1 |
On Thursday 19 July 2007, burlingk@×××××××××.mil wrote about 'RE: |
2 |
[gentoo-user] 2 to 3??': |
3 |
> > -----Original Message----- |
4 |
> > From: Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. [mailto:bss03@××××××××××.net] |
5 |
> > If you don't like the GPLv3, you probably didn't |
6 |
> > *really* like the GPLv2 and might be more interested |
7 |
> > in licensing anything you contribute under something |
8 |
> > like MIT/X11/BSD. |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> > Those licenses allow others to take your code, cripple |
11 |
> > it, and sell it to you (perhaps even on a device) for |
12 |
> > $100. Oh, and offer you an "upgrade" to (_the same device_ |
13 |
> > running) your original code (which still has a few bugs, you |
14 |
> > might want a support contract) for $10000. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> I can't agree with your statements here. Unless you have |
17 |
> no understanding of copyright law, you should realize that |
18 |
> YOUR code cannot be crippled regardless of the license that |
19 |
> you put it under. |
20 |
|
21 |
Not true. Say you release code into the public domain [1]. Now, evil |
22 |
corporation X takes that code, strips out some features, sign it and put |
23 |
it on a cell phone. They sell you the phone for $300 (free with 2 year |
24 |
contract) or a version with your original software on it (the exact same |
25 |
hardware) for $600 (no discount available). They pull a "TiVo" can ensure |
26 |
that you can't load modified software on it -- or you can but then the |
27 |
phone refuses to do anything put print "This phone needs service. Please |
28 |
take this phone to your local retailer for service." They don't even tell |
29 |
you it's your code -- someone in Turkey found that out and emailed you in |
30 |
broken English. ;) |
31 |
|
32 |
Your code is locked up and you can no longer upgrade it (or even use ALL of |
33 |
the features that YOU wrote) without paying $$$. |
34 |
|
35 |
Sure, you can still upgrade and release your code, but you can't run it on |
36 |
a device YOU PAID for that is ALREADY running YOUR code, UNMODIFIED. You |
37 |
also can't help other people using these phones that THEY paid for, even |
38 |
though your code runs unmodified. |
39 |
|
40 |
The GPL has always been engineered to prevent this behavior. The GPLv1 and |
41 |
GPLv2 both concentrated on the way to prevent this through copyright law. |
42 |
However, this has proven to be not enough. After bring cases to count |
43 |
(and settling because the case was so clear-cut) multiple times, it became |
44 |
fairly clear to all parties that GPLv2 was overly difficult, if not |
45 |
impossible, to be simply "attacking" with copyright law. So, entities |
46 |
that would rather not contribute, have attacked with technological and |
47 |
patent-law methods to restrict users' freedoms and the GPLv3 meets those |
48 |
attacks head on. I hope RMS and the FSF will act even more quickly |
49 |
(either with aggressive litigation or further license revisions) to future |
50 |
attacks on the freedoms that are meant to be preserved throughout the Free |
51 |
Software ecosystem. |
52 |
|
53 |
> The code that YOU write and release under an Open Source or |
54 |
> Free Software license will still be available under that |
55 |
> license even after someone else uses it in a project of their own. |
56 |
|
57 |
Yes. |
58 |
|
59 |
> If you use a license that allows for relicensing or closing |
60 |
> of the code and someone does so, then it only effects THEIR |
61 |
> Version of the code. Yours is still intact, and unharmed. |
62 |
|
63 |
With the BSD lincese and public domain, we get into case case where the |
64 |
freedom of the code depends on where you take the measurement (see above). |
65 |
RMS witnessed such things happening and preventing the free code from |
66 |
always free. Thus, he wrote the GPLv1 with the goal of making sure Free |
67 |
Software was free everywhere and to everyone. |
68 |
|
69 |
> The MIT/BSD/etc licenses have the advantage that a person |
70 |
> can if they so desire CHOOSE whether or not they wish to |
71 |
> make THEIR code and modifications available. This is a choice. |
72 |
|
73 |
They ALSO get to choose whether they give their users your code and can |
74 |
even prevent users from knowing what code they are running, especially if |
75 |
your are prolific. |
76 |
|
77 |
The GPL also covers (read: places restrictions on) derivative works, |
78 |
something that is your right as a copyright holder. BSD/MIT/X11 don't, |
79 |
and LGPL makes only minimal requirements on derivative works to ensure the |
80 |
original work remains free. |
81 |
|
82 |
> Many of us WILL release our own code even under those terms, |
83 |
> but it is a choice to do so. I am not saying that the idea |
84 |
> of GPL is wrong. Different developers have different desires |
85 |
> for their code. I am simply saying that the Open Source route |
86 |
> is just as valid as the Free Software route. |
87 |
|
88 |
But the GPL has *always* been about Free Software, not "just" Open Source. |
89 |
By accepting the terms of the GPLv2, TiVo should have been prepared to |
90 |
honor the Free Software definition and not attempt to restrict their |
91 |
users' freedoms. |
92 |
|
93 |
As a user I wish *every* piece of software I received was under the terms |
94 |
of the GPLv3. As a developer, I understand the allure of the BSD |
95 |
license -- it's great to be able to grab others' stuff with a few strings |
96 |
attached as possible. However, since I'll always end up using more code |
97 |
than I write, I prefer to release under the GPLv3. |
98 |
|
99 |
> As for selling it back to you. It is up to every person to |
100 |
> take measures to educate themselves on their purchases. |
101 |
|
102 |
I agree, but when given binaries under the GPLv2, you *should have* been |
103 |
able to use modified versions. That *was* and *is* one of the goals of |
104 |
the GPL. From the point of view of the authors of the GPL and those Free |
105 |
Software developers that took care in choosing their license, what TiVo |
106 |
did was *undesired* to say the least, and that's why we needed the GPLv3 |
107 |
to *fix* things. |
108 |
|
109 |
> As long as both hold up their part of the deal, things |
110 |
> go well. |
111 |
|
112 |
I contend that TiVo hasn't really held up there part of the deal, but if |
113 |
Eben thought the case could be won on the wording of the GPLv2, we |
114 |
probably wouldn't even have a GPLv3 right now. |
115 |
|
116 |
> Beyond that, always thinking in terms of worst case |
117 |
> scenerios may be good in war time, but otherwise it |
118 |
> will just give you ulcers. ^_^ So, like, pick your |
119 |
> favorite license, study what you buy before you buy, |
120 |
> and relax a bit. ^_^ |
121 |
|
122 |
I totally agree here. (Of course, I think the Free Software vs. |
123 |
Proprietary Software "war" is just heating up.) |
124 |
|
125 |
I'm ready to call end of thread if everyone else is. :) |
126 |
|
127 |
-- |
128 |
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. |
129 |
bss03@××××××××××.net ((_/)o o(\_)) |
130 |
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' |
131 |
http://iguanasuicide.org/ \_/ |
132 |
|
133 |
[1] BSD/X11/MIT licenses allow this behavior to, but it can be a *bit* more |
134 |
obvious in that case wince they do have to retain copyright notices. |