11 ms·

GPLv4 – Starting the Conversation (2014)

66 points by amingilani 10y ago

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
josteink 10y ago
While I think the proposed changes makes sense, I don't think the FSF welcomes them as much. The FSF has always thought for getting the full stack GPLed, and creating clauses which makes it easier to silo out the GPLed bits, while keeping the rest of the system locked down will probably not ring well with them. Which is probably why we look at this post 2 years later, with seemingly nothing done to address the concerns raised.
chme 10y ago
Since when should the GPL protect companies? I always thought of FSF and GPL as way to protect consumer rights and interests.
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  If I've understood the article, the ideas proposed for GPL4 aren't about taking away consumer rights and interests, but rather to encourage companies to contribute to and use GPL software. In other words, the code would still be developed in the open, no individual rights would be taken away, you'd just be making it easier for companies to assist with the growth of GPL software. I don't see any major problems with that.
  - chme 10y ago
    Companies don't want to use GPL licensed software because they want to build their closed source software on top of it and thats difficult. Currently instead of just releasing their software under a GPLv2 or GPLv3 compliant license, thus giving customers the right to change and adjust it however they like, they choose to withhold those rights and put the software under a proprietary license. A company that does this is clearly not interested in empowering their customers and should not be of any consideration when discussing an ideal customer rights issue like the GPL. IMO GPL is not there to be liked by companies, just like the green party is not liked by industrialists. GPL assigns legal obligations to companies and rights to customers. I fear that if GPLv4 is designed to be more likable to companies, rights for the consumer will suffer.
    - ZenoArrow 10y ago
      > "Companies don't want to use GPL licensed software because they want to build their closed source software on top of it and thats difficult." No, it goes beyond that. I've heard stories where IT departments have blocked GPL software from being used (as end users, not as an integral part of a software product) due to it being unclear where the GPL starts and ends. The article gives an example of a legal clarity issue in the 'dynamically linked' section: "Most of what is in GPLv3 are important, clear improvements. However, they’re clouded and subsumed by one big unknown – the dynamic link. Apple, for example, was forced to stop contributing to the open-source project Samba, and instead had to build its own SMB file server, based on the final GPLv2 code release of Samba. Now, Samba is deprived of code contributions that Apple would otherwise have been happy to share. Why? Because Apple is afraid that someone might argue that Samba is “dynamically linked” to OS X, and in turn (per rules of GPLv3), force Apple to share the entire source code of OS X. This is stupid. But some argue even typing a file name into a terminal window constitutes a dynamic link. Others argue you must use some shared library, where code natively interacts in an intended manner, such as a dylib or .dll file to create this scenario. Vagaries of this degree should not be in the GPL. It should be scrapped, or at least, replaced with clear and concise definitions that most industry experts in engineering (and product management) can explain in human terms."
      - erlehmann_ 10y ago
        Apple was not “forced” to abandon GPLv3 software. GPLv3 contains two key provisions Apple seems to have a problem with: It forbids locking down hardware so that users cannot actually run software they want (tivoization) and it forbids patent lawsuits against users of the GPLv3 software. Apple's hostility towards GPLv3 very likely has nothing to do with dynamic linking.
        ZenoArrow 10y ago
        That's your projection of the events. I'm confident if you looked in the Samba mailing lists you could get a more definitive view of why Apple did what they did.
- _ph_ 10y ago
  All users of an open source program would benefit, if more companies would contribute to that open source program. In that sense, encouraging companies to contribute is helping consumers. A lot of companies are very open source friendly these days and consequently are happy to open source parts of their software stack. Using a BSD type license makes this very easy. GPL however, forces companies to open source the whole software stack and that is very often not possible for companies, be it that they need to make money by selling the software, or that some code parts contain trade secrets or that they do have some code parts licensed themselves.
  - donatj 10y ago
    This is legitimately why we don't touch GPL code with a ten foot stick. BSD/MIT are awesome however.
    - Narann 10y ago
      GPL is about user freedom (you can access the code you execute), BSD/MIT is about developer freedom (you can copy paste the code). This explain why developers tent to prefer BSD/MIT licences, they can use code without restriction and restrict their users to access it. It's just that GPL focus on protecting users, not developers.
      - erlehmann_ 10y ago
        Strategic reasons for choosing different licensing models exist. The Free Software Foundation itself reccommends using different licensing models for software libraries depending on the situation: • No copyleft for libraries that implement proprietary standards competing with open standards, to further adoption of the implemented standard among proprietary software developers. • Weak copyleft for libraries that implement the same features as existing proprietary software, to further adoption of the library among proprietary software developers. • Strong copyleft for libraries that “do not face entrenched noncopylefted or nonfree competition”. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.en.html
