Slashdot Log In
Seminar On Details Of The GPL And Related Licenses
Posted by
timothy
on Fri Jul 18, 2003 04:02 PM
from the share-and-share-alike dept.
from the share-and-share-alike dept.
bkuhn writes "Given the recent confusion about LGPL on slashdot, and the concern it
raised for those convincing corporate legal departments to adopt to Free
Software, perhaps your readers might be interested in FSF's legal seminar on
the GPL and related licenses. The first one is in Silicon Valley, and
if it is successful, we hope to hold others in the next 8 months in New
York City and Tokyo." Since the FSF and the GNU project have long created and fought for software that's shareable, Free, and Not UNIX, what's taught at these seminars will probably differ sharply from what you can hear at next Monday's SCO conference call on the "IBM lawsuit, UNIX Ownership and Copyrights."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Never could understand (Score:5, Interesting)
Could someone here tell me what's so hard to grasp about the GPL? or LGPL? Not trolling, just wondering. Maybe its just completely different world views or something. *shrugs*
Java (Score:5, Informative)
Did you miss the Java thing over the last few days? The assumption was that when developing java stuff, you could link to something that's LGPL'd without *GPL'ing your project. But the linking timeline is pretty convoluted, and it resulted in some people getting a bit of a surprise when they discovered the projects they're working on would be *GPL'd, which they had thought not the case.
So some clarification is a good thing.
Parent
*L*GPL (Score:2)
I think the issue here is more the LGPL. The GPL itself is pretty clear, as you mention. But the LGPL is less so. So I can use and LGPL library with my project, and it doesn't GPL my project. Unless it's early-linking. Or is it late-linki
Re:*L*GPL (Score:3, Informative)
In a nutshell: If you distribute a program that uses a LGPL library, you must provide a way for a user to use your program with the LGPL library.
-If the LGPL library is dynamically linked, the user can do this automatically.
-If the LGPL library is statically linked, you must provide object files so that the program can be re-linked by the user.
-If you're using Java with a LGPL library, you have to provide
Re:Never could understand (Score:2)
Re:Never could understand (Score:5, Interesting)
Remember the KDE fiasco? The situation was hunky dory, until Redhat came along and issued a white paper saying that KDE was illegal. Then Debian got in on the act, and before you knew it, there was this completely new interpretation of the GPL coming from the FSF. Do you really think that none of the KDE developers read the license? Of course they did!
Then there was the Corel LinuxOS fiasco. They had a "private" beta, and everyone jumped all over them. Do you really think that none of the lawyers at Corel bothered to read the license?
And consider the latest fiasco with Java and the LGPL. People have been using the LGPL with Java for years. Not once did anyone every complain. Then suddenly someone at the FSF offered up a contrary opinion, and all hell broke loose.
Notice I used the word "fiasco" with all of the above examples. That's because the GPL is a complicated and hard to understand document, yet everyone thinks they know what it means. The LGPL is even worse, because everyone thinks it's simpler, when in fact it's more complicated.
Parent
Re:Never could understand (Score:5, Insightful)
a) The references to derivative works - what exactly is a derivative work? How can you tell?
b) The meaning of redistribution.
The whole Java/LGPL thing was a storm in a teacup caused by people who didn't understand the wording or the spirit of the license.
I sometimes wonder if it's due to the nature of the people involved. Programming is sometimes an sexact and inflexible science - literality is important. The law on the other hand is anything but those things.
So, for instance, I've seen people wrangle and argue over exactly what is and isn't linking, without realising that this is beside the point - the LGPL is very clear that if you use the code in your program, the user should be able to drop in a replacement they compiled themselves - otherwise, what is the point of having the source (for the user) if they are powerless to use it to improve their own apps? In standard C or C++ apps, static linking prevents the user from doing that, so you can't do it (or rather, you must offer a version that uses dynamic linkage). In Java, all linkage is dynamic, so as long as the user can drop in a new jarfile, or set of classes, you're set. In Python etc, you're almost always compliant even if you embed the code direct into the source files, because the user can still go in an edit those parts. At least, that's *my* interpretation.
Likewise, I've seen people say you can't link GPLd code with anything other than a GPLd program - also rubbish. Any GPL compatible license will do.
Basically people forget that licenses are agreements between the author of the code, and themselves. The author expresses their wishes for how the code can be used, and you must abide by those wishes. The GPL/LGPL/BSD and so on are just useful boilerplates to save people reinventing the wheel. You can always ask the copyright holder to grant you a commercial license if you want to use some GPLd code - they may so no, but also they may not.
Parent
There is always a flip side (Score:2)
I support production applications that often take weeks of regression testing before a rollout. Application executables are statically linked so that if a patch is applied there is no possible way it can impact anything that has already passed QA.
No, you can't just drop in a replacement with static linking. But that's a problem you have with either your own source code and build management policies, or with the vendor that has provided you the application.
I prefer dynamic linking from a technical sta
Re:Never could understand (Score:2)
This confusion stems from the unique usage of the word "compatible" that is used by the FSF. When the FSF talks about "compatible" licenses, they mean licenses which allow the covered code to be re-licensed as GPL'd code.
Re:Never could understand (Score:2)
Well, you would have a hard time enforcing your rights if someone stole code from the same file that had the LGPL'd code in it.
Static linking can work for the GPL (Score:2)
The worst possible thing is that you must distribute .o files and instructions on how to link them.
I think it is legal to offer, for free, to relink the application with any version of the library a user submits.
However personally I think the whole LGPL is wrong here. These rules provide no benifit to the end user: any possible enhancement of the LGPL library is probably useless unless you ca
Re:Never could understand (Score:2)
Erm, Timothy?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets see, GPL, GNU not UNIX, so lets mention SCO? Where the hell is the logic, just seems like you wanted to post a link that might cause a little slashdotting to SCO's site. One might infer this as particularly malicious.
SCO has never once said anything against the GNU, in fact the GNU actually semi-support the SCO standpoint, if code was not given by the author than it violated the codes original copyright.
I do believe making this thread appaling to the commentors because of a mention to SCO is pretty tasteless and definantelly offtopic.
well... (Score:2, Funny)
ed
Re:Erm, Timothy?? (Score:2)
Making the thread appalling is what slashdot is all about.
Why SCO is not tangential (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Erm, Timothy?? (Score:2)
It is claimed by the FSF that the fact that SCO shipped the Linux kernel to their customers under the GPL means that they have given their customers, and by extension the general public, license to use everything in it under the GPL, even if some of the code was originally theirs.
Re:Erm, Timothy?? (Score:2)
What do you think would happen if SCO was found out to have violated the GPL? The kernel Linux is, after all, under GPL.
SCO has never once said anything against the GNU, ...
Of course SCO is very careful here, or they risk having a legal conflict with FSF. Perhaps SCO is hoping that by "taking care of" the Linux kernel, their litigation might be extended to GNU. After all, at GNU's Not Unix! [gnu.org] we find the following written :
Variants of the GNU operating sys
Relax - it's much better than a separate SCO story (Score:2, Interesting)
Chill out. They are probably getