9 ms·

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

by chme 10y ago

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.
        erlehmann_ 10y ago
        If you are confident about this, please explain why you think Apple did remove GPLv3 software and provide evidence. I have searched for a few minutes and did not find anything.
        ZenoArrow 10y ago
        Hmm, yeah, looking into this Apple devs didn't seem to have discussed the change on the Samba mailing lists, earliest news item I can find about it is this, but it's from unnamed sources... http://appleinsider.com/articles/11/03/23/inside_mac_os_x_10_7_lion_server_apple_replaces_samba_for_windows_networking_services.html http://appleinsider.com/articles/11/03/23/inside_mac_os_x_10...
        wolfgke 10y ago
        I can't find any indication in this article that Apple's reason was the fear of dynamic linking as you claimed (in cotrast to erlehmann_'s claim that Apple had problems with the "no locking down" and "no patent lawsuits" clauses in the GPLv3).
    - swhipple 10y ago
  - ashitlerferad 10y ago
    > Currently instead of just releasing their software under a GPLv2 or GPLv3 compliant license HPE now has a "default to GPLv3" policy for new code that they write.
    - PeCaN 10y ago
      HPE being HP Enterprise? Interesting, I hadn't heard that. When did they institute that policy? Good on them.
      - ashitlerferad 10y ago
        Yes. I think it came after this talk by Martin Fink: https://lwn.net/Articles/660428/ https://lwn.net/Articles/660428/
_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.

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

by 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.
      - erlehmann_ 10y ago
        If you are confident about this, please explain why you think Apple did remove GPLv3 software and provide evidence. I have searched for a few minutes and did not find anything.
        ZenoArrow 10y ago
        Hmm, yeah, looking into this Apple devs didn't seem to have discussed the change on the Samba mailing lists, earliest news item I can find about it is this, but it's from unnamed sources... http://appleinsider.com/articles/11/03/23/inside_mac_os_x_10_7_lion_server_apple_replaces_samba_for_windows_networking_services.html http://appleinsider.com/articles/11/03/23/inside_mac_os_x_10...
        wolfgke 10y ago
        I can't find any indication in this article that Apple's reason was the fear of dynamic linking as you claimed (in cotrast to erlehmann_'s claim that Apple had problems with the "no locking down" and "no patent lawsuits" clauses in the GPLv3).
  - swhipple 10y ago
- ashitlerferad 10y ago
  > Currently instead of just releasing their software under a GPLv2 or GPLv3 compliant license HPE now has a "default to GPLv3" policy for new code that they write.
  - PeCaN 10y ago
    HPE being HP Enterprise? Interesting, I hadn't heard that. When did they institute that policy? Good on them.
    - ashitlerferad 10y ago
      Yes. I think it came after this talk by Martin Fink: https://lwn.net/Articles/660428/ https://lwn.net/Articles/660428/

_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.