Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

GPL v3 Coming Out in 2007?

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the could-be-could-be dept.

GNU is Not Unix 233

gentoo1337 writes "Eben Moglen of the FSF speaks out in this ZDNet article, noting that GPL v3 may be publicly drafted in early 2006, and in force one year later. The process is very sensitive (noting concerns of forking in the Linux world), but Eben Moglen is optimistic: 'When it's all over, people are going to say, "All that talking for just that much change?" [...] We will do no harm. If we think (some change) may have any unintended consequences, we will not recommend making it.' Controversies aside, there is some good news -- Richard Stallman aims to 'lower barriers that today prevent the mixing of software covered by the GPL and other licenses.' The earlier Slashdot discussion contains complementary info about the intentions of FSF."

cancel ×

233 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

FRIST PR0ST!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13290459)

Finally!

The GPL I love.. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13290460)

....I love the GPL, with my pee pee...

Analysis Paralysis? (3, Insightful)

bc90021 (43730) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290476)

Am I the only one who thinks it's going to take longer? Given the number of parties/factions involved (FSF, EFF, RedHat, Linus, ESR, etc.), I think it may take longer. I know that not all those people have to have the new GPL "cleared" with them, but I'm sure they'll all want to weigh in on the process, which will likely lengthen it.

Re:Analysis Paralysis? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13290502)

Linus has nothing to do with the decision making.

Linus is a _user_ of the GPL.

Re:Analysis Paralysis? (4, Interesting)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290602)

Yeah, heaven forbid that the users of the GPL would have any say in how it works.

Re:Analysis Paralysis? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13290709)

I'm sure the various BSD/MIT license advocates, who are "using" the additional rights granted to them under copyright by the GPL to use, say GCC, would love to have a "say" in it. Specifically, they would like it to give free reign for redistribution. Shut your pie hole.

Re:Analysis Paralysis? (0, Troll)

ZephyrXero (750822) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290910)

"I'm sure the various BSD/MIT license advocates, who are "using" the additional rights granted to them under copyright by the GPL to use, say GCC, would love to have a "say" in it. Specifically, they would like it to give free reign for redistribution. Shut your pie hole."

The BSD license is great if you don't want any contributions back from the community, thus defeating the entire point of open source development... I've got alot more to say about this here [blogspot.com] .

Re:Analysis Paralysis? (2, Insightful)

znu (31198) | more than 9 years ago | (#13291249)

This is such total nonsense. The BSD operating systems get plenty of community contributions. In some cases, BSD-licensed code is more likely to to spur contributions, because it can be used in more scenarios -- companies can use it with no worries about code contamination, for instance, and while they don't have to contribute back to the community, in many cases they will, because it's still in their own best interests.

If they contribute their changes back to the main trunk, they'll (probably) be able benefit from future versions of the software without having to merge their changes back in with every update. If they keep their changes private, they're effectively forking the software, and most organizations don't have the resources to maintain their own forks of major projects.

Re:Analysis Paralysis? (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 9 years ago | (#13291312)

Such an unneeded rant. We all know that BDS licenced applicatino can, and most likely will get contributions. But the fact of the matter is, that unlike with the GPL, it is NOT manditory,

ESR? Heh. (2, Funny)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290661)

sellout poser [geekz.co.uk] .

Re:ESR? Heh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13291177)

ITYM sellout poser [geekz.co.uk] .

Re:Analysis Paralysis? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13290668)

I don't know whether this has been stated openly, but I get the feeling that one aim of GPL v3 is to specifically allow the mixing of CPL and GPL v3 stuff. I've always seen the CPL as the GPL without the wordy political statement at the top (that seems to annoy lawyers who just want the facts, not a Stallman rant) and a useful clause about patents.

It's always seemed like the CPL was IBM's attempt at a cleaned-up GPL -- unlike Sun's various licenses, which all have ulterior motives and nasty trapdoors.

Re:Analysis Paralysis? (0, Troll)

ZhuLien (150593) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290735)

I actually don't like the GPL, it is full of restrictions, any "licence" to use software is silly in my view, I don't need a licence to use a knife and fork, why a computer program?

I'd rather a licence free product distributed with full sourcecode, this means any one can do what they WANT with it WITHOUT ANY restriction.

Re:Analysis Paralysis? (4, Informative)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290847)

I don't need a licence to use a knife and fork, why a computer program?

You don't need any license to use a GPL'd program. You only need a license if you want to redistribute it.

The reason you need the license to redistribute the computer program is because copyright law says you have no right to do so otherwise.

Re:Analysis Paralysis? (1)

ZephyrXero (750822) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290929)

The reason is that you can't make a copy of that knife and fork and distribute it to others nearly as easily as you can software. The GPL is there to protect the writers from abuse while at the same time encouraging an open community to form around it... If your project is just for fun, and you dont' want any help working on it, go ahead and release it like that... just don't expect anyone to contribute back.

I'm waiting for GPL Episode IV: A Gnu Hope. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13290763)

The subject says it all.

What's missing from GPL2? (0, Troll)

lakerdonald (825553) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290478)

What could possibly be so important that we need another GPL? Maybe RMS is going to take back everything he said and be like "Just Kidding...Non-Free Software is Okay by us."

Re:What's missing from GPL2? (3, Interesting)

Baricom (763970) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290498)

Some people have expressed concern that organizations can take GPL'd code, modify it, and then run a web site with it. The act of running a web site using GPL code isn't considered distribution by the FSF, and the source code modifications therefore can be kept to themselves.

That's the argument. Personally, I don't know how I feel about it one way or the other.

Re:What's missing from GPL2? (1)

lakerdonald (825553) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290526)

I'd sure love to hear ESR's input as to what goes into GPL3

Re:What's missing from GPL2? (2, Insightful)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290647)

I'd sure love to hear ESR's input as to what goes into GPL3

"By redistributing this software, you accept that any violation of the terms of this license may result in you being pursued and shot by a rabid gun fiend with large number of firearms."

Re:What's missing from GPL2? (1)

ZephyrXero (750822) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290951)

I sure as hell wouldn't. The man doesn't live in the real world if he thinks open source will continue to thrive without GPL type licensing... just look at how booming the BSD community is compared to the Linux one...there's a reason for that.

I've got a longer version of my argument here [blogspot.com] if anyone cares to read it.

Re:What's missing from GPL2? (1)

Gherald (682277) | more than 9 years ago | (#13291378)

> I sure as hell wouldn't. The man doesn't live in the real world if he thinks open source will continue to thrive without GPL type licensing... just look at how booming the BSD community is compared to the Linux one...there's a reason for that.

Actually, it is was all AT&T's fault [wikipedia.org] .

Re:What's missing from GPL2? (3, Insightful)

natrius (642724) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290666)

Some people have expressed concern that organizations can take GPL'd code, modify it, and then run a web site with it. The act of running a web site using GPL code isn't considered distribution by the FSF, and the source code modifications therefore can be kept to themselves.

Running a web site isn't considered distribution by copyright either, and that's what really matters here. The GPL doesn't go into effect until you try to make a copy of the software, and even when it's in effect, you only have to distribute the source code to the people you distribute binaries to. If you only distribute it internally, then it really doesn't make a difference. Technically, a new version of the GPL could say that you have to give a copy of the code to the FSF if you want to distribute binaries at all, even within your own organization, but I don't think many people would actually want to use that license.

Personally, I think that making internal changes and not sharing them with the world is against the spirit of the GPL. People gave their work to you for free, and you don't want to give your changes back as payback? That's pretty lame. However, I don't think there's any practical way for a new version of the GPL to prevent it. Smart people try to get their changes accepted upsteam anyway so they don't have to maintain patches and make sure they apply and don't introduce new bugs. It's just less work.

Re:What's missing from GPL2? (3, Informative)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290714)

Personally, I think that making internal changes and not sharing them with the world is against the spirit of the GPL.

Why do you think that? Do you think the same of companies that use GPL software *internally*? You've said yourself that this is okay, and in addition, RMS has gone out of his way to reject licenses that demand this. But what's the difference?

Applying the restrictions only within the legal domain of copyright **IS** the spirit of the GPL! To subsequently extend it beyond the domain of copyright to encompass the execution of software on servers is what is against the spirit of the GPL.

Re:What's missing from GPL2? (1)

natrius (642724) | more than 9 years ago | (#13291183)

I'm sleepy. I think I made a mistake in my original post. To make a derivative work, you need permission from the author, usually in the form of a blanket license like the GPL. Theoretically, someone could come up with a license that says you must make public any derivative work you create. If this were the case with the GPL, then people running modified versions of GPL'd software on their servers would have to share their changes. It'd be hard to prove, but it could still be "required."

Now on to your question. Why is not sharing changes against the spirt of the GPL? I explained exactly why in my post. If you're making the piece of software better with your internal changes, shouldn't the original authors benefit from those changes as well? It's slightly assholish to not help the people who helped you.

I like that the GPL doesn't require this. I'm sure there are many cases in which internal modifications are trivial and only suited to specific uses, and requiring that all those little changes be public would probably lead to a lot of noise with few beneficial changes. If something you add is actually useful, you should share it. Do unto others and whatnot.

Re:What's missing from GPL2? (1)

RedWizzard (192002) | more than 9 years ago | (#13291313)

Running a web site isn't considered distribution by copyright either, and that's what really matters here.
Doesn't it? So I can type in the text to a book and put it up on a website and that's not a breach of copyright?