- danjoc 10y ago
  I assume the article is a troll. FSF and GPL are about user freedom. Nobody who has been in software for "decades" could misinterpret that. Some choice quotes that lead me to the conclusion: "I think GPLv4 should focus on protecting and encouraging companies to contribute" "It simply shocks the conscience. Companies are people" "Allow for walled gardens to have an open space" Also, please note it is from 2014, so there's no need to dignify it with a response.
  - ordinary 10y ago
    FSF and GPL are about user freedom. Nobody who has been in software for "decades" could misinterpret that. You would be surprised. There are many developers who rail against the GPL for restricting their ability to turn free software proprietary, and who subsequently call BSD-style licenses "more free", because those allow them to do more things. That is a misunderstanding of what the FSF is about, but it is a fairly common misunderstanding.
tspiteri 10y ago
I don't really understand the point of this article. For one thing, it conflates open source and free software, a difference which can be unimportant to many people, but is definitely important to the FSF, the GPL owners. And although they both result in freely available source code, they do have very different aims. The article is pushing open source aims, while the FSF pushes free software aims. The article also shows a poor understanding of the GPL itself. For example, when talking about dynamically linked software, it is stated that since SMB was under the GPL, Apple was "afraid that someone might ... force Apple to share the entire source code of OS X." No! The GPL can never force you to share your source code. What it can do is stop you distributing software that isn't yours and that you were using under the GPL. In this example, the worse that could happen to Apple is that they would lose their rights to distribute SMB if they were found to have broken the GPL terms.
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  The dynamic linking issue is not as clear as you make out. To give an example, let's say a company decides to make a proprietary fork of a GPL software application. They keep all of their proprietary code in a separate library to the GPL code and dynamically link to it. Does the GPLv3 licence permit this?
  - tspiteri 10y ago
    I'm not talking specifically on the dynamic linking issue. My point is that the GPL cannot force you to publish your source code, but if you break the terms you can lose the license to distribute GPL code that isn't yours. As regards your example, I don't think the GPLv3 permits that, so if a company tries to circumvent the GPL using that approach, it would probably lose the rights to distribute the GPL software application.
  - belorn 10y ago
    The moment someone mention dynamic linking and GPL is the point where one need to think about the law rather than computer technology. Dynamic linking does not exist in the definition of derivative work, and the legal concept is only used by the FSF as a public guideline on where to draw the line (and thus when they will enforce the license). What you will have to ask is, what will a non-technical judge think is one work with different labeled parts, or two separated works that are interacting. Questions like "If I remove one, do I still have a something that make sense to call a work?", "how was it created and what was the intention of the creator", "how would a end-user perceive the result", and in many jurisdictions, "what is the industry standard" (judges has shown a tendency to avoid decision which would cause disruption in the market). > let's say a company decides to make a proprietary fork of a GPL software application If they intentionally trying to go against the wishes of the author, its likely infringing the license regardless if you use technology X or technology Y.
phire 10y ago
The dynamic linking clause is there for a reason, as it closes a massive loophole (put gpled components in a DLL, open source just the DLL and load it into your closed source program). But it does need to be clarified to more directly target just that loophole. Currently there are questions about using opengl/vulkan drivers in a GPLed program on windows. They aren't part of the operating system (supplied by the GPU venders instead), so dynamically linking to them would create a gpl violation. But they implement standardised APIs that really should be considered as part of the OS.
- rleigh 10y ago
  At the same time, it also introduces ambiguity and uncertainty. The GPL-3 doesn't define what "dynamic linking" is. While it might be relatively clear for the simple case of a "static" or "shared" library, what about: - libraries opened with dlopen - libraries with an equivalent non-GPL licenced equivalent e.g. readline, which has a BSD-licenced reimplementation - libraries accessed via IPC to a coprocess hosting the library In all these cases, I can be intimately tied to the API/ABI of a library but unsure of my legal status with respect to GPL-3 compliance obligations. While I understand the general intent, I'm unhappy that this is open to interpretation and that the legal standing of this is not at all clear cut. Likewise with the anti-Tivoisation clauses. While again I understand and agree with the intent, I feel that inserting the language to combat a single problem has damaged the generality of the licence and made it much less attractive to many as a result. While I do like the GPL-2 and GPL-3 licences, I think it's fairly clear that while GPL-2 was acceptable to many companies the GPL-3 is not, and while I may disagree with their reasoning for their stance, the practical fallout from it has been quite detrimental. I've certainly started using BSD or MIT licences more frequently for recent projects, where I would previously have used GPL-2 or -3 by default, simply because the licence profusion has made licence compatibility between a project using a lot of differently licenced shared libraries a very real problem.
