What is Digg?Sponsored by Dice.com
Free sample tech resumes view!
dice.com - Use our free sample templates to create your own killer resume, then apply for tech jobs on Dice.com
69 Comments
- schestowitz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23The more exciting news perhaps is the reaction of Linus to this draft. He said he was 'pretty pleased'!
- scratched, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17I have a girlfriend and I _do_ care about this.
Whoever _doesn't_ care about this should at least try to care about this. It's (almost) important. - pauleric, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Complete freedom is anarchy, in which the worst behaving have an advantage. Ultimately, you have to be just as nasty in return just to survive. So it's always a balancing act, how many freedoms to outlaw in order to make a just society.
I'm not saying BSD=bad and GPL=good, just that it's reasonable to call it "Free" software in the common usage of the word. e.g. a country can be considered "free" even if it has laws against murder and theft. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12http://digg.com/linux_unix/Torvalds_pretty_pleased_about_new_GPL_3_draft
- mordwin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11'The GPL takes away the developer's freedom to keep his work private and to avoid infecting others with a skewed definition of "freedom".'
Maybe he shouldn't have released his work under the GPL then huh? The developer has absolute freedom to choose a licence that suits them, the GPL has never been about the developer's freedom, the "four freedoms" are all about the user. - arbulus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I'm married.
And I care very much about this issue. - RetroRufio, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I care about this, and I'm willing to bet that my girlfriend is far hotter than yours :)
- arjie, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10The freedom to take away another's freedom is not desirable, for me at least. Also, I think the GPL's big advantage over the BSD licence is that it makes it sensible for a company to contribute because it knows that any improvements to their code will also be available to them. That's just my opinion though, and I don't run a company.
- evilTak, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9GPL3 isn't about adding restrictions to GPL2: it's about closing legal loopholes in the enforcability of GPL2.
Anyone who thinks GPL3 is more restrictive never understood GPL2 in the first place. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Who told you to wake up ??? please. .. continue sleeping
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Looks like 2 Months until the final is out assuming there is no major changes.
I can't decide if the GPLv3 is a good thing or a bad thing. Since its not compatible with GPLv2, if the Linux kernel doesn't become GPLv3 there could be some compatibility problems. Solaris is going GPLv3, it would be nice if Linux could get ZFS and other Solaris stuff, and it would be nice if Solaris could get some Linux drivers in return. - evilTak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5It's not an attempt to rewrite the law; it's a binding legal contract for software distribution. By distributing someone else's GPL-licensed software, you are agreeing to this contract or forfeiting your right to legally distribute the software.
- GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Nah by then there will be 4 distinct forks of GPLv3.
- Wootery, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@jqp123
""Promoting free-software means withholding it from non-free projects..."
Why?"
It's to prevent free software being taken by a company, modified, released as proprietary payware, posing a rival to the free product, and so damaging the free-software cause. OS X is unusual in that Apple used BSD as a component of their product (OS X), rather than leeching off the free-software.
A good example of what happens when you release under BSD and the free software is rivalled by a non-free folk is Wine and Cedega. The Wine guys quickly changed their minds on the licence after Cedega was started, and switched to GPL for future versions.
Copycenter guys think free software should be just that - free to be used for any purpose.
Copyleft guys think free software should be a free-as-in-freedom alternative to proprietary software.
Only with the latter view is free-software a cause to be defended - the extension of which being that proprietary software must be opposed. - GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"GPL3 isn't about adding restrictions to GPL2: it's about closing legal loopholes in the enforcability of GPL2.
Anyone who thinks GPL3 is more restrictive never understood GPL2 in the first place."
That's not true. It would be more accurate to say they never understood or accepted the philosophy behind it, i.e. what it attempted to do. In terms of what it actually does these people do understand GPLv2. - Wootery, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@GMorgan
"by then there will be 4 distinct forks of GPLv3"
Actually...
"Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed." -the GPL's licence
So much for "open source licence"... - Wootery, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@op
"The GPL seems to be getting less and less free..."
In as far as that you get fewer rights, yes, but the GPL is intended to serve the cause of free-software, not just give everyone absolute freedom (a la BSD).
The BSD licence gives the software equally to both the free-software community and companies (namely the ones working on closed-source projects), so although the licence grants more liberty, it does not better serve the cause of free-software than the restrictive freedom of the GPL.
I'm of the "If I work on a commercial project, I expect to get paid" opinion. I'd rather go with a dual-licence of GPL and commercial (eg Qt) than have anyone profit off a closed-source project based on my work, but I digress. - Wootery, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Read : I don't care about free software.