Re:What's missing from GPL2? (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 9 years ago | (#13291030)

Thank god Apache isn't GPL then.

WTF is wrong with using software that's distributed freely, spending your own time updating, then using it without redistributing it? If GPLv3 forbids that then it'll be going *way* beyond copyright law and even proprietary licenses.

Re:What's missing from GPL2? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13291232)

Some would argue that allowing the world at large to use the changed code, via the web or some other form of remote code execution, without distributing the changes violates the spirit (but not the letter) of GPLv2.

Re:What's missing from GPL2? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13290517)

The current "problem" with the GPL is that it's very polarized, either all the code in a given application/device is open or it is closed. For better or worse, this is causing a lot of reinventing of the wheel (or just going for different licenses, eg BSD) by companies that don't want to show their core algorithms to their competitors just because they want to use some existing code to do non-core functionality (eg imagine if zlib was GPL instead of BSD. PNG and HTTP/1.1 on the fly compression would be supported by maybe two manufacturers).

Re:What's missing from GPL2? (1)

lakerdonald (825553) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290568)

I think that the GPL should just be done away with -- I'm all for the idea of open source, but I also think that if one had true "freedom" like RMS is constantly bitching about, one would have the freedom to release something GPL'd under a different, proprietary license.

Re:What's missing from GPL2? (1)

turbidostato (878842) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290711)

"one would have the freedom to release something GPL'd under a different, proprietary license."

For this to be able to be done, you should have the "freedom" about breaking the laws, since GPL doesn't allow you to do that. After all, hey! what kind of freedom you can have if you still have to stand by the laws?

Now, you can do what you want under the BSD license. Use BSD code all you want and develop as much BSD code as you fell OK with.

Others don't think BSD-like licenses is not the way to achieve freedom, so they pursue it by other means, i.e. the GPL license.

Re:What's missing from GPL2? (1)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290725)

The "one true 'freedom'" that RMS constantly bitches about is the freedom to release software under the GPL. In his perfect world there would ONLY be GPL software. It's not freedom that he wants, it's conformity to his ideal.

Re:What's missing from GPL2? (1)

lakerdonald (825553) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290732)

That's what I meant to say...just a bit less eloquently.

Re:What's missing from GPL2? (1)

LordoftheWoods (831099) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290734)

Eh? Ever read anything he (Stallman) has ever written? Teh freedom he's talking about it not just that of the _user_ but also of the _author(s)_. So basically it gives the author the same rights it gives you: you get to use the author's code and the author gets to use yours. This reciprocity is touted as more free than just *freedom means I can do anything I darn well please* (the "It's a free country" idgits also have this narrow view of freedom).

Re:What's missing from GPL2? (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290848)

You're right that the GPL isn't entirely "free" in the "can do what the heck you want with it" sense. That would be more like the BSD license; or taken to its logical conclusion, releasing your software as "public domain".

Personally, I think that if people want to release their work under a BSD (or weaker) license, that's their choice. I just don't want to hear anyone bitch about it when such freely-available software gets incorporated into a proprietary product, and the company gives nothing back.

It depends what you expect in return for the work you put into writing software; some consider getting their good-quality software used as widely as possible (for whatever motive) the most important thing (a la BSD). Me? I'm not opposed to proprietary software, but I wouldn't consider it acceptable that someone tied up work that I'd released (possibly) for no-cost redistribution and re-use, and incorporated it into a proprietary product- and then gave nothing back in any shape or form.

Personally, I'm *guessing* (no more) that ESR's views on the GPL's 'obselescence' somewhat reflect his "liberatarian" politics, anticipating that left to do their own thing, companies will somehow contribute back. I don't buy this; they don't have to, so they won't.

You're right; the GPL isn't "free"; it does, however, support the *preservation* of the *same level of freedom* that came with it in the first place. Contrast with BSD/public domain, which is more "free", but does nothing to *preserve* its freedom.

Re:What's missing from GPL2? (1)

Marc Rochkind (775756) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290979)

Actually, with the BSD license you do get something back: Credit for the original work. This coupled with the greater likelihood that the software will be used in heavily-marketed proprietary products is sometimes exactly what authors want. For them, the BSD license is a good match.

For example, I released the source code for my book, Advanced UNIX Programming, under the BSD license, and what I wanted in return (other than more happy people in the world) was publicity for the book. I still get improvements and bug fixes emailed to me by helpful readers.

Re:What's missing from GPL2? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13291238)

Yeah, I'd really like to make lots of money illegally too, but unfortunately it's not as easy as that. Don't like the GPL? Write your own damn code.

Re:What's missing from GPL2? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13291269)

The freedom to deny others freedom clearly isn't in the spirit of the GPL. No one is making you use GPLed software, and you are of course free to write your own with any license you choose.


