believe that isn't true, report to Raqqa as a volunteer slave since you are now imposing on ISIS's freedom and there can't possibly be any contradiction.
And so concludes our Bad Analogy of the Day segment.
Freedom of the code, not the coder (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not even that. If you write the entire body of code, you continue to hold the copyright, and can thus use it and release it under whatever additional licenses you choose. It's only restrictive on your use of other people's code.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The point of the GPL is to make the code free, not the coders.
No, the GPL was designed to ensure the freedom of users to modify and adapt software for their own particular needs. It does nothing to ensure the author's freedom, or the code's freedom, whatever that might mean.
Re: (Score:3)
Second, GPL does not prevent you from forking, provided the changes made to the fork are made available to people who receive your software.
Third, it is arguable whether having proprietary children increases freedom in any way. It may increase freedom only for the one transfer, but it stops there. GPL tries to get the same freedoms to everyone along the chain. And if there is no chain, like the Linux kernel, that's because pe
Re: (Score:2)
Is it a fork when the changes are frequently brought "upstream"? Most GPL projects are more of a branch with the authority usually leading back to a central cabal who hold some influence over the copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of nasty stuff gets said about RMS (sometimes by me) but he has stuck to the GPL and not killed off the other version of Emacs despite how much it annoyed him that he had lost control of it.
the right to free everything and everyone (Score:2)
We're not talking about rights. we're talking about freedom.
Not having the freedom to put graffiti on your fence is less freedom. Obviously I don't have the right to do such a thing, but it is a reduction of my freedom. (hopefully that analogy helps you understand the difference between a right and a freedom)
Now that is out of the way. If I cannot incorporate your code into my project without changing my license to match yours, then I have less freedom. (you can use the physical sense of the word, as in deg
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for stating this so eloquently.
Re: (Score:2)
"With great freedom comes great responsibility."
Re: (Score:2)
If I cannot incorporate your code into my project without changing my license to match yours, then I have less freedom.
Instead of a gift, you have shared something you made with some strings attached.
Failure to appease your sense of entitlement is not reducing your freedom.
If the person did not open their code at all, which is the default state under copyright law, you had NO FREEDOM to begin with. So if someone opens their code up as GPL, by any measure, your freedom increased. Just because it didn't increase as much as you'd like doesn't mean your freedom is reduced. The default state of affairs is that you have NO freedom to use their code in the first place and that is the state you must start me
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not happy that you're building weapons. But my code is probably not ready-to-use for a weapon, you had to do something to adapt it. And you had to manufacture explosives and whatnot as well.
I can't be responsible for the actions of other people. And the warranty statement on the BSD/MIT/ISC license attempts to make sure I'm not responsible for you choosing to use my code.
Re: (Score:2)
Public Domain still exists in some jurisdictions. But FSF has sent out a clear message that you should not skip copyright law by using public domain. FSF wants you you to use copyleft, which instead of forcing you to license a work from the creator, forces you to give up a copy of your creation. That's the end game here folks.
Re: (Score:2)
To put it simply, suppose I wrote a story, and left the ending blank. I published it saying, "you can write your own ending, and freely redistribute the entire work, my writing AND yours, but ONLY if you ALSO allow people the same freedom I allowed you." That is, you can't take MY work, write your own ending, publish the WHOLE THING, and tell people, "No portion of this work may be reproduced or distributed by any means..."
You are obviously forgetting that "No portion of this work may be reproduced" can only possibly apply to the scope of work which is not already freely available as part of another free work. In your example, only the ending could possibly be under the scope of restriction, since everything prior to the ending is already made freely available under the original free story. I see nothing wrong with that philosophy whatsoever. There is nothing that anyone can do to prevent the original free story from being
Re: (Score:3)
Its the freedom to enter a fair agreement: you can use my software as long as you treat others the same way I'm treating you.
Is that as free as "do whatever you want"? No. But it's as free as a fair-minded person needs it to be.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it just acknowledges the difference between liberty and anarchy.
Law and Order allows you to keep whatever money you make. Otherwise some thug could come along and just take everything you have with no recourse.
People are intentionally obtuse on this point.
Re: (Score:2)
But I agree, in order to maintain membership of my community, to give up some of what I make to pay property taxes and income taxes. This Law and Order has the same effect, it doesn't allow me to "keep whatever money [I] make". Is it extortion, or a healthy functional civilization, its not always to obvious.
So in the analogy, is BSD license Law and Order and GPL the thug?
Re: (Score:2)
Seems a bit Orwellian to me. Freedom is Slavery, War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength.
Yes, it is Orwellian. That's GPL propaganda for you.
Here's real freedom:
You may copy, modify, and distribute as you please. In other words, what the world would look like without copyright.
Here's GPL "freedom":
You must release your source along with your binary.
Now you may agree or not if that's overall good for society, but that's an argument for consumer protection, not "freedom". For example, I may very well like the idea of government food regulations, but regulation is the exact opposite of freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
wouldn't the code being available to all for any use make BSD more free? But I suppose it's not a competition on who is most free.
Re: (Score:2)
That was the result of a court verdict. We're trying to avoid the lawyers here.