9 ms·

I still love how years ago, Stallman basically added a backdoor to GNU FDL just for wikipedia (and similar wikis) just for the few months when Wikipedia was mig

I still love how years ago, Stallman basically added a backdoor to GNU FDL just for wikipedia (and similar wikis) just for the few months when Wikipedia was migrating the license. It worked though to elaborate… wikipedia used to be GNU Free Document License, which is a terrible license. But there was no way to easily migrate to CC, as you would need to contact all the authors and get agreement. So FSF used the “or later” clause to make a new version of FDL that said “these few months, wikis can migrate from this license to CC”. The new version of the license was made just for wikipedia, just so they could migrate to CC. Here, part “relicensing” https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.html edit also see https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3-faq.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3-faq.html

sombremesa 3y ago
Not sure I would call this a "backdoor," but nice of them to do that.
- yankput 3y ago
  I am 50:50 on it On one hand it’s changing a license to do something else than intended, and the “you can switch but only in the year 2008” is kind of weird On the other hand… eh, wikipedia is better for it, and I doubt people really wanted to contribute under the horrible document license
noirscape 3y ago
Pretty much the one time the GNU Project conceded anything to a different organization. Still very strange. Also, for anyone wondering - don't use the GFDL, it's one of the worst written licenses out there. Every copy or snippet of it needs the full license text attached, which is kind of bonkers if all you're doing is a citation. Debian rejects documentation written under the license because it's unclear and onerous to comply with[0]. It's incompatible with literally any other license on the planet as well (it's not a "proper" Free Software License because of crap like invariant sections, which just exists to force the GNU Manifesto in every copy of the GNU projects documentation). There's also such charming issues like "the anti-DRM clause is worded in such a way that you can't store a GFDL file on an encrypted filesystem". It's a really really bad license and a serious competitor for the worst license ever written by the GNU project (even the AGPL isn't this bad). Wikipedia changed it because they kept having to deal with people who pointed out that anyone reproducing Wikipedia content could technically violate it's license, an obviously-on-the-nose issue. The worst part? The GNU/FSF still recommends the fucking GFDL on its website[1] for documentation even though they offered a carveout for the WMF. It's hard to understate just how bad the GDFL is. [0]: https://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 https://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 [1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.en.html#Documentation https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.en.html...
- seabass-labrax 3y ago
  I'd be interested to know why you imply that the (GNU?) AGPL is a bad licence. AGPL-3.0-or-later is a very sensible FOSS licence in my opinion; some awkward punctuation is about the most I can level against it.
  - noirscape 3y ago
    The short of it is that it doesn't do what people think it does. Enforcement of the AGPL is almost exclusively on "please comply" basis rather than the (relatively) battle-tested GPL. It's not "just" the GPL with an extra demand that it also applies on network software, it's much more complex than that. The AGPL is basically a EULA disguised as a license. It tries to solve the network problem (aka SaaSification, a practice I would argue is against the spirit but very much permissible by the Four Freedoms) in a very "lawyeristic" way. If you don't modify AGPL software, you're not under any obligation to comply with the AGPL in any form. But the moment you touch the code, you now need to make the source available. This also means it is (theoretically) trivially easy to work around - just contract out your modifications, have the contractor keep the copyright and act as the only user of the software with an indefinite license. You don't have to distribute a thing since you didn't modify the source code, your contractor did. Going on from that, the AGPL doesn't actually say how compliance with section 13 must be achieved. According to most lawyers I've heard (not that I am one to be clear), basically your only "safe" option for most network apps is to make your code a quine (a program that can reproduce its own source code, most software isn't this, especially not network software) or something like JavaScript that is fully interpreted clientside anyway. Something like a link to a GitHub repository is not compliant with the AGPL. This specific property also tends to cause major issues when confronted with protocols that don't easily allow for transferring large amounts of text. ie. MIDI is technically a network protocol. All of those issues come from the fact that what the AGPL wants to do fundamentally conflicts with both freedom 0 (right to run software however you wish) and a more informal FSF stance that EULAs are bad. It's just a bad license in terms of how it's understood and the text itself is of dubious quality due to how clearly it's written by a lawyer who got asked to say X without saying X. Also, or-later is generally a bad clause for any license, since it hands over all licensing grants to whatever entity you trusted to write the license in the first place, so unless you wrote it yourself, that's not a good idea.
elAhmo 3y ago
Maybe I do not understand this fully, but this sounds like effectively bypassing the licence to do something which wasn't originally intended, or what the contributors or authors didn't agree to. Does this put other licences at risk? What if someone releases something under a licence, and there is a new version that is less or more permissive, allowing the original author's intention to 'vetoed'?
- madsbuch 3y ago
  It seems like GFDL has an optional declaration that is referred to as the "Or later"-clause. Apparently wikipedia opted for that clause allowing automatic migration of licenses for all content to newer versions of the license. In collaboration with the organisation behind GFDL, they used that clause to re-license everything under CC. I think doing something like this is not somethings that should be taken lightly. you are risking the only asset the contract has: trust. On the other hand: It is good to know, as an author, that you should not accept releasing stuff under a license that has an "or later" clause.
  - senko 3y ago
    > It is good to know, as an author, that you should not accept releasing stuff under a license that has an "or later" clause. Definitely: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/4077/can-the-linux-kernel-be-released-under-gplv3 https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/4077/can-the-...
- yankput 3y ago
  It does put all “or later” clauses licenses at risks, yes If you have “GPLv2 or later”, FSF is then overtaken by Microsoft and makes “GPLv4 is allowing Microsoft to use your code in Windows” then it’s what it is, your code can now be used by Microsoft
1916 3y ago
[flagged]
- noirscape 3y ago
  You mean like that time where they added lenience for people building FDA compliant medical devices? Oh wait, they didn't. No, they instead told the people wanting to build those devices that they were supporting Tivoization and that the only road to compliance was to change the law.[0] The FSF has a far greater history of telling other people to shove it than they have been trying to work together with possible members of their community. [0]: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/gplv3-fda https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/gplv3-fda
  - ersatzz 3y ago
    In that very article the FSF says to comply with both the GPL and "regulatons" companies are free to employ a ROM. Nowhere in that article does it say the regulations must change. Why even bring this article up? The FSF seem pretty reasonable here. Not to mention I couldn't find any evidence on the web of the FDA requiring Tivoization for medical devices.
- LordShredda 3y ago
  This looks ai generated.
  - skilled 3y ago
    It clearly is. It took what the original comment said and reworded it to say absolutely nothing meaningful.
  - 1916 3y ago
    it is ai generated