IMHO, People who want to make incremental improvements on the work of others and make it proprietary can go fuck themselves.

Re:What's missing from GPL2? (5, Informative)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290575)

Patents.

Right now GPLv2 pays lipservice to patents but doesn't really have strong sanctions against companies who use them to quash free software. The provisions it has are weak and arguably unenforceable if the company distributing GPL'd software suddenly decides to cease.

Nokia, for example, may be able to get away with deciding to end its distribution of GNU/Linux, then suing anyone who's made a derivative version that violates a patent of their's in a way that versions they shipped didn't. Indeed, it's quite possible that a third party entering new code that infringes upon a Nokia patent, even today, could be stopped by Nokia.

(If anyone thinks I'm being unfair to Nokia, yes, unless they actually do this, then I am being, but at the same time they put out a very, very, guarded comment a few months ago that quite obviously left these scenarios open.)

What many people want to see is companies that use patents against free software unable to use a large body of free software from there on. That means a solution to the above issue, but also to, say, discourage suing in general by ensuring that if a company chooses to deny the use of a patented technology to one free software project, it chooses to deny itself the use of any. So if IBM sues to get a technology out of, let's say, Apache, it can't turn around and continue to distribute a (theoretically GPLv3'd) Linux kernel.

Software patents were not a serious problem when the first two GPLs were drafted, though I believe they existed by the time the second version was created. They are now, and they pose a serious threat to free software.

Re:What's missing from GPL2? (1)

lakerdonald (825553) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290630)

I subscribe to the too-many-licenses yields too-many-forks crowd, and I just potentially see a bunch of XFree/Xorg situations on the horizon.

Tell me something... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13290923)

If money collecting public service organizations are tax exempt, shouldn't free software producing public service organizations be patent exempt?

Re:What's missing from GPL2? (0, Flamebait)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290712)

What could possibly be so important that we need another GPL?

It's still possible to make money from GPLed software. Ergo, RMS's job is not done.

Re:What's missing from GPL2? (1)

thephotoman (791574) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290775)

RMS doesn't want to forbid the distrobution of GPLed software for money. In fact, he's even said that it's okay to distribute for profit.

He just said that you need to include the source when you ship the binary copy. If he'd wanted everything to be free as in beer as well as free as in freedom, he would have written that into the license.

Re:What's missing from GPL2? (1)

kz45 (175825) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290931)

He just said that you need to include the source when you ship the binary copy. If he'd wanted everything to be free as in beer as well as free as in freedom, he would have written that into the license.

This means that the end-user can compile it and legally pass it around to anyone they want promptly destroying any hope of the orignal company turning a profit.

If you charge money for your software and release it under the GNU license, you are forced you to compete with a free version of your software (why would someone pay for something that they can get for free..from you (and im talking about an exact copy). Small software companies have trouble making a profit as it is.

The only way I can see free software benefiting companies is the fact that it's free (as in beer), which is exactly what the original poster was talking about.

Re:What's missing from GPL2? (1)

lakerdonald (825553) | more than 9 years ago | (#13291010)

Well put. And you did it without being flagged a troll ;)

Re:What's missing from GPL2? (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 9 years ago | (#13291055)

I dunno.. Redhat seem to have no problems with this.

In the real world most end users don't give a crap if the source is available.. they're not programmers. They want support (which the likes of IBM/Redhat give them) and they're prepared to pay to get it.

Re:What's missing from GPL2? (1)

kz45 (175825) | more than 9 years ago | (#13291283)

I dunno.. Redhat seem to have no problems with this.

In the real world most end users don't give a crap if the source is available.. they're not programmers. They want support (which the likes of IBM/Redhat give them) and they're prepared to pay to get it.


redhat makes money off of the backs of hard working free software developers. They are basically a support company that just happens to support OSS.

Re:What's missing from GPL2? (1)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 9 years ago | (#13291277)

I was (half-)joking with my original post, however:

RMS doesn't want to forbid the distrobution of GPLed software for money. In fact, he's even said that it's okay to distribute for profit.

OTOH, the GPL is designed in such a way as to make distributing (GPLed) software for profit practically impossible (without it being legally tied to/bundled with some other product or service).

He just said that you need to include the source when you ship the binary copy.

*AND* that anyone you distribute it to must also be able to redistribute it. This is a rather important additional condition (because it's the one that creates the "practically impossible" aspect of "selling GPLed software").

If he'd wanted everything to be free as in beer as well as free as in freedom, he would have written that into the license.

Uh, you don't exactly make an intention like "I want to make selling software impossible" /obvious/ if you want anyone outside of a small group of hardcore idealists to be interested in it.

RMS's philosophy is that software should be "free as in my definition of freedom". That definition of "freedom" just happens to include making selling software practically impossible.

