3 ms·

The main difference between the GPL and these newer licenses is that the free software definitions were written around the existing GPL.

dfox 6y ago
That is certainly true, but there is reason why "the zeroth freedom" is "zeroth" and why GPL is worded the way it is in regards to that. Then there are licenses that completely depend on such a provision being obvious (somewhat notably the original DJB's license terms for qmail and daemontools). Another issue is then whether such license terms are actually enforceable and not in conflict with the copyright(-related) law of given jurisdiction. For example Directive 2009/24/EC explicitly stipulates bunch of things that cannot be part of contract (ie. EULA) and if they are these parts are void, end result of this is that if you legally acquire some software the licensor cannot limit what you will use it for, not even by separate contract. In fact Directive 2009/24/EC gives you as a user exactly the rights that GPL intends to preserve. What it does not do is make excercising these rights possible/efficient/effective, which GPL intends to do (and, well, for typical situation that motivated RMS to start GNU/FSF/GPL the difference is moot, you will end up disassembling the contents of whatever memory the thing runs from because that is the source of truth, not the source code that it was supposedly built from).
quadrangle 6y ago
That is an incidental and unimportant difference, not the main one. The main difference is that the newer licenses reserve certain rights that affect the use of the software. The GPL does not reserve any rights exclusively to anyone. Incidentally, copyright holders are not themselves bound by their own public licenses, and that's why some entities use the GPL against its spirit to effectively reserve the right to make proprietary derivatives (or to license that exclusive right separately), but that's not at all part of the GPL. That's because the copyright holders no way of binding themselves to the license term (the best option for that is to assign the copyright to another entity that is committed to protecting the universal rights for everyone).
- anticensor 6y ago
  > That's because the copyright holders no way of binding themselves to the license term They can sort of bind themselves, by signing a notarised commitment that has the same terms as the copyright licence.

dfox 6y ago

That is certainly true, but there is reason why "the zeroth freedom" is "zeroth" and why GPL is worded the way it is in regards to that. Then there are licenses that completely depend on such a provision being obvious (somewhat notably the original DJB's license terms for qmail and daemontools). Another issue is then whether such license terms are actually enforceable and not in conflict with the copyright(-related) law of given jurisdiction. For example Directive 2009/24/EC explicitly stipulates bunch of things that cannot be part of contract (ie. EULA) and if they are these parts are void, end result of this is that if you legally acquire some software the licensor cannot limit what you will use it for, not even by separate contract. In fact Directive 2009/24/EC gives you as a user exactly the rights that GPL intends to preserve. What it does not do is make excercising these rights possible/efficient/effective, which GPL intends to do (and, well, for typical situation that motivated RMS to start GNU/FSF/GPL the difference is moot, you will end up disassembling the contents of whatever memory the thing runs from because that is the source of truth, not the source code that it was supposedly built from).

quadrangle 6y ago

That is an incidental and unimportant difference, not the main one. The main difference is that the newer licenses reserve certain rights that affect the use of the software. The GPL does not reserve any rights exclusively to anyone. Incidentally, copyright holders are not themselves bound by their own public licenses, and that's why some entities use the GPL against its spirit to effectively reserve the right to make proprietary derivatives (or to license that exclusive right separately), but that's not at all part of the GPL. That's because the copyright holders no way of binding themselves to the license term (the best option for that is to assign the copyright to another entity that is committed to protecting the universal rights for everyone).

anticensor 6y ago
> That's because the copyright holders no way of binding themselves to the license term They can sort of bind themselves, by signing a notarised commitment that has the same terms as the copyright licence.