Luker88 10y ago
> Additionally, code contributions prior to the raising of an objection, should be exempted from forced source code disclosures. Sorry, but this is a retarded proposal. Courts take a hell of a lot of time to rule, and considering the usual software release cycles, it means you are allowing virtually unrestrained usage of the GPL'd software. The HP case should be better handled, but you are providing a loophole "ops, debug build" for everything. You need to be careful there. The better definition of dynamic/static linking is something needed, personally I'd like to have a modular concept here similar to the CC license, where the developer decides which is allowed. I'm also fine with the tivoization clause, but again, make it modular. With some projects it is not an issue, while others might want to give control to the user, as in "the user must be able to alter the installed software under this license", or similar. I want only one new feature, though (modular, as well): deterministic builds. I want to easily check that someone is using my software without non-approved/released modifications. With this it would become only a matter of publicizing the build environment.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
ninkendo 10y ago
I have an incredibly oversimplified way of thinking about things that I'm wondering if somebody can poke holes in: GPL is for applications (ie. complete products), BSD/MIT-alike are for libraries (ie. standalone components used to build complete products.) Most of the language in the GPL is incredibly problematic for library use. What does linking really mean? Is a "derived work" of a library anything that uses the library? Or is it a derived work only if I change the library itself and not release the patch? Ok, so there's the LGPL to disambiguate that... so for the common case of libraries, use the LGPL, got it. But wait, that doesn't really make sense. What is the LGPL guarding against that make it any better than MIT/BSD? Are they thinking corporations are going to do something like patch GTK and not release the patch? That's incredibly unlikely. It's a huge burden to maintain a downstream patch of a library. Moreover, any patch you're likely to make to a library like (for instance) GTK is probably general purpose, and would be an abstraction violation to place any of your business logic in it, right? If I'm a library writer, what is the motivation to use LGPL or GPL? LGPL doesn't seem much more protective than MIT/BSD in this case, except it prevents the contrived scenario of someone wanting to create proprietary patches to the library itself. And GPL only makes sense if I want to ensure nothing other than other GPL software can link against it (maybe useful for dual licensing like Qt? Or libraries that want to only exist in linux distros...) Now on the application side, all the language in the GPL starts to make a lot more sense. Linking doesn't really make sense for complete applications like web browsers and photo editors, so it's ok that it's ambiguous (nobody's likely to link to the GIMP.) The GPL seems to be written with the assumption that a derived work would look like a re-distribution of some existing open source product with some proprietary changes, which is certainly evil. Generally it's a really good idea to use GPL here to prevent that. For complete products like applications, it's hard to imagine why you wouldn't want those protections if you're the copyright holder. You could go even farther with the logic by saying the only real point of using GPL for libraries would be to help cause more proliferation of GPL'd applications, which is what the vision of the GPL seems to be aimed towards: protecting the user by ensuring they can see the code behind the applications they run.
- wolfgke 10y ago
  >But wait, that doesn't really make sense. What is the LGPL guarding against that make it any better than MIT/BSD? With LGPL you can replace the shared library by a version that you built/updated/... (thus gives freedom) which is not possible for MIT/BSD libraries.
mordae 10y ago
> This would allow for protected content (DRM video, for example) to display securely, while allowing it to interact with other secure apps and services – and still allow for unsigned code. Fuck you.
- jordigh 10y ago
  Yeah, what is the author of this post thinking? The FSF does not negotiate with non-freedom. ;-)
- bryanbuckley 10y ago
  I find it interesting the DRM hate of the crowd given the Libertarian leanings. I'm personally somewhat excited about the prospect of a democratized/p2p and open/ubiquitous DRM. It seems much of the hate is that we don't like being shown we don't really own something completely with no restrictions (the HW or the DRM good) even though we bought it or that DRM gets too much in the way. Seems like the GPLv4 could help with the first former (where the trusted computing bits are opt-out, like in a BIOS or registry).
  - belorn 10y ago