Version conflicts? (4, Interesting)

Ossifer (703813) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290492)

Being that 99 44/100% of all GPL'd software originally came out under the current GPL, will there be any version conflicts with currently licensed software? I.e. if the newer license is *less* restrictive on some point, can existing software licensing be "upgraded" to the new license without have to obtain the acceptance of every single contributor?

P.S. This is a real question, not a flamebait or troll...

Re:Version conflicts? (2, Insightful)

sconeu (64226) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290521)

Generally, if you look at license files, they say V2 of GPL *or later*.

The Linux kernel is a notable exception to this.

Re:Version conflicts? (2, Insightful)

Ossifer (703813) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290537)

So they have an implicit acceptance of whatever might go into to version n years from now?

Like "permission to use the author's power tools on odd weekends"? ;-)

Re:Version conflicts? (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290780)

So they have an implicit acceptance of whatever might go into to version n years from now? Like "permission to use the author's power tools on odd weekends"? ;-)

This is why I don't quite get the "or later" clause. Sure it adds flexibility, but it basically trusts that the FSF won't do anything you're significantly unhappy with in future versions of the license.

Tying it down to one version, and saying that a later version of the GPL can be applied *provided the original author agrees* might work, but it runs into problems when the the program (or the most common version) has more than one author, as might happen if it is modified by several people. What happens then? Do they require permission to "upgrade the license" on their code? Do they leave the original author with the choice over what license to apply to their modifications/expansions (which, if you're not the original author, takes us back to the first problem)?

Re:Version conflicts? (1)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290675)

"v2 or later" is *NOT* trivially convertable to "v3 or later." You either need all authors to agree to it, or you need to fork off the project and then convince all authors to work on the new fork.

The only practical benefit the clause provides is that a future v3 developer can incorporate v2 (but not v1) code. It's so that future versions can be backward compatiblity, not that past versions can be forward compatible.

Re:Version conflicts? (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290729)

You either need all authors to agree to it, or you need to fork off the project and then convince all authors to work on the new fork.
These two statements are identical.

Re:Version conflicts? (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 9 years ago | (#13291003)

The two statements conflict:

You either need all authors to agree to it...

a future v3 developer can incorporate v2 (but not v1) code

Either the 'or later' clause allows code to be 'promoted' to v3, or it doesn't. If it doesn't then a v3 author cannot include v2 code without the permission of the original author.

Re:Version conflicts? (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290996)

...as is anyone who's got any sense. Until I've seen the v3 GPL I will *not* agree to any of my code being licensed to it.

Too many stories of the FSF taking license fees, etc.. they may not come to pass but there's no damned way I'm agreeing to it blind.

Re:Version conflicts? (1)

zsau (266209) | more than 9 years ago | (#13291297)

Linux version 2.2, at least, didn't specify the GPL version, so that you can use any (including GPL v1). This presumably carries through; it's only 2.4-and-later additions that are difficult. Of course, 2.4-and-later additions are incredibly important to desktop users, so...

Re:Version conflicts? (1)

darthgnu (866920) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290550)

I think that current copyright law would not permit just switching over the liscence without contacting every contributor, since that would probably be a violation. But then again, im not a lawyer :)

This is old news (4, Interesting)

darthgnu (866920) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290505)

Sorry for sounding pedantic, but he announced this at the FSF associate members meeting March 26th. I'm surprised nobody came out with this info earlier.

blah blah blah 7 point blah blah oh blah blah (1)

master_meio (834537) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290507)

Who cares? It's not as if the GPL is legally binding.

Re:blah blah blah 7 point blah blah oh blah blah (1)

queef_latina (847562) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290525)

linux == faggot

linux users are faggots

you are a faggot

Clarification (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13290519)

I was in Eben's talk. The following sentence from the summary is a but unclear:

lower barriers that today prevent the mixing of software covered by the GPL and other licenses.

What RMS means by this is compatibility with other Free software licenses (such as hopefully the Apache license), rather than compromise with proprietary software.

important (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13290522)