Why did you bother posting a comment?
"They got together, formed a legal licensing system to match the current one but only prohibit this one event and a few others. Seems like a bunch of girls got their panties in a bunch and can't get them unstuck."
The FSF are all about free-software - it is in their interests to keep the GPL free from loopholes that might allow GPL'ed software to be made non-free.
"GPL isn't needed, all the legal statues we need are provided in copyright law. Since copyright law affords allows the implication of all the rights in the GPL , in the end advancing the GPL only hurts OSS."
What the hell is that supposed to mean? - thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Something funny I'm noticing with each iteration of the GPLV3
More restrictions are placed on the code
It becomes more "infectious"
More provisions are added that pretty much guaranty no company will use GPLV3 code
In short, it's ensuring that only extremely zelous "true believers" in the "free as in speech" (although gpl by definition is limiting that speech) software movement.
I hope that the Linux doesn't adopt this license becuase it will be the equivallent of shooting one's self in the foot and ensure that it will never gain mainstream support. - ray901, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4That last sentence is just silly - langauges were not developed because the creators could make money, they evolved to fit a purpose. Which is why it is far better to use a language that fits the problem domain than to try and squeeze the problem domain to fit the language.
- GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@maninblac1
You seem very confused about things. Where does copyright law guarantee me the 4 freedoms the GPL is supposed to embody. It is the general case that copyright law is designed to close things rather than open them. - GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3OSS is nothing to do with Socialism. There are companies making billons off it. There is a social contract involved and equality of rights with respect to the code base but equality is not equal. Red Hat and IBM will always be able to use their equality to a further degree that most normal people. If it was Socialism there'd be a wealth redistribution clause in there.
- GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The basis of wealth is property. Following the logical basis for why property exists (basically read anything by Locke) you'll see that property arises as a result of scarcity. This is why intellectual property is farcical. There can be no scarcity in ideas. OSS can be reproduced almost endlessly, it is like the air that we breath in being exempt to restriction. The only argument is that developers are scarce. The FOSS movement is steadily disproving this. We already have more than enough development being done and the code base is increasing exponentially according to the EU. Due to spontaneous economic action we will soon have more free code than proprietary code.
There is another argument. Going back to Locke and his original appropriation. FOSS code is almost a natural resource, held in common by all. When you take a code base and compile it for your own computer that instance becomes your own, you own it fully via original appropriation. The reality is though that this act can be repeated indefinitely until the Sun itself dies. Hence property that has no value other than that you can use it for.
It's amazing how close OSS follows Lockean ideals on property rights (supposedly a corner stone of Capitalism). It just falls into an edge case category of being plentiful enough to be considered infinite. Then again Capitalist society doesn't follow any sort of property right system I recognise. Otherwise patents wouldn't exist. - arbulus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I think that it will help prevent ***** like the MS and Novell deal. That's where problems start to happen. "Ok, Novell, we won't sue you for IP infringement, but if your users try to redistribute the material, then we'll sue them."
That *****'s not right, and it needs to be prevented if people are to continue releasing free and open software. Novell is a traitor to the open source community. If you want to make proprietary software, then go ahead, that's your choice. Just like it's your choice to use the GPL or not. But don't tout yourself like you're a friend of open source. - GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3No it's not a contradiction of the GPL to dual license code, at least not in the legal perspective. The GPL still recognises that a person has the right to do with his/her copyright what he wishes, I can write code and GPL it then extend my own code under a proprietary license. Corporations do multiple licensing all the time. Why is it not a contradiction there and is here.
Take an example. Distribution of GPL'd code enforces a responsibility to distribute the code. Now say I develop a game engine and GPL it. Say then corporation x come in an want to use my engine in their game and have no problem with releasing changes but do not want to be suspect to random calls for source code down the line due to the costs. I could take my code and re-license it to corporation x under a license that says they have to transfer the rights to any modifications back to me with them receiving the original code gratis. Then I combine it back in and release the modifications under the GPL, essentially transferring the responsibility of redistribution onto myself and allowing the corporation some legal leeway while totally supporting the principles behind the license. Not a contradiction but just common sense in some cases, I already have to pay the costs of distribution so it would be little to me to do this but would increase circulation of free software and would improve the code base. - cmister, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4IT'S NOT A CUPHOLDER!
From the GPLv3 press release:
The GNU GPL is used by developers with various views, but it was written
to serve the ethical goals of the free software movement. Says Stallman,
"The GNU GPL makes sense in terms of its purpose: freedom and social
solidarity. Trying to understand it in terms of the goals and values of
open source is like trying understand a CD drive's retractable drawer as
a cupholder. You can use it for that, but that is not what it was
designed for." - arbulus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Are you talking BSD or the GPL? The GPL takes away the developer's freedom to keep his work private and to avoid infecting others with a skewed definition of "freedom".