    Which libertarian philosophy is against strong property rights? When someone sell property, the seller should not have a right to exercise powers that are exclusively to the new owner. DRM is the technical method to remain in control over property after sale, where contract would be the legal method when renting out property. In open DRM, how and whose digital rights are being managed by said technology? If I lock down my laptops boot loader, is the laptop the digital right that I am "managing" with said security, or is it simply the terms TPM and DRM that is being incorrectly used interchangeable? To use "Open" DRM on property that the digital property owner also own seems as a very rare situation, for example a music studio whose owner want to prevent employees at the studio from making unauthorized copies. The benefit of "open" DRM seems very minor to the world, where the benefit of open security technologies, such as a TPM, seems as a much grander goal.
    - bryanbuckley 10y ago
Pica_soO 10y ago
I think, what the next GPL needs is too use of the long breath of the free software movement. I mean, the ability of a GPL Project to be used in closed-source and after a given time frame (5 years) the whole resulting code-base must be re-released into open source. Many software products contain GPL-Licensend content, and these "quick-and-dirty" predecessor-software is abandoned once the producer reaches a certain "Lets-Refactor-it-out" success. The GPL could become a breaker of the infinite copyright and a driver of inventions, while at the same time providing the major advantages closed source holds for a limited time.
- nwah1 10y ago
  Sounds like an interesting compromise between BSD/MIT licenses and GPL, but definitely not something GPL4 will have. GPL is about ensuring everything is always open, and is incredibly purist about that. Any deviation would ruin their reputation and go against everyone's expectations for the GPL brand.
  - Pica_soO 10y ago
    That purism prevents it from subverting its shortsighted opponents
current_call 10y ago
Companies are people No, they're not. Even if they were, the GPL is not for protecting companies. The GPL is not for protecting developers. The GPL is for the users.
- nixos 10y ago
  It's more than that. Why do I release OS code? Because I want to make the world a better place, building a "commons" so everyone benefits. What if you don't want to contribute back to the commons? What if your company doesn't value the commons? Fine. You can pay me for my time. I don't need to volunteer my time to make Windows, MacOS, or Proprietary forks of Android better. Remember the controversy of CyanogenMod going commercial? I didn't understand the issue. If Google and Samsung can take your code and use it in proprietary apps, why can't Cyanogen?
yarrel 10y ago
At heart this is a call for several reductions in user freedom. The GPL exists to protect the freedom of users. So these reductions will not be introduced into the GPL, unless there is an extremely good tactical reason for doing so. "Because my company really, really, really wants to restrict our users freedom and we want to exploit free software to do so" isn't a good tactical reason. That said, many of the things the author asks for are already included in the GPLv3. You can place DRM software under the GPL. You get a compliance window if you break the GPL's terms. It refers to "shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms". So this isn't a conversation that needs to happen. Or if it is, it's one that needs to start with a bit more listening.
bkuhn 10y ago
I always find it frustrating when people pontificate about how the GPL should work who have never done the hard work to enforce it (BTW, I'm always looking for volunteers who want to help in the really really boring work of enforcing the GPL, but I rarely get any takers once I start describing what the work entails). I've done and/or led more GPL enforcement than anyone on the planet, for more than a dozen different copylefted projects, and I've done it as a volunteer, as an employee of both FSF and Conservancy, and for GPLv2-only, GPLv3-or-later, and LGPLv2.1 works. While I love, as a purely intellectual exercise over a nice meal, to talk theory with people who only have a theoretical understanding, real world experience with the licenses is the center of drafting good copyleft licenses. The GPL might as well be the ISC license if its clauses are never enforced, so enforcement is really the litmus test on how the license is working and what changes are needed. If the author or anyone else would like to get involved with "field research" and help in Conservancy's enforcement efforts for Linux, Samba, BusyBox and other projects, I'm easily contactable. Anyway, I think what Christopher Price and others in this thread are really looking for is the copyleft-next project. It's Richard Fontana's project that's attempting to redo copyleft licensing from first principles and from (initially) a theoretical basis. I'm a fan of the project as I do think a "redrafting from ground up done in a community fashion" is a good idea to try in parallel to the existing functioning copylefts like GPL. But saying "GPL is broken, therefore we need a GPLv4" is not terribly helpful. GPL is on the verge of collapse not for most of the reasons pundits say it is, but because (a) it's widely violated, (b) few people are willing to enforce, (c) some of those who enforce won't follow community Principles when they do, and (d) there is heavy political opposition from wealthy corporations and trade-associations against those who do enforce, even when they commit to follow published community Principles. IMO, those are the biggest problems GPL has now, and I work every week to seek to solve those. Sure, having been involved with copyleft policy since the early 1990s, I keep a private bug list of GPLv3 (i.e., things I'd like to see in GPLv4). But, it's far from my top priority, and it shouldn't be the community's top priority, IMO, either.
- angersock 10y ago
  What do you think can be done about the four points you've raised? Could you elaborate on point (d)?