finger
This filthy piece of software is perpetuated over the net by the FSF under the guise of being able to "finger" any server and gathering info on a specific user. Its real purpose, however, is far sicker. "Finger" refers to the act of inserting a finger or two into an anus and fetching feces to ingest or smear all over your gay lover. The devious metaphor of "information retrieval" broken!
goose
A goose is when a gay male (usually a Linux user) attempts to insert his index finger into another male's anus through his trousers, usually done without the victim's prior consent. This program obviously promotes forcing homosexual fun on unsuspecting straight men in hopes of converting them to homosexuality and Linux use.
help2man
There's no questioning the faggot nature behind this program. After scrutinizing the source code, I found that subliminal messages are printed to the screen and subsequently cleared every 60 microseconds that induce extreme homoerotic imagery in the victim / user. Though GNU documentation states this is a tool for generating manual pages, it's really obviously a tool to initiate gay thought and cocklust in not-yet-gay Linux users.
mailman
"A software to help manage email discussion lists," says the FSF site. More like "software to help manage homosexual discussion lists" is more like it! After looking through its source code, I found that versions .001 through .94 were actually called maleman, the namechange in version .95 made to enable easier distribution of this package-- the original name sounded too gay for the masses, and the FSF knew it! Unless the topic of the mail thread being managed has something to do with depraved homosexual activity, the chances of losing data increase some 50%, thereby promoting homosexual discussion of cocks, rimjobs, and such. This is accomplished by means of a strcompare() and a hash table.
make
Let's look at the FSF's "innocent" description of this universal utility:
"automatically determines which pieces of a large program need to be recompiled, and issues commands to recompile them"
It's easy to see the gay meaning behind this. "Pieces of a large program" refers to an erect male penis, while "need to be recompiled" is symbolic of "needs to be buried deep within a male colon." Issuing commands is simple enough. Who hasn't seen a gay porno where some hairless, lusty-eyed twink is getting his ass torn apart by black nigger dick while screaming "FUCK ME FUCK ME OOOOOOOOOOOOOH GODDDDDDDDD FUCK ME!?"
midnight commander
Oh my God!!! How blatant can the FSF get? Midnight Commander is described as "a user friendly and colorful Unix file manager and shell, useful to novice and guru alike." Hello! Can this refer to anyone else but Commander Taco, editor in chief of Slashdot.org??? No one else is as willing as he to be "useful to novice and guru alike." Rob Malda is known to go down on a variety of Linux users, whether they are newbies or gurus, young or old, kike, nigger, white or spic (hence him being a "colorful" UNIX manager). Needless to say, running this program grabs all of your personal information and emails it to Rob Malda, who then builds a "client list" and visits you when you least expect it.
patch
The FSF fags thought they could get clever with this one. Not while I'm around! Patch is distributed under the guise of a software updating utility. Ha! Patch refers to a common tactic used by gays for spontaneous sex: cuts are made in the anus-cock area of tight jeans, which allows a piece of masking tape to keep this "patch" shut when the genitals and ass-cunt are not in use (i.e., rarely). Again, as in other GNU programs, the user is submitted to subliminal flashes of instructions on how to create such a patch for gay fun.
sauce
Disgusting! Sauce is how faggots and shitfreaks refer to the post-coital discharge issued from the anus after a marathon asspounding. It is a sickening combination of semen, blood, and feces. It may also include anything else the fags thought was cool to put up their asses as well!
shtool
One consonant away from stool, otherwise known as shit or feces. It's a "a portable shell tool for use inside source trees of free software packages." Hmm... Let's think about this one. Portable shell tool for use inside source trees of free software packages... Could they be referring to some mechanical device inserted inside of one another's anuses!? Source tree is obviously homo- / GNU-slang for assholes. Free software packages, therefore, is faggotspeak for "gay anuses." RMS's propoganda would have us believe being "free" means being GAY. I'd avoid this piece of software if I were you.

The fork issue (1)

rewt66 (738525) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290539)

Isn't most of the Linux kernel licensed under GPL 2 only? Doesn't that mean that, no, it can't fork, new license or not?

I mean, to fork it (to use GPL 3), you'd have to (for each file) find everybody who has ever made changes to that file (unless the changes have since been replaced) and get their permission to license that under GPL 3. If they refuse, you have to re-write the section that their changes are in (or the whole file). This doesn't seem realistic...

Re:The fork issue (1)

mfago (514801) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290826)

Does the Kernel require copyright assignments like GCC? I'd think this could allow the assignee to change the license etc. Not sure this is the case though: GCC development appears (IMHO) to be much more structured than the Kernel -- for better or worse.

Re:The fork issue (1)

andymadigan (792996) | more than 9 years ago | (#13291017)

Most programs are licensed under the GPL v2 or later. So long as those future versions of the license are released by the FSF.

Re:The fork issue (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 9 years ago | (#13291104)

...which has no bearing on the grandparent's post, which is about the Linux kernel.

The Linux kernel only makes most of itit available under v2 of the license:
Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.


COPYING from linux-2-6-12-13.tar

Does it really make a difference? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290564)

If the code is open, many people will use it as they feel fit.

Sure, there will be suits and accusations, but business will continue as usual.. I really dont see some 'magical version 3' changing anything around here.

And no, its not a troll to start a arguement on the validity of GPL/BSD/ETC, ( which i wont particpate in any longer anyway ) just a statement about the current state of 'code reuse' in the world.