Maybe you shouldn't release software under GPL then, huh? - jacko1990, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Where did all of these n00b MS weenies come from today? And why has no one with any sense sought to challenge them?
They clearly have no clue what they are talking about.
Look, open source is rampant in the tech world today, with some of the biggest players in industry adopting/embracing it (just look at the news earlier today from Dell, who plan a much wider scale deployment of OSS technology). Right now a good 60% of those individuals and companies who are subscribed to the GPL2 (and we are talking about volumes of business here worth several billions of dollars) have voiced support and a willingness to adopt the GPL3 also. This is likely to significantly increase with the latest draft (hey if Linus likes it, that says a lot - he isn't keen on overly restrictive licences) so that eventually by far and the largest part of OSS software out there will be licenced under the GPL3.
The bottom line then is that companies that don't agree with it will have one option and one option only (since so much of the software they depend on will be licenced under the GPL3) and that is either get on board, or get the hell out.
It's a straightforward choice - and ultimately, I think it's a fair one.
No one forces anyone to use GPL software, so if you don't like it and don't like the licence, then put plainly, bog off!
The choice is I think pretty easy to make. - motters, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I'll certainly use GPLv3 when it appears in its final form.
- jonnyq, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3there's no "MS weenies" here. the commenters above all appear to be supporters of free software, but don't like where the GPL is headed. GPLv2, as I understand it, it fine by me. I just don't like where this is headed and where it will lead the free software movement when developers begin blindly adopting it just because it says "GPL" on it.
- Wootery, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2But there's nothing to stop people re-writing the GPL (whatever version) and releasing that under the GPL.If it was licenced as such, people could strip out the DRM clauses, but then they wouldn't be using a GPL.
All it would do would be to help people write their own licences, so I don't see it as that big a deal, it just seems a bit odd that there's a copyrighted copyleft licence. - GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's interesting that the most popular language in history was written by employees of a company that could not legally sell computers.
- Wootery, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@jqp
"So you're worried that a significant numbers of users will be ignorant enough to pay for free software? And if they do, this will somehow "damage" free software?"
No. Not free software. Proprietary software based on free-software. OS X != BSD.
It damages the free software cause as they lose a user to a proprietary product.
"That doesn't say much for the viability of free software if it can't compete with a payware knockoff."
It's not competition if the proprietary project gets to leech off the open-source project. The proprietary project gets all the work the open-source devs did, and they get to add to it without giving back. Not really fair to the open-source guys, and would you want to work on a project when doing so would give as much of a boost to your competitor, making a profit off your work
This might not happen if the proprietary project makes an incompatible fork, but even then someone's making money off work you did for free, and intended to be available for free. - evilTak, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Actually, anything (legal) *can* be put into a license. Nobody is forcing anybody to redistribute other people's GPL software. If people choose to do so, they also choose to accept the terms of the license.
- GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The point is that there are explicit responsibilities that come with distributing GPL documentation. An obvious one is release the code back. To do this they would have to set up and maintain an infrastructure (however cheap it still costs) for an indefinite period of time. They would also be liable to legal threats either over misunderstandings over what they must do or because people feel they aren't undertaking sufficient effort to release the code. Naturally a corporation would not like being in such a position, likely it doesn't cost them much but there is a dangerous potential to cost them a huge sum (imagine if a judge rules they aren't GPL compliant and hence would have to stop distributing a game that cost them tens of millions to make).
I would have in place the distribution infrastructure already so it would be a negligible cost to redistribute in their place. I may also understand the legal issues better given exposure. It would also remove any question of liability since the game itself would not be under the GPL as such even if the code base is fully available under that license.
In essence we will maintain the fundamental freedoms of the GPL (all the code will still be available under that license) but would have made it easier for a company to get involved by reducing their liabilities. There are benefits to them (access to the code base without the responsibilities) and benefits to the community in that we will have a game that would run on OSS platforms and an improved code base.
It shows that dual licensing has it's place and doesn't make the GPL an absurdity. In certain circumstances GNU have said they would consider making license exceptions to individuals and groups.
//edit - the corporation doesn't necessarily pay me for the code either. It would be nice but the point is something different.// - GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3There's a reason for that. They know someone will strip out the DRM clause the moment it gets released. They are essentially trying to force their opinion on DRM on people by tying it to the much more important patent stuff. This is why they won't allow modification when the last one did.