66 points by amingilani 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

While I think the proposed changes makes sense, I don't think the FSF welcomes them as much. The FSF has always thought for getting the full stack GPLed, and creating clauses which makes it easier to silo out the GPLed bits, while keeping the rest of the system locked down will probably not ring well with them. Which is probably why we look at this post 2 years later, with seemingly nothing done to address the concerns raised.

chme 10y ago

Since when should the GPL protect companies? I always thought of FSF and GPL as way to protect consumer rights and interests.

ZenoArrow 10y ago
If I've understood the article, the ideas proposed for GPL4 aren't about taking away consumer rights and interests, but rather to encourage companies to contribute to and use GPL software. In other words, the code would still be developed in the open, no individual rights would be taken away, you'd just be making it easier for companies to assist with the growth of GPL software. I don't see any major problems with that.
- chme 10y ago
  Companies don't want to use GPL licensed software because they want to build their closed source software on top of it and thats difficult. Currently instead of just releasing their software under a GPLv2 or GPLv3 compliant license, thus giving customers the right to change and adjust it however they like, they choose to withhold those rights and put the software under a proprietary license. A company that does this is clearly not interested in empowering their customers and should not be of any consideration when discussing an ideal customer rights issue like the GPL. IMO GPL is not there to be liked by companies, just like the green party is not liked by industrialists. GPL assigns legal obligations to companies and rights to customers. I fear that if GPLv4 is designed to be more likable to companies, rights for the consumer will suffer.
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    > "Companies don't want to use GPL licensed software because they want to build their closed source software on top of it and thats difficult." No, it goes beyond that. I've heard stories where IT departments have blocked GPL software from being used (as end users, not as an integral part of a software product) due to it being unclear where the GPL starts and ends. The article gives an example of a legal clarity issue in the 'dynamically linked' section: "Most of what is in GPLv3 are important, clear improvements. However, they’re clouded and subsumed by one big unknown – the dynamic link. Apple, for example, was forced to stop contributing to the open-source project Samba, and instead had to build its own SMB file server, based on the final GPLv2 code release of Samba. Now, Samba is deprived of code contributions that Apple would otherwise have been happy to share. Why? Because Apple is afraid that someone might argue that Samba is “dynamically linked” to OS X, and in turn (per rules of GPLv3), force Apple to share the entire source code of OS X. This is stupid. But some argue even typing a file name into a terminal window constitutes a dynamic link. Others argue you must use some shared library, where code natively interacts in an intended manner, such as a dylib or .dll file to create this scenario. Vagaries of this degree should not be in the GPL. It should be scrapped, or at least, replaced with clear and concise definitions that most industry experts in engineering (and product management) can explain in human terms."
    - erlehmann_ 10y ago
      Apple was not “forced” to abandon GPLv3 software. GPLv3 contains two key provisions Apple seems to have a problem with: It forbids locking down hardware so that users cannot actually run software they want (tivoization) and it forbids patent lawsuits against users of the GPLv3 software. Apple's hostility towards GPLv3 very likely has nothing to do with dynamic linking.
      - ZenoArrow 10y ago
        That's your projection of the events. I'm confident if you looked in the Samba mailing lists you could get a more definitive view of why Apple did what they did.
_ph_ 10y ago
All users of an open source program would benefit, if more companies would contribute to that open source program. In that sense, encouraging companies to contribute is helping consumers. A lot of companies are very open source friendly these days and consequently are happy to open source parts of their software stack. Using a BSD type license makes this very easy. GPL however, forces companies to open source the whole software stack and that is very often not possible for companies, be it that they need to make money by selling the software, or that some code parts contain trade secrets or that they do have some code parts licensed themselves.
- donatj 10y ago
  This is legitimately why we don't touch GPL code with a ten foot stick. BSD/MIT are awesome however.
  - Narann 10y ago
    GPL is about user freedom (you can access the code you execute), BSD/MIT is about developer freedom (you can copy paste the code). This explain why developers tent to prefer BSD/MIT licences, they can use code without restriction and restrict their users to access it. It's just that GPL focus on protecting users, not developers.
    - erlehmann_ 10y ago
      Strategic reasons for choosing different licensing models exist. The Free Software Foundation itself reccommends using different licensing models for software libraries depending on the situation: • No copyleft for libraries that implement proprietary standards competing with open standards, to further adoption of the implemented standard among proprietary software developers. • Weak copyleft for libraries that implement the same features as existing proprietary software, to further adoption of the library among proprietary software developers. • Strong copyleft for libraries that “do not face entrenched noncopylefted or nonfree competition”. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.en.html
danjoc 10y ago
I assume the article is a troll. FSF and GPL are about user freedom. Nobody who has been in software for "decades" could misinterpret that. Some choice quotes that lead me to the conclusion: "I think GPLv4 should focus on protecting and encouraging companies to contribute" "It simply shocks the conscience. Companies are people" "Allow for walled gardens to have an open space" Also, please note it is from 2014, so there's no need to dignify it with a response.
- ordinary 10y ago
  FSF and GPL are about user freedom. Nobody who has been in software for "decades" could misinterpret that. You would be surprised. There are many developers who rail against the GPL for restricting their ability to turn free software proprietary, and who subsequently call BSD-style licenses "more free", because those allow them to do more things. That is a misunderstanding of what the FSF is about, but it is a fairly common misunderstanding.