sombremesa 3y ago

Not sure I would call this a "backdoor," but nice of them to do that.

yankput 3y ago
I am 50:50 on it On one hand it’s changing a license to do something else than intended, and the “you can switch but only in the year 2008” is kind of weird On the other hand… eh, wikipedia is better for it, and I doubt people really wanted to contribute under the horrible document license

noirscape 3y ago

Pretty much the one time the GNU Project conceded anything to a different organization. Still very strange. Also, for anyone wondering - don't use the GFDL, it's one of the worst written licenses out there. Every copy or snippet of it needs the full license text attached, which is kind of bonkers if all you're doing is a citation. Debian rejects documentation written under the license because it's unclear and onerous to comply with[0]. It's incompatible with literally any other license on the planet as well (it's not a "proper" Free Software License because of crap like invariant sections, which just exists to force the GNU Manifesto in every copy of the GNU projects documentation). There's also such charming issues like "the anti-DRM clause is worded in such a way that you can't store a GFDL file on an encrypted filesystem". It's a really really bad license and a serious competitor for the worst license ever written by the GNU project (even the AGPL isn't this bad). Wikipedia changed it because they kept having to deal with people who pointed out that anyone reproducing Wikipedia content could technically violate it's license, an obviously-on-the-nose issue. The worst part? The GNU/FSF still recommends the fucking GFDL on its website[1] for documentation even though they offered a carveout for the WMF. It's hard to understate just how bad the GDFL is. [0]: https://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 https://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 [1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.en.html#Documentation https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.en.html...