What the hell is taking so long (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13290567)

Honestly. it is a short document.

yes it needs to be checked by lawyers etc. but what in gods name is making it take a couple of years to finish

Re:What the hell is taking so long (2, Insightful)

rewt66 (738525) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290616)

Ever hear of "the law of unintended consequences"?

They're trying to not mess up all the ways that GPLed code is used. That's not easy, because it's used a lot of different ways. And, they are trying to build a license that will not fail when subjected to the next ten years' worth of (currently) unknown attacks. (Look at how GPL 2 stood up under SCO's attack, and you'll see what I mean.)

This isn't just "slap together a license, and we'll fix it next week if we don't get it right the first time". Since some some projects don't use the "or any later version" clause, some code will probably be licensed under GPL 3 forever. And seeing from here to forever is hard, even on a clear day...

Re:What the hell is taking so long (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 9 years ago | (#13291122)

The problem isn't making the document say what you want it to say.

The problem is figuring out what you want it to say.

Just thought I would Pop IN...... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13290572)

http://www.uncoverip.com/ [uncoverip.com]

Show me the code (4, Funny)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290579)

Am I the only one who's tired of hearing that GPL v3 is coming real soon now? What's the use in talking about it if there are no drafts to discuss?

(Obligatory: I wonder if Duke Nukem Forever for the Phantom console will be licensed under GPL v3...)

I bet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13290603)

It won't be half as good as GPL 2. ESR has sold out. I predict a jar jar binks clause or something.

Did you say 2007? (0, Troll)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290606)

That would mean that the new GPL will be out just in time for Richard Stallman's next bath!

Re:Did you say 2007? (1)

MrCopilot (871878) | more than 9 years ago | (#13291092)

Are you implying RMS is one of the aforementioned long haired smelly's? I think, if that is what you mean, He may feel a bit of pride just now.

http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=158566&t hreshold=1&commentsort=0&tid=88&mode=thread&cid=13 283304 [slashdot.org]

I cut my hair, but parts of me are occasionally smelly, despite the frequency of bathing.

Reasonable people... (2, Insightful)

sploxx (622853) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290617)

This all sounds very reasonable and careful. Why are the FSF people -esp. RMS- portrayed as being zealots here on /.?
Of course they have an agenda. They may be (described as) somewhat fundamentalistic. But it seems that they are still arguing in very reasonable ways.

Re:Reasonable people... (1)

darthgnu (866920) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290764)

Well, I have seen a lot of bad reactions from an audience at one of his speeches when he started arguing with Lawrence Lessig, people do not seem to be very keen of Richard, he has a somewhat strong personality, which anybody in his position would have. When he disagrees about something, you _will_ know about it before even finishing your sentence.

Re:Reasonable people... (0, Offtopic)

LordoftheWoods (831099) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290869)

It seems you have not been initiated.

To integrate you into slashdot we will:
* numb your mind with repeated jokes such as the classic "In Soviet Russia.."
* verbally attack your opinions until your sanity breaks
* mod down your posts so that nobody else can see them and you no longer see the point in posting
* accuse you of being a zealot and proceed to ignore your opinions

If you want to fit it, then think less! And make more jokes.. especially the really redundant ones. Users who are neither funny nor narrow-minded or idiotic are misfits here; This is slashdot!!

Since you still are not broken in:
In Soviet Russia, code licenses YOU!

I've said it before... (5, Interesting)

Nuclear Elephant (700938) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290624)

All I want is the ability to declare public and private interfaces for GPL products, where public interfaces can be used with any type of license and private interfaces are off-limits unless you're a GPL project.

Uh, why can't you have that now? (4, Informative)

mcc (14761) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290724)

All you have to do is distribute your program under the GPL, and provide a file saying "you are granted the rights to redistribute under the GPL, however you also are granted the right to link against this program and redistribute freely so long as you do so only via the interfaces declared in public_interface.h."

It is as simple as that. The Linux Kernel, as it happens, does almost exactly this.

Another option is that you could put some parts of your program (the "private" parts) under the GPL and other parts (the "public" parts) under the LGPL. I have seen programs that did exactly this.

The GPL does not restrict rights. It only grants them. As the copyright holder, you are of course free to grant as many other rights as you want in addition to the GPL rights. Of course, you can't speak for any other copyright holders that may have provided material in the program...

Re:Uh, why can't you have that now? (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 9 years ago | (#13291013)

You can't put some of a program under GPL and some under LGPL. GPL trumps LGPL, making the LGPL parts irrelevant.

Re:Uh, why can't you have that now? (4, Informative)

mcc (14761) | more than 9 years ago | (#13291131)

Sure you can.

If there's GPL and LGPL code mixed in a program, then the program as a whole is licensed under the GPL.