This means people are more likely to stick to GPLv2 so we will end up with weak patent protection. - GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Glad to see the banning of patent pacts even if I don't think the sky is falling over the Novell deal. While there may be some temporary benefits to that deal if implemented properly it is better to legislate against them in general.
Still not certain about the DRM clauses. - adutchy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2People may think that free software provides freedom, but without things like the GPL, we could end up with things like this: http://wiki.freespire.org/index.php/Freespire_End_User_License_Agreement
You think freespire is free? Read that carefully.
The whole point of the GPL is to stop companies from doing what they are trying to do. - GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Why would they legislate against it. Licenses are generally thrown out because they try to take away rights. Typically EULAs get thrown out for trying to block reverse engineering. The GPL has no such rights infringement. Yes it's suspect to law but as such there is no obvious reason to throw it out while most corporate produced licenses *are* an attempt to rewrite law and make people believe they have less rights than they do.
- GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Haven't decided personally. Depends on my goals for the software.
- diggsIt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://ia301205.us.archive.org/0/items/wikimania_2006_moglen_and_lessig/wikimania_2006_moglen_and_lessig.mp3
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1wealth translates into intellectual wealth in the virtual world
GPL V3 is not OSS it is a license that governs a subset of OSS - Wootery, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"BSD doesn't attempt to apply value judgments or promote any socio-political agenda. It just promotes freedom, pure and simple."
No it doesn't. The BSD licence is all about absolute freedom, the "This software is free - do with it what you will, including making a proprietary product" attitude. Promoting free-software means withholding it from non-free projects - this reduces the freedom the licence gives you, but promotes free-software. This "This software is free - do with it what you will, so long as you keep it free" attitude is what the GPL is all about.
"restrictive freedom" is in reference to the GPL idea to restrict what people can do with software in order to keep it free, that is, to take freedom to support freedom.
The socio-political agenda you speak of is free-software; I don't know how you think there can be a pro-freedom licence without it being intended as such. - Wootery, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@op
"If the FSF has its way from the beginning, we'd still be writing code in assembler because there would be no money in making software."
I agree that money can be a powerful force driving progress in the computer world that open-source might not make (eg no-one wants to create a free program for taxes, as developing such an app would be most boring), but you're suggesting that no-one works on a project unless there's money to be made. This is disproven by the progress of free-software so far, including programming languages (such as Ruby and Python). And they're certainly not asm. - tech42er, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Typically EULAs get thrown out for trying to block reverse engineering."
Wait, what? We're legally allowed to reverse-engineer? Great! - eddigg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Ever wonder why the lawyers at the FSF want to be sure no one makes money on software but certainly don't mind seeing the legal profession charge $300, $400, $500 an hour to do research and write documents. Shouldn't all legal documents be free?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Socialism works in the virtual world. If a monopoly trys to subvert it, they just get branded as such. Comman man did not have a voice in the real world where as he/she runs the networked world. Its a sort of payback if you will... An equilibrium of cosmic proportions. The people are pissed off they want to get even. GPL V3 offers more opertunities for rapid progress and reduces the chances of foul play. If GPL V3 gathers mommentum, then I predict a disruptive change. Even governments may topple.. RMS single handedly will catalyze the whole inversion.. He may be even termed the Kalki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalki
- maninblac1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@gmorgan
Okay, so let's simplify what you just wrote.
"I could take my code and re-license it to corporation x under a license that says they have to transfer the rights to any modifications back to me with them receiving the original code gratis. Then I combine it back in and release the modifications under the GPL,..."
This reads, corporation x pays you to use your code, and you receive all rights and IP over any modifications they do, and release those publicly. First, how is that closed source, and secondly, why is that "beneficial" to corporation x.
Obviously if it provides some monitary gain that's understandable, but on business principle, thats backwards. However, i don't know, maybe this situation happens alot. I could never figure that any GPL code is in closed source locations, the GPL kind of gave the impression that it couldn't be. - JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@wootery
"Promoting free-software means withholding it from non-free projects..."
Why? Apple could have developed OS-X either with or without BSD code. I don't see how withholding it would have enriched anyone. Personally, I believe there is plenty of room for both types of software in the marketplace. - JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"It's to prevent free software being taken by a company, modified, released as proprietary payware, posing a rival to the free product, and so damaging the free-software cause."
So you're worried that a significant numbers of users will be ignorant enough to pay for free software? And if they do, this will somehow "damage" free software?
Sorry, I don't buy that argument. That doesn't say much for the viability of free software if it can't compete with a payware knockoff. -
Show 51 - 69 of 69 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is