seabass-labrax 3y ago
I'd be interested to know why you imply that the (GNU?) AGPL is a bad licence. AGPL-3.0-or-later is a very sensible FOSS licence in my opinion; some awkward punctuation is about the most I can level against it.
- noirscape 3y ago
  The short of it is that it doesn't do what people think it does. Enforcement of the AGPL is almost exclusively on "please comply" basis rather than the (relatively) battle-tested GPL. It's not "just" the GPL with an extra demand that it also applies on network software, it's much more complex than that. The AGPL is basically a EULA disguised as a license. It tries to solve the network problem (aka SaaSification, a practice I would argue is against the spirit but very much permissible by the Four Freedoms) in a very "lawyeristic" way. If you don't modify AGPL software, you're not under any obligation to comply with the AGPL in any form. But the moment you touch the code, you now need to make the source available. This also means it is (theoretically) trivially easy to work around - just contract out your modifications, have the contractor keep the copyright and act as the only user of the software with an indefinite license. You don't have to distribute a thing since you didn't modify the source code, your contractor did. Going on from that, the AGPL doesn't actually say how compliance with section 13 must be achieved. According to most lawyers I've heard (not that I am one to be clear), basically your only "safe" option for most network apps is to make your code a quine (a program that can reproduce its own source code, most software isn't this, especially not network software) or something like JavaScript that is fully interpreted clientside anyway. Something like a link to a GitHub repository is not compliant with the AGPL. This specific property also tends to cause major issues when confronted with protocols that don't easily allow for transferring large amounts of text. ie. MIDI is technically a network protocol. All of those issues come from the fact that what the AGPL wants to do fundamentally conflicts with both freedom 0 (right to run software however you wish) and a more informal FSF stance that EULAs are bad. It's just a bad license in terms of how it's understood and the text itself is of dubious quality due to how clearly it's written by a lawyer who got asked to say X without saying X. Also, or-later is generally a bad clause for any license, since it hands over all licensing grants to whatever entity you trusted to write the license in the first place, so unless you wrote it yourself, that's not a good idea.

elAhmo 3y ago

Maybe I do not understand this fully, but this sounds like effectively bypassing the licence to do something which wasn't originally intended, or what the contributors or authors didn't agree to. Does this put other licences at risk? What if someone releases something under a licence, and there is a new version that is less or more permissive, allowing the original author's intention to 'vetoed'?

madsbuch 3y ago
It seems like GFDL has an optional declaration that is referred to as the "Or later"-clause. Apparently wikipedia opted for that clause allowing automatic migration of licenses for all content to newer versions of the license. In collaboration with the organisation behind GFDL, they used that clause to re-license everything under CC. I think doing something like this is not somethings that should be taken lightly. you are risking the only asset the contract has: trust. On the other hand: It is good to know, as an author, that you should not accept releasing stuff under a license that has an "or later" clause.
- senko 3y ago
  > It is good to know, as an author, that you should not accept releasing stuff under a license that has an "or later" clause. Definitely: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/4077/can-the-linux-kernel-be-released-under-gplv3 https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/4077/can-the-...
yankput 3y ago
It does put all “or later” clauses licenses at risks, yes If you have “GPLv2 or later”, FSF is then overtaken by Microsoft and makes “GPLv4 is allowing Microsoft to use your code in Windows” then it’s what it is, your code can now be used by Microsoft

1916 3y ago

[flagged]

noirscape 3y ago
You mean like that time where they added lenience for people building FDA compliant medical devices? Oh wait, they didn't. No, they instead told the people wanting to build those devices that they were supporting Tivoization and that the only road to compliance was to change the law.[0] The FSF has a far greater history of telling other people to shove it than they have been trying to work together with possible members of their community. [0]: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/gplv3-fda https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/gplv3-fda
- ersatzz 3y ago
  In that very article the FSF says to comply with both the GPL and "regulatons" companies are free to employ a ROM. Nowhere in that article does it say the regulations must change. Why even bring this article up? The FSF seem pretty reasonable here. Not to mention I couldn't find any evidence on the web of the FDA requiring Tivoization for medical devices.
LordShredda 3y ago
This looks ai generated.
- skilled 3y ago
  It clearly is. It took what the original comment said and reworded it to say absolutely nothing meaningful.
- 1916 3y ago
  it is ai generated