tspiteri 10y ago

I don't really understand the point of this article. For one thing, it conflates open source and free software, a difference which can be unimportant to many people, but is definitely important to the FSF, the GPL owners. And although they both result in freely available source code, they do have very different aims. The article is pushing open source aims, while the FSF pushes free software aims. The article also shows a poor understanding of the GPL itself. For example, when talking about dynamically linked software, it is stated that since SMB was under the GPL, Apple was "afraid that someone might ... force Apple to share the entire source code of OS X." No! The GPL can never force you to share your source code. What it can do is stop you distributing software that isn't yours and that you were using under the GPL. In this example, the worse that could happen to Apple is that they would lose their rights to distribute SMB if they were found to have broken the GPL terms.

ZenoArrow 10y ago
The dynamic linking issue is not as clear as you make out. To give an example, let's say a company decides to make a proprietary fork of a GPL software application. They keep all of their proprietary code in a separate library to the GPL code and dynamically link to it. Does the GPLv3 licence permit this?
- tspiteri 10y ago
  I'm not talking specifically on the dynamic linking issue. My point is that the GPL cannot force you to publish your source code, but if you break the terms you can lose the license to distribute GPL code that isn't yours. As regards your example, I don't think the GPLv3 permits that, so if a company tries to circumvent the GPL using that approach, it would probably lose the rights to distribute the GPL software application.
- belorn 10y ago
  The moment someone mention dynamic linking and GPL is the point where one need to think about the law rather than computer technology. Dynamic linking does not exist in the definition of derivative work, and the legal concept is only used by the FSF as a public guideline on where to draw the line (and thus when they will enforce the license). What you will have to ask is, what will a non-technical judge think is one work with different labeled parts, or two separated works that are interacting. Questions like "If I remove one, do I still have a something that make sense to call a work?", "how was it created and what was the intention of the creator", "how would a end-user perceive the result", and in many jurisdictions, "what is the industry standard" (judges has shown a tendency to avoid decision which would cause disruption in the market). > let's say a company decides to make a proprietary fork of a GPL software application If they intentionally trying to go against the wishes of the author, its likely infringing the license regardless if you use technology X or technology Y.

phire 10y ago

The dynamic linking clause is there for a reason, as it closes a massive loophole (put gpled components in a DLL, open source just the DLL and load it into your closed source program). But it does need to be clarified to more directly target just that loophole. Currently there are questions about using opengl/vulkan drivers in a GPLed program on windows. They aren't part of the operating system (supplied by the GPU venders instead), so dynamically linking to them would create a gpl violation. But they implement standardised APIs that really should be considered as part of the OS.

rleigh 10y ago
At the same time, it also introduces ambiguity and uncertainty. The GPL-3 doesn't define what "dynamic linking" is. While it might be relatively clear for the simple case of a "static" or "shared" library, what about: - libraries opened with dlopen - libraries with an equivalent non-GPL licenced equivalent e.g. readline, which has a BSD-licenced reimplementation - libraries accessed via IPC to a coprocess hosting the library In all these cases, I can be intimately tied to the API/ABI of a library but unsure of my legal status with respect to GPL-3 compliance obligations. While I understand the general intent, I'm unhappy that this is open to interpretation and that the legal standing of this is not at all clear cut. Likewise with the anti-Tivoisation clauses. While again I understand and agree with the intent, I feel that inserting the language to combat a single problem has damaged the generality of the licence and made it much less attractive to many as a result. While I do like the GPL-2 and GPL-3 licences, I think it's fairly clear that while GPL-2 was acceptable to many companies the GPL-3 is not, and while I may disagree with their reasoning for their stance, the practical fallout from it has been quite detrimental. I've certainly started using BSD or MIT licences more frequently for recent projects, where I would previously have used GPL-2 or -3 by default, simply because the licence profusion has made licence compatibility between a project using a lot of differently licenced shared libraries a very real problem.

