Technology Liberation Front: The Technology Liberation Front » Archive » GPL 3.0: v. (for Vendetta)
Tim Lee
· 2 years ago
Thou shall not partner with proprietary software companies.
Braden, I think you're misunderstanding the goals of the FSF. The FSF has never objected to proprietary companies partnering with free software companies. What programmers who adopt the GPL are worried about is companies using the patents to block them or others from using their own code. The GPL achieves this by requiring that if a company purchases a patent license for itself, the license must extend to everyone. That ensures that the software is free for everyone to use on an equal footing.
I don't understand what's "impracticable" about respecting the wishes of software creators. You certainly wouldn't consider it "impractical" when proprietary software creators have license agreements that limit how their software is used. Why aren't free software creators equally entitled to decide how their software may or may not be used? And if free software firms are concerned about exclusive patent agreements, why aren't they entitled to require to require that anyone who uses their software not enter into any?
Richard Bennett
· 2 years ago
GPL V3 signals the end of the FSF as a meaningful entity. Programmers don't want to be bound by all of Stallman's conditions, especially Linux kernel programmers. FSF controls only the Gnu tools (compilers, debuggers, libraries, etc.), not the Linux kernel and its various applications.
So we're going to see versions of the Gnu tools generated by the Linux and BSD developer communities under more permissive licenses, and the fading of Richard Stallman into the sunset.
You are shocked, shocked, to discover Stallman and the FSF are for free software, NOT BUSINESS MODELS!
Umm, he/they have said that from Day One. Stallman frequently very bluntly makes clear where he stands. But somehow, this has come as a revelation to you.
anon
· 2 years ago
There are so many scenarios that could play out relative to uncertain infringement analysis (claim construction), knowing or unknowing status of contributor, future patent assignments, contributory infringement, etc. that the whole thing is laughably unworkable. Its like attempting to herd bats with a school crossing guard.
I'll just give you 1 of many I have come up with in the last 1/2 day.
Company A contributes a million lines of patented code to a project and then goes belly up.
Salvage specialists auction off the IP and non distributing (not participating in GPL) Company B obtains the patents and holy sh%^& then breaks loose.
dimitris
· 2 years ago
In case y'all have missed it, have a look at Bruce Perens' GPL3 FUD-clearing article over at linuxdevices.com.
One key de-FUDding argument seems to be:
And what about Novell-Microsoft? [...] if any entity that distributes the software arranges to protect a particular group from patents regarding that software, it must protect everyone.
Richard Bennett
· 2 years ago
GPL 3 is overly restrictive, and professional programmers and the people who pay them are not going to accept it. So it really doesn't matter how hard Bruce Perens and his ilk try to whitewash it, there's a war between the Linux people and the Gnu people, and the Linux people are going to win because their code base is more valuable than gcc; way more valuable.
Crosbie Fitch
· 2 years ago
GPL overly restrictive? Kettle calling pot black?
If it weren't for the Machiavellian deviousness of IP maximalists attempting to overly restrict the public's use of free software, the GPL wouldn't have to have so many clauses addressing each of these restrictions and NEUTRALISING them - with counter restrictions.
The GPL restores the public's liberty that is otherwise suspended by copyright and patent law - and preserves its restoration.
If you quite like the ability to suspend the public's liberty, then it is not surprising the GPL will appear overly restrictive to you.
Carlos
· 2 years ago
It's worth remembering that software patents and DRM were completely absent from the discussion when GPLv2, and that GPLv3 is simply trying to protect the same four freedoms in a new legal/technical environment.
Also, you're misrepresenting the Novell-MS deal. The only gave special privileges to SUsE developers, and even within that group, to commercial ones. That is to say, they only provide protection against patents to part of the community. GPLv3 simply goes after the idea that contributing to a FOSS project should put one kind of developer into legal dire straits when others are safe. Again, this is just securing the four freedoms.
Finally, while Linux developers might be reluctanct to move to GPLv3 (although read Torvalds' recent statements about it), the whole set of GNU software will, as many others, including Sun's Java, SAMBA, etc. This is not the first time people have tried to portray the FSF has anti-business and anti-IP. In fact, the whole FOSS movement rest on the fact that Copyright exists, and it can be enforced.
Cheers
Vorlath
· 2 years ago
GPL v3 is about less restrictions, not more. The problem is that closed software is about restricting its use. Locking away software is less freedom to do what you want with it, not more.
It makes me think of slave owners who are now complaining they're not allowed to tell slaves what they can and cannot do. That this is too restrictive to the slave owners. Well, tough. I'll never accept that throwing away lock and key is more restrictive.
I don't necessarilly agree with the GPL, but please find another argument than "it's too restrictive" or it's a vendetta. No, it's actually less restrictive. But this means allowing others more freedom to do what they want... and in turn, you may not like it. But this is far from being restrictive. It's the complete opposite of restrictive.
Richard Bennett
· 2 years ago
GPL3 is way more restrictive than the BSD license. If you like free software, BSD is the way to go.
GPL is all about Richard Stallman trying to take control of software he didn't write, and couldn't write: Linux.
Mark Blafkin
· 2 years ago
As I wrote back on the ACT Blog, Tim, you're the only one here who is completely misunderstanding the goals of the FSF.
They are very, very clear about what they believe, and you're either confused or purposely conflating the Open Source and the Free Software communities - something for which Mr. Stallman would beat you about the head.
Thankfully, Mr. Stallman wrote a lovely little piece for you entitled "Why Open Source” misses the point of Free Software."
As Mr Stallman says, "For the Open Source movement, non-free software is a suboptimal solution. For the Free Software movement, non-free software is a social problem and free software is the solution."
They summarily reject the idea of proprietary companies partnering with free software companies because proprietary software companies are immoral in the eyes of the FSF. If you still don't believe me, I suggest you read this piece from Stallman on the 20th Anniversary of the Free Software movement:
Tim, perhaps you should do a little more reading before you start writing.
Mark Blafkin
· 2 years ago
As for those of you that think that proprietary software is some kind of slavery, the GPL was written for you and the FSF is your home. If I believed similarly, I would also be worried about the newest version of the GPLv3.
While previous versions of v3 were based on ideological principles(DRM is antithetical to Free Software and should be banned, etc.), draft 3 has been reduced to what Braden rightfully called a series of vendettas. They target specific companies, not broad social agendas... and those companies the FSF likes,IBM and Google for instance, have there own little carveouts.
Does freedom now comes with exceptions, addendums, and earmarks based on who gives FSF the most money?
Tim Lee
· 2 years ago
My use of the word "objected" was too strong. What I should have said is that the FSF has never tried to prevent free software companies from cooperating with proprietary software companies to make their systems interoperable. They still prefer that the user using proprietary software switch to free software, and they might not approve of collaboration between proprietary and free software companies, but the GPL doesn't make any attempt to prevent such cooperation.
The GPL is fundamentally about freedom, and it would obviously be hypocritical for them to try to use the GPL as a way to restrict users' freedom to use non-free software. Rather, the goal of both the DRM and patent sections of the GPL are designed to ensure that end users of GPLed software have the freedom to examine, modify, and redistribute any copies of GPLed software they receive. Stallman might not like it if that software is used alongside proprietary software, but nothing in the GPL seems designed to prohibit them from doing so.
I'm still interested in an answer to my question: why so much hostility toward free software developers' freedom to set the terms on which their software—their "intellectual property," if you will—is used? Are only proprietary software developers entitled to see their rights protected?
Mark Blafkin
· 2 years ago
Tim, Have you even read the GPL? Versions 1, 2, or 3? I'm actually amazed that you're even trying to continue arguing this point.
The FSF and the GPL itself actively attempt to limit collaboration between proprietary and free software communities. As you'll find in the article previously mentioned, Mr. Stallman says that it is better for GNU/Linux to not support video cards rather than include a proprietary binary.
In fact, the entire basis of the GPL is to frustrate cooperation between the immoral proprietary software guys and free software. The viral nature of the GPL (if you use code and integrate or build upon it, your code must become GPL) is designed to prevent that cooperation because it will lessen the freedom of the free software itself.
And, yes, it is hypocritical if you define freedom in the way that Libertarian's define freedom, but not if you believe in the FSF version of freedom. When they say "freedom," they don't mean freedom in the sense that we mean it, Tim. It is four things and four things only... Those four issues trump all other definitions/aspects of freedom that you and I may hold. So, they would see no hypocrisy in preventing users from the freedom of using proprietary software, because the proprietary software is enslaving them anyway (if you buy the logic).
Finally, here is your answer: we have NO hostility to Free Software developers adding whatever terms they want to their software. They can make every user wear purple muumuu's on Thursday's if they want. It is their right. They are free to do it and enforce it. Whether anyone would use it afterward, whether it may harm the uptake of Free Software in the future... those are the questions we are addressing.
eee_eff
· 2 years ago
Does freedom now comes with exceptions, addendums, and earmarks based on who gives FSF the most money?
No, Mark it does not.
GPL is only about freedom. Unfortunately, companies like Tivo and Novell think of ways despite the GPL of taking away users freedom.