However, the LGPLed parts are still just as LGPLed as they were before. The LGPL parts may then be detached and used in anything else you like. An example of this in action would be the KDE web browser Konqueror. Konqueror is under the GPL. However, portions of it (specifically the KHTML web rendering component) are licensed under the LGPL. You can't take Konqueror (or anything built using any of the GPL-licensed files in Konqueror) and distribute it without obeying the GPL. However, you can take KHTML-- which is an extremely useful piece of software-- build a new web browser around it, and resell it completely free of GPL obligations. Several commercial groups, such as Apple Computer, have done exactly this.

This obviously only works under some circumstances (for example, when the LGPLed component is something which can be detached and still be useful), but under some circumstances this is exactly what you want. I considered it worthy of mention because the toplevel post seemed to me to be very vague about exactly what it was he wanted.

Re:Uh, why can't you have that now? (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 9 years ago | (#13291155)

You can if you own the copyright to the part you want to put under LGPL.

Look at it like this. We'll used the BSD license because the differences are more drastic.

I can release my program under the GPL license or the BSD license. I can also put links to two different downloads of the same code, one of which has a COPYING that's the GPL and one that's BSD. Do you agree so far?

I can also distribute just the GPL version, and say "this is dual licensed under the GPL and BSD."

This is how there's BSD code in the Linux kernel. (Okay, I don't know for sure there is, but I'd bet good money there's some there whether it's marked as such or not.)

What the OP is saying is that you can license part of the program under GPL only, than dual license the public part under GPL and BSD. (Or LGPL)

Re:I've said it before... (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290751)

Yeah, but have you said it before to the people writing the new version? I think you should, since it strikes me as a good idea.

Also, you know you can write such a clause into your own projects (i.e. ones you own the copyright of), right? You may not want to because then it'll be "almost GPL" instead of GPL, but the option is there.

Re:I've said it before... (0, Troll)

eraserewind (446891) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290776)

If you release the source code, then all your interfaces are public.

Re:I've said it before... (1)

LordoftheWoods (831099) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290904)

non-programmer?

'public' from a software engineering perspective means that it designed to be used by client code and that it (hopefully) has a stable client interface, not that people know its semantics.

The only reasonable thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13290657)

The only reasonable thing they could possibly add to this is something to fix the silly squabble between the GPL and the Apache licenses. Everything else is just plain a bad idea. In particular this patent stuff is going to cause a problem. Telling the legal department "okay, we can sell this, but under the license any modifications we make to it we have to give away" is one thing. Tell the legal department that you need to grant an eternal and transferrable license to the entire world for any or all of your patents and the response will be "WHAT?"

GPL3 is coming... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13290844)

...bend over.

GPLv3 - the death knell of corporate F/OSS use (1)

Sarojin (446404) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290845)

Most of the corporate users of Linux and other F/OSS software use it as a remote (web, AJAX) service backend. With them being forced to reveal their source even though they don't distribute binaries, the free advantage may be lost.

Hah! (0, Redundant)

kwatz (727726) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290853)

Noobs! I already have the beta!

GPL v3 Coming Out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13290878)

Told you the GPL was gay.

Kind regards
Bill Gates

Fonts (3, Interesting)

proxima (165692) | more than 9 years ago | (#13290916)

With luck, the GPL v3 will clear up the issue of fonts [fsf.org] . The issue has been discussed on Slashdot before [slashdot.org] .Namely, that if I use a GPL font in a document, and subsequently embed that font through a document format (OO's sxw or OpenDocument, pdf, ps, etc), it's unclear as to whether I have the legal ability to do so without declaring the document itself GPL (which isn't really a document license). People sometimes (apparently mistakenly, but IANAL) say that it would force your document to be GPLed, but that's really not the case. You can't be automatically forced to license your work as anything, but you can be guilty of copyright infringement. The issue does also apparently not extend to printed documents and such, since the font itself cannot be copyrighted, only the code (postscript, etc) that generates the font can be.

It's unfortunate that such vagueness persists with the GPL, but it seems to be a trend with copyright issues in general (fair use being the most visible).

Looks like we have a real horse race here (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 9 years ago | (#13291054)

Who's gonna win?
1)Vista
2)GPL v3
3)SCO

Damn, I thought this was about... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13291112)

...the great period simulation Grand Prix Legends. [wikipedia.org] Considering GPL2 was never made, I should have known better.

Damn.

2007? Who's writing it, Microsoft? (0, Redundant)

ReadParse (38517) | more than 9 years ago | (#13291231)

That's the joke folks, nothing more to see. Moderate away :)

RP

v3 is coming out?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13291302)

Crap, and I just finished downloading v2 :(

Ha! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13291380)

Windows Vista will be out sooner!

But seriously, people. Who gives a rat's behind? GNU people need to decide whether they want their software to be free to use and improve upon or whether they want to be control freaks over who's using it for what.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?