Luker88 10y ago

> Additionally, code contributions prior to the raising of an objection, should be exempted from forced source code disclosures. Sorry, but this is a retarded proposal. Courts take a hell of a lot of time to rule, and considering the usual software release cycles, it means you are allowing virtually unrestrained usage of the GPL'd software. The HP case should be better handled, but you are providing a loophole "ops, debug build" for everything. You need to be careful there. The better definition of dynamic/static linking is something needed, personally I'd like to have a modular concept here similar to the CC license, where the developer decides which is allowed. I'm also fine with the tivoization clause, but again, make it modular. With some projects it is not an issue, while others might want to give control to the user, as in "the user must be able to alter the installed software under this license", or similar. I want only one new feature, though (modular, as well): deterministic builds. I want to easily check that someone is using my software without non-approved/released modifications. With this it would become only a matter of publicizing the build environment.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

ninkendo 10y ago

I have an incredibly oversimplified way of thinking about things that I'm wondering if somebody can poke holes in: GPL is for applications (ie. complete products), BSD/MIT-alike are for libraries (ie. standalone components used to build complete products.) Most of the language in the GPL is incredibly problematic for library use. What does linking really mean? Is a "derived work" of a library anything that uses the library? Or is it a derived work only if I change the library itself and not release the patch? Ok, so there's the LGPL to disambiguate that... so for the common case of libraries, use the LGPL, got it. But wait, that doesn't really make sense. What is the LGPL guarding against that make it any better than MIT/BSD? Are they thinking corporations are going to do something like patch GTK and not release the patch? That's incredibly unlikely. It's a huge burden to maintain a downstream patch of a library. Moreover, any patch you're likely to make to a library like (for instance) GTK is probably general purpose, and would be an abstraction violation to place any of your business logic in it, right? If I'm a library writer, what is the motivation to use LGPL or GPL? LGPL doesn't seem much more protective than MIT/BSD in this case, except it prevents the contrived scenario of someone wanting to create proprietary patches to the library itself. And GPL only makes sense if I want to ensure nothing other than other GPL software can link against it (maybe useful for dual licensing like Qt? Or libraries that want to only exist in linux distros...) Now on the application side, all the language in the GPL starts to make a lot more sense. Linking doesn't really make sense for complete applications like web browsers and photo editors, so it's ok that it's ambiguous (nobody's likely to link to the GIMP.) The GPL seems to be written with the assumption that a derived work would look like a re-distribution of some existing open source product with some proprietary changes, which is certainly evil. Generally it's a really good idea to use GPL here to prevent that. For complete products like applications, it's hard to imagine why you wouldn't want those protections if you're the copyright holder. You could go even farther with the logic by saying the only real point of using GPL for libraries would be to help cause more proliferation of GPL'd applications, which is what the vision of the GPL seems to be aimed towards: protecting the user by ensuring they can see the code behind the applications they run.

wolfgke 10y ago
>But wait, that doesn't really make sense. What is the LGPL guarding against that make it any better than MIT/BSD? With LGPL you can replace the shared library by a version that you built/updated/... (thus gives freedom) which is not possible for MIT/BSD libraries.

mordae 10y ago

> This would allow for protected content (DRM video, for example) to display securely, while allowing it to interact with other secure apps and services – and still allow for unsigned code. Fuck you.

jordigh 10y ago
Yeah, what is the author of this post thinking? The FSF does not negotiate with non-freedom. ;-)
bryanbuckley 10y ago
I find it interesting the DRM hate of the crowd given the Libertarian leanings. I'm personally somewhat excited about the prospect of a democratized/p2p and open/ubiquitous DRM. It seems much of the hate is that we don't like being shown we don't really own something completely with no restrictions (the HW or the DRM good) even though we bought it or that DRM gets too much in the way. Seems like the GPLv4 could help with the first former (where the trusted computing bits are opt-out, like in a BIOS or registry).
- belorn 10y ago
  Which libertarian philosophy is against strong property rights? When someone sell property, the seller should not have a right to exercise powers that are exclusively to the new owner. DRM is the technical method to remain in control over property after sale, where contract would be the legal method when renting out property. In open DRM, how and whose digital rights are being managed by said technology? If I lock down my laptops boot loader, is the laptop the digital right that I am "managing" with said security, or is it simply the terms TPM and DRM that is being incorrectly used interchangeable? To use "Open" DRM on property that the digital property owner also own seems as a very rare situation, for example a music studio whose owner want to prevent employees at the studio from making unauthorized copies. The benefit of "open" DRM seems very minor to the world, where the benefit of open security technologies, such as a TPM, seems as a much grander goal.
  - bryanbuckley 10y ago