The complexity of GPL 3.0 is entirely a result of the steadfast efforts of FSF to maintain freedom, in the face of the legions of corporate lawyers who will do anything to try to steal GPL code and make it unfree, in the name of profit.
I am all for them being able to use GPL code, but I am equally against anyone using GPL code to make unfree software.
If some corporation wants to make unfree software, great, but don't steal from the GPL commons.
Carlos
· 2 years ago
Mark,
The GPL does not restrict any user from using propietary software (including video drivers), and that won't change with v3. I think we can all agree on that. It doesn't matter much that Stallman calls propietary software anti-ethical or Ballmer calls linux a "cancer".
As for the GPL being a impediment to cooperation between propietary and open source developers, it is hardly cooperation if you take GPL code and put in some propietary piece of sofware. You seem to be missing the very basic point that the GPL-based development model is based on sharing of the code (this is Torvalds' very pragmatic stand on this). By the way, this works both ways: one could say that propietary companies are impeding cooperation by not allowing their developers to publish their work online.
Truth is, they are not compatible as development models. You can't have it both ways.
soldimaniac23
· 2 years ago
Ciao! saluti da Roma! Tutti difettiamo di tali risorse come il vostro qui, forse voi puo` farlo funzionare in italiano? >
All Comments
Braden, I think you're misunderstanding the goals of the FSF. The FSF has never objected to proprietary companies partnering with free software companies. What programmers who adopt the GPL are worried about is companies using the patents to block them or others from using their own code. The GPL achieves this by requiring that if a company purchases a patent license for itself, the license must extend to everyone. That ensures that the software is free for everyone to use on an equal footing.
I don't understand what's "impracticable" about respecting the wishes of software creators. You certainly wouldn't consider it "impractical" when proprietary software creators have license agreements that limit how their software is used. Why aren't free software creators equally entitled to decide how their software may or may not be used? And if free software firms are concerned about exclusive patent agreements, why aren't they entitled to require to require that anyone who uses their software not enter into any?
So we're going to see versions of the Gnu tools generated by the Linux and BSD developer communities under more permissive licenses, and the fading of Richard Stallman into the sunset.
Not a moment too soon, of course.
Umm, he/they have said that from Day One. Stallman frequently very bluntly makes clear where he stands. But somehow, this has come as a revelation to you.
I'll just give you 1 of many I have come up with in the last 1/2 day.
Company A contributes a million lines of patented code to a project and then goes belly up.
Salvage specialists auction off the IP and non distributing (not participating in GPL) Company B obtains the patents and holy sh%^& then breaks loose.
In case y'all have missed it, have a look at Bruce Perens' GPL3 FUD-clearing article over at linuxdevices.com.
One key de-FUDding argument seems to be:
If it weren't for the Machiavellian deviousness of IP maximalists attempting to overly restrict the public's use of free software, the GPL wouldn't have to have so many clauses addressing each of these restrictions and NEUTRALISING them - with counter restrictions.
The GPL restores the public's liberty that is otherwise suspended by copyright and patent law - and preserves its restoration.
If you quite like the ability to suspend the public's liberty, then it is not surprising the GPL will appear overly restrictive to you.
Also, you're misrepresenting the Novell-MS deal. The only gave special privileges to SUsE developers, and even within that group, to commercial ones. That is to say, they only provide protection against patents to part of the community. GPLv3 simply goes after the idea that contributing to a FOSS project should put one kind of developer into legal dire straits when others are safe. Again, this is just securing the four freedoms.
Finally, while Linux developers might be reluctanct to move to GPLv3 (although read Torvalds' recent statements about it), the whole set of GNU software will, as many others, including Sun's Java, SAMBA, etc. This is not the first time people have tried to portray the FSF has anti-business and anti-IP. In fact, the whole FOSS movement rest on the fact that Copyright exists, and it can be enforced.
Cheers
It makes me think of slave owners who are now complaining they're not allowed to tell slaves what they can and cannot do. That this is too restrictive to the slave owners. Well, tough. I'll never accept that throwing away lock and key is more restrictive.
I don't necessarilly agree with the GPL, but please find another argument than "it's too restrictive" or it's a vendetta. No, it's actually less restrictive. But this means allowing others more freedom to do what they want... and in turn, you may not like it. But this is far from being restrictive. It's the complete opposite of restrictive.
GPL is all about Richard Stallman trying to take control of software he didn't write, and couldn't write: Linux.
As I wrote back on the ACT Blog, Tim, you're the only one here who is completely misunderstanding the goals of the FSF.
They are very, very clear about what they believe, and you're either confused or purposely conflating the Open Source and the Free Software communities - something for which Mr. Stallman would beat you about the head.
