NYLUG Technical Discussion <nylug-talk@nylug.org>
Eric Moore <eemoore@fyndo.com>
Mon, 09 Jan 2006 15:34:49 -0500
Re: [nylug-talk] Puzzled about reactions to GPL 3.0
Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux)
NYLUG Technical Discussion <nylug-talk.nylug.org>
NYLUG Technical Discussion <nylug-talk@nylug.org>
<92F4F49152E28B45B80BD95EB6F1F539787187@enyc11p32003.corpny.csfb.com>
(David Rosenstrauch's message of "Mon, 9 Jan 2006 12:15:13 -0500")
<m3y81pi1hy.fsf@eemoore.bcluster.njit.edu>
<92F4F49152E28B45B80BD95EB6F1F539787187@enyc11p32003.corpny.csfb.com>
"Rosenstrauch, David" <david.rosenstrauch@csfb.com> writes:
> OK, maybe there's something I'm missing or misunderstanding here,
> but I can't understand why a sizable percentage of the open source
> community isn't more up-in-arms about the upcoming changes in the
> GPL 3.0. IIRC, GPL 3.0 will, among other things, close a "loophole"
> where someone who's using and modifying an open source product
> internally but not releasing it would now be forced to release their
> internal enhancements.
>
> As there are a significant number of major software companies and
> web-based service operators that do this extensively (e.g., Google)
> I would think that people would be very up in arms about this
> change, since it would threaten to expose some of their trade
> secrets.
>
> Can anyone correct any misconceptions I've got here and/or clarify
> why people aren't or shouldn't be more alarmed about this?
Well, the actual draft isn't released yet, so I'm going on what I
remember from (much) earlier discussions/drafts, but ISTR that it
would only prevent people from modifying programs that have some kind
of quine-like functionality to remove that functionality. So if you
create a web-mail service, and incorporate a feature that lets the
user d/l the source, then google can't use your program to run gmail
if they're not willing to leave that feature in.
But in any case, it seems to be mostly a (silly, unsibstantiated)
rumor, at least that's what Eben Moglen says (and you'd think he'd
know):
I'll probably need a whole category for these as the process of
updating the GPL begins to gather steam. It began with an article in
internetnews.com reporting a conversation with Mike Olson of
Sleepycat Software. Mike told internetnews.com that the Free
Software Foundation was still thinking about the problem posed when
someone modifies GPL'd web services software and goes into
business providing competing services using the modified software,
but without releasing the modifications to the community. Mike was
right; that's an issue FSF expects to address in GPLv3. Richard
Stallman and I have both talked about it publicly.
But internetnews.com understood Mike to be saying that GPLv3 might
somehow apply in a new way to the modifications made by companies
that customize GPL'd software for their own use but never
distribute to anybody else. This was confusing enough, and plainly
wrong. We wouldn't do that. But then someone went even further
and posted to Slashdot suggesting that a future GPL might require
users of free software, such as Amazon or Google, to pay fees simply
for using GPL'd code.
Some Slashdot readers thought this last contribution was FUD or
intentional flamebait. I hope it was just a silly but innocent
error. Either way, the rumor was nonsense by itself, and I
wouldn't normally write in response to a nonsensical rumor. But
the occasion gives me a chance to say something about reading GPLv3
news in general.
All future versions of the GPL will fully protect the freedoms that
the Free Software Foundation defined decades ago, and which we
believe all software users everywhere should be guaranteed. Freedom
zero, the freedom to use software, is infringed if you are required
to pay fees or make promises in order to use software, anywhere,
anytime. FSF will never publish a license that violates freedom
zero. Similarly, freedom two, the freedom to modify a program, and
freedom three, the freedom to share, are violated if private
modification is prohibited or sharing is required rather than
permitted. You can always modify free software for your own use, and
decide whether to share it with other people. If you share with
others, the GPL says now and always will say that you have to give
them the same freedoms you were given by others who contributed to
the code you are using, modifying and redistributing.
FSF has promised the free software community generally, and the
contributors to FSF-sponsored software projects in particular, that
future versions of the GPL will conserve the spirit of the original
license and protect the freedoms for which FSF stands. If you read a
report claiming that FSF is considering license terms incompatible
with the fundamental freedoms laid out in the preamble to the
current GPL, you know it isn't so.
(his comments from his blog, at http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/blog)
Personally I (and I suspect most of us) am pretty skeptical as to how
often people really need to keep their modifications secret, so
I can't get *that* upset anyway :)
--
Eric
_____________________________________________________________________________
Hire expert Linux talent by posting jobs here :: http://jobs.nylug.org
The nylug-talk mailing list is at nylug-talk@nylug.org
The list archive is at http://nylug.org/pipermail/nylug-talk
To subscribe or unsubscribe: http://nylug.org/mailman/listinfo/nylug-talk