Pica_soO 10y ago

I think, what the next GPL needs is too use of the long breath of the free software movement. I mean, the ability of a GPL Project to be used in closed-source and after a given time frame (5 years) the whole resulting code-base must be re-released into open source. Many software products contain GPL-Licensend content, and these "quick-and-dirty" predecessor-software is abandoned once the producer reaches a certain "Lets-Refactor-it-out" success. The GPL could become a breaker of the infinite copyright and a driver of inventions, while at the same time providing the major advantages closed source holds for a limited time.

nwah1 10y ago
Sounds like an interesting compromise between BSD/MIT licenses and GPL, but definitely not something GPL4 will have. GPL is about ensuring everything is always open, and is incredibly purist about that. Any deviation would ruin their reputation and go against everyone's expectations for the GPL brand.
- Pica_soO 10y ago
  That purism prevents it from subverting its shortsighted opponents

current_call 10y ago

Companies are people No, they're not. Even if they were, the GPL is not for protecting companies. The GPL is not for protecting developers. The GPL is for the users.

nixos 10y ago
It's more than that. Why do I release OS code? Because I want to make the world a better place, building a "commons" so everyone benefits. What if you don't want to contribute back to the commons? What if your company doesn't value the commons? Fine. You can pay me for my time. I don't need to volunteer my time to make Windows, MacOS, or Proprietary forks of Android better. Remember the controversy of CyanogenMod going commercial? I didn't understand the issue. If Google and Samsung can take your code and use it in proprietary apps, why can't Cyanogen?

yarrel 10y ago

At heart this is a call for several reductions in user freedom. The GPL exists to protect the freedom of users. So these reductions will not be introduced into the GPL, unless there is an extremely good tactical reason for doing so. "Because my company really, really, really wants to restrict our users freedom and we want to exploit free software to do so" isn't a good tactical reason. That said, many of the things the author asks for are already included in the GPLv3. You can place DRM software under the GPL. You get a compliance window if you break the GPL's terms. It refers to "shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms". So this isn't a conversation that needs to happen. Or if it is, it's one that needs to start with a bit more listening.

bkuhn 10y ago

I always find it frustrating when people pontificate about how the GPL should work who have never done the hard work to enforce it (BTW, I'm always looking for volunteers who want to help in the really really boring work of enforcing the GPL, but I rarely get any takers once I start describing what the work entails). I've done and/or led more GPL enforcement than anyone on the planet, for more than a dozen different copylefted projects, and I've done it as a volunteer, as an employee of both FSF and Conservancy, and for GPLv2-only, GPLv3-or-later, and LGPLv2.1 works. While I love, as a purely intellectual exercise over a nice meal, to talk theory with people who only have a theoretical understanding, real world experience with the licenses is the center of drafting good copyleft licenses. The GPL might as well be the ISC license if its clauses are never enforced, so enforcement is really the litmus test on how the license is working and what changes are needed. If the author or anyone else would like to get involved with "field research" and help in Conservancy's enforcement efforts for Linux, Samba, BusyBox and other projects, I'm easily contactable. Anyway, I think what Christopher Price and others in this thread are really looking for is the copyleft-next project. It's Richard Fontana's project that's attempting to redo copyleft licensing from first principles and from (initially) a theoretical basis. I'm a fan of the project as I do think a "redrafting from ground up done in a community fashion" is a good idea to try in parallel to the existing functioning copylefts like GPL. But saying "GPL is broken, therefore we need a GPLv4" is not terribly helpful. GPL is on the verge of collapse not for most of the reasons pundits say it is, but because (a) it's widely violated, (b) few people are willing to enforce, (c) some of those who enforce won't follow community Principles when they do, and (d) there is heavy political opposition from wealthy corporations and trade-associations against those who do enforce, even when they commit to follow published community Principles. IMO, those are the biggest problems GPL has now, and I work every week to seek to solve those. Sure, having been involved with copyleft policy since the early 1990s, I keep a private bug list of GPLv3 (i.e., things I'd like to see in GPLv4). But, it's far from my top priority, and it shouldn't be the community's top priority, IMO, either.

angersock 10y ago
What do you think can be done about the four points you've raised? Could you elaborate on point (d)?