Thankfully, Mr. Stallman wrote a lovely little piece for you entitled "Why Open Source” misses the point of Free Software."
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
As Mr Stallman says, "For the Open Source movement, non-free software is a suboptimal solution. For the Free Software movement, non-free software is a social problem and free software is the solution."
They summarily reject the idea of proprietary companies partnering with free software companies because proprietary software companies are immoral in the eyes of the FSF. If you still don't believe me, I suggest you read this piece from Stallman on the 20th Anniversary of the Free Software movement:
http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=04/01/05/1146229
Tim, perhaps you should do a little more reading before you start writing.
As for those of you that think that proprietary software is some kind of slavery, the GPL was written for you and the FSF is your home. If I believed similarly, I would also be worried about the newest version of the GPLv3.
While previous versions of v3 were based on ideological principles(DRM is antithetical to Free Software and should be banned, etc.), draft 3 has been reduced to what Braden rightfully called a series of vendettas. They target specific companies, not broad social agendas... and those companies the FSF likes,IBM and Google for instance, have there own little carveouts.
Does freedom now comes with exceptions, addendums, and earmarks based on who gives FSF the most money?
The GPL is fundamentally about freedom, and it would obviously be hypocritical for them to try to use the GPL as a way to restrict users' freedom to use non-free software. Rather, the goal of both the DRM and patent sections of the GPL are designed to ensure that end users of GPLed software have the freedom to examine, modify, and redistribute any copies of GPLed software they receive. Stallman might not like it if that software is used alongside proprietary software, but nothing in the GPL seems designed to prohibit them from doing so.
I'm still interested in an answer to my question: why so much hostility toward free software developers' freedom to set the terms on which their software—their "intellectual property," if you will—is used? Are only proprietary software developers entitled to see their rights protected?
Tim, Have you even read the GPL? Versions 1, 2, or 3? I'm actually amazed that you're even trying to continue arguing this point.
The FSF and the GPL itself actively attempt to limit collaboration between proprietary and free software communities. As you'll find in the article previously mentioned, Mr. Stallman says that it is better for GNU/Linux to not support video cards rather than include a proprietary binary.
In fact, the entire basis of the GPL is to frustrate cooperation between the immoral proprietary software guys and free software. The viral nature of the GPL (if you use code and integrate or build upon it, your code must become GPL) is designed to prevent that cooperation because it will lessen the freedom of the free software itself.
And, yes, it is hypocritical if you define freedom in the way that Libertarian's define freedom, but not if you believe in the FSF version of freedom. When they say "freedom," they don't mean freedom in the sense that we mean it, Tim. It is four things and four things only... Those four issues trump all other definitions/aspects of freedom that you and I may hold. So, they would see no hypocrisy in preventing users from the freedom of using proprietary software, because the proprietary software is enslaving them anyway (if you buy the logic).
Finally, here is your answer: we have NO hostility to Free Software developers adding whatever terms they want to their software. They can make every user wear purple muumuu's on Thursday's if they want. It is their right. They are free to do it and enforce it. Whether anyone would use it afterward, whether it may harm the uptake of Free Software in the future... those are the questions we are addressing.
No, Mark it does not.
GPL is only about freedom. Unfortunately, companies like Tivo and Novell think of ways despite the GPL of taking away users freedom.
The complexity of GPL 3.0 is entirely a result of the steadfast efforts of FSF to maintain freedom, in the face of the legions of corporate lawyers who will do anything to try to steal GPL code and make it unfree, in the name of profit.
I am all for them being able to use GPL code, but I am equally against anyone using GPL code to make unfree software.
If some corporation wants to make unfree software, great, but don't steal from the GPL commons.
The GPL does not restrict any user from using propietary software (including video drivers), and that won't change with v3. I think we can all agree on that. It doesn't matter much that Stallman calls propietary software anti-ethical or Ballmer calls linux a "cancer".
As for the GPL being a impediment to cooperation between propietary and open source developers, it is hardly cooperation if you take GPL code and put in some propietary piece of sofware. You seem to be missing the very basic point that the GPL-based development model is based on sharing of the code (this is Torvalds' very pragmatic stand on this). By the way, this works both ways: one could say that propietary companies are impeding cooperation by not allowing their developers to publish their work online.
Truth is, they are not compatible as development models. You can't have it both ways.
Tutti difettiamo di tali risorse come il vostro qui, forse voi puo` farlo funzionare in
italiano?
>
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/index.cfm?fa...
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/index.cfm?fa...
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/index.cfm?fa...
Possiamo pagare tanta pasta come desiderate :)