5 ms·

The intent of FSF was always to protect user freedoms - where users can also be developers - and not to protect developer freedoms - where developers are a sepa

by sa1 5y ago

The intent of FSF was always to protect user freedoms - where users can also be developers - and not to protect developer freedoms - where developers are a separate class from users.

slownews45 5y ago
GPLv2 was share and share alike. Developers could work together on common software, and then each use it how they wanted within their orgs. It also helped drive down proprietary forks. Regardless of FSF desires, this is how it was used. As GPLv3 was getting developed (in secret largely) communities like the Linux community started picking up on the big change coming and updated their license to be clear that Linux for example is GPLv2 ONLY (!) to avoid having the FSF change the usage and rules of their project on them.
- jra_samba 5y ago
  > As GPLv3 was getting developed (in secret largely) The above is incorrect. GPLv3 was developed via a completely open process of development, documented very well here: https://opensource.com/article/18/6/gplv3-anniversary https://opensource.com/article/18/6/gplv3-anniversary Apple lawyers participated. From the above link: "Lawyers representing vendors' and commercial users' interests provided useful suggestions for improvements from a legal and commercial perspective, but these often took the form of making simply worded provisions more verbose, arguably without net increases in clarity. .. One lasting contribution of GPLv3 concerns changed expectations for how revisions of widely-used FOSS licenses are done. It is no longer acceptable for such licenses to be revised entirely in private, without opportunity for comment from the community and without efforts to consult key stakeholders."
  - slownews45 5y ago
    The above is correct - this would take more to cover here but I'd quickly suggest maybe watching something from active developers? You need to realize that the basic principles were NOT asked for by the major users of GPLv2. When initially discussed way before v3 they were rejected. There was no scoping of need here, certainly not by major projects like Linux. https://youtu.be/PaKIZ7gJlRU?t=130 https://youtu.be/PaKIZ7gJlRU?t=130 (start at beginning if you want more context). Ubuntu went through this as well, and basically had to get the FSF to (privately) say that they wouldn't enforce the key release process for tivoization against Ubuntu. It was that or use the Microsoft shim. It was just one sketchy / dicy deal after another. Crazy how wrong GPLv3 was in terms of a natural revision to v2 for developers. I doubt Linux has changed to GPLv3 or will personally, but we will see I guess. Good to see some GPLv2 options here that people can use in devices etc. And the BSD's and MIT licenses took off as a result, GPL overall lost out as a result of the v3 mess in my view (as a GPLv2 fan that's a bummer). Yes, the drafting part was "open" in the sense that lawyers got involved and the license got VERY very complex. If that's a win - go for it - most developers just passed on it.
    - jra_samba 5y ago
      Linus had no part in the drafting of GPLv3, so no I'm not surprised by that video at all. I participated in the GPLv3 drafting, and your claim it was full of "one sketchy / dicy deal after another" is NOT correct. You might not like how it turned out (and I myself have serious misgivings, mostly around the betrayal by the FSF in not using it for their own projects because they're frightened it will make them "unpopular") but it accurately reflected the wishes of the drafters at the time. Nothing secret or sketchy about it at all.
      - whoknowswhat11 5y ago
        First - the GPLv3 was NOT drafted in an open process. IF they had bothered to ask folks shipping GPLv2 code what they would want in a GPLv3 they would have gotten a much smaller scope. Maybe some patent improvements and some other cleanups. The idea that they solicited developer community input around the GPLv3 in terms of what it should cover is a joke. It really is a lie basically. Yes, they solicited users and activists, but not the actual folks giving their labor away for free. So they tried to basically trick a bunch of folks by hitching onto the v2 or later standard language - using a license with very different terms - SO SKETCH!! It really illustrates how immoral and unethical the drafters of v3 were and left a sour taste with a lot of folks. Some folks had a heads up around what would be coming - Linus got an early look and went immediately to GPLv2 only to protect against this attempted hijacking. ---- Once they did get it out - now FAR longer and harder to read, lots of special cases etc, they'd created a real problem, it was hard to work with this thing. They kept on lying about having to release or not release encrypting / signing keys. Ubuntu refused to use a v3 bootloader until they did some kind of backroom deal with FSF where FSF, as author of license, did some private interpretation Ubuntu could rely on. Ubuntu wasted a metric ton of time on this, and until they got the secret signoff were not going to budge (ahh, again a sign they ignored major dev communities). I could go on, but it's not worth re-hashing. v3 basically ended GPL as the standard OSS license, I think folks are sick enough of it that MIT / Apache etc are going to be the future. Even the idealists among us learned some important lessons in the process. I think GPLv3 and especially AGPLv3 will be the home of things like contributor licensed software to one company - it's basically unusable but they can call it "open source" sort of like Microsoft shared source stuff and then license commercially by keeping copyright in a for-profit vs in a community of contributors. If they can find devs willing to contribute under that - more power to them. But that wasn't the early model under GPLv2. So the drafters fractured the GPL copyleft landscape (bad), messed up the popularity of this type of license (bad), didn't have the integrity to do a GPLv3 in keeping with v2 (bad). It's kind of incredible, there was this AMAZING license in v2, I mean, folks had really consolidated around it in a fair number of major areas and ways. I sometimes can't believe that got torched for MIT and Apache (which really are not copyleft though they are open source). ---- Anyways, having failed with v3, I'm expecting they will try to back fit v3 by saying v2 is really v3? Look for some very strong pushback on that.

by sa1 5y ago

The intent of FSF was always to protect user freedoms - where users can also be developers - and not to protect developer freedoms - where developers are a separate class from users.

slownews45 5y ago

GPLv2 was share and share alike. Developers could work together on common software, and then each use it how they wanted within their orgs. It also helped drive down proprietary forks. Regardless of FSF desires, this is how it was used. As GPLv3 was getting developed (in secret largely) communities like the Linux community started picking up on the big change coming and updated their license to be clear that Linux for example is GPLv2 ONLY (!) to avoid having the FSF change the usage and rules of their project on them.

jra_samba 5y ago
> As GPLv3 was getting developed (in secret largely) The above is incorrect. GPLv3 was developed via a completely open process of development, documented very well here: https://opensource.com/article/18/6/gplv3-anniversary https://opensource.com/article/18/6/gplv3-anniversary Apple lawyers participated. From the above link: "Lawyers representing vendors' and commercial users' interests provided useful suggestions for improvements from a legal and commercial perspective, but these often took the form of making simply worded provisions more verbose, arguably without net increases in clarity. .. One lasting contribution of GPLv3 concerns changed expectations for how revisions of widely-used FOSS licenses are done. It is no longer acceptable for such licenses to be revised entirely in private, without opportunity for comment from the community and without efforts to consult key stakeholders."
- slownews45 5y ago
  The above is correct - this would take more to cover here but I'd quickly suggest maybe watching something from active developers? You need to realize that the basic principles were NOT asked for by the major users of GPLv2. When initially discussed way before v3 they were rejected. There was no scoping of need here, certainly not by major projects like Linux. https://youtu.be/PaKIZ7gJlRU?t=130 https://youtu.be/PaKIZ7gJlRU?t=130 (start at beginning if you want more context). Ubuntu went through this as well, and basically had to get the FSF to (privately) say that they wouldn't enforce the key release process for tivoization against Ubuntu. It was that or use the Microsoft shim. It was just one sketchy / dicy deal after another. Crazy how wrong GPLv3 was in terms of a natural revision to v2 for developers. I doubt Linux has changed to GPLv3 or will personally, but we will see I guess. Good to see some GPLv2 options here that people can use in devices etc. And the BSD's and MIT licenses took off as a result, GPL overall lost out as a result of the v3 mess in my view (as a GPLv2 fan that's a bummer). Yes, the drafting part was "open" in the sense that lawyers got involved and the license got VERY very complex. If that's a win - go for it - most developers just passed on it.
  - jra_samba 5y ago
    Linus had no part in the drafting of GPLv3, so no I'm not surprised by that video at all. I participated in the GPLv3 drafting, and your claim it was full of "one sketchy / dicy deal after another" is NOT correct. You might not like how it turned out (and I myself have serious misgivings, mostly around the betrayal by the FSF in not using it for their own projects because they're frightened it will make them "unpopular") but it accurately reflected the wishes of the drafters at the time. Nothing secret or sketchy about it at all.
    - whoknowswhat11 5y ago
      First - the GPLv3 was NOT drafted in an open process. IF they had bothered to ask folks shipping GPLv2 code what they would want in a GPLv3 they would have gotten a much smaller scope. Maybe some patent improvements and some other cleanups. The idea that they solicited developer community input around the GPLv3 in terms of what it should cover is a joke. It really is a lie basically. Yes, they solicited users and activists, but not the actual folks giving their labor away for free. So they tried to basically trick a bunch of folks by hitching onto the v2 or later standard language - using a license with very different terms - SO SKETCH!! It really illustrates how immoral and unethical the drafters of v3 were and left a sour taste with a lot of folks. Some folks had a heads up around what would be coming - Linus got an early look and went immediately to GPLv2 only to protect against this attempted hijacking. ---- Once they did get it out - now FAR longer and harder to read, lots of special cases etc, they'd created a real problem, it was hard to work with this thing. They kept on lying about having to release or not release encrypting / signing keys. Ubuntu refused to use a v3 bootloader until they did some kind of backroom deal with FSF where FSF, as author of license, did some private interpretation Ubuntu could rely on. Ubuntu wasted a metric ton of time on this, and until they got the secret signoff were not going to budge (ahh, again a sign they ignored major dev communities). I could go on, but it's not worth re-hashing. v3 basically ended GPL as the standard OSS license, I think folks are sick enough of it that MIT / Apache etc are going to be the future. Even the idealists among us learned some important lessons in the process. I think GPLv3 and especially AGPLv3 will be the home of things like contributor licensed software to one company - it's basically unusable but they can call it "open source" sort of like Microsoft shared source stuff and then license commercially by keeping copyright in a for-profit vs in a community of contributors. If they can find devs willing to contribute under that - more power to them. But that wasn't the early model under GPLv2. So the drafters fractured the GPL copyleft landscape (bad), messed up the popularity of this type of license (bad), didn't have the integrity to do a GPLv3 in keeping with v2 (bad). It's kind of incredible, there was this AMAZING license in v2, I mean, folks had really consolidated around it in a fair number of major areas and ways. I sometimes can't believe that got torched for MIT and Apache (which really are not copyleft though they are open source). ---- Anyways, having failed with v3, I'm expecting they will try to back fit v3 by saying v2 is really v3? Look for some very strong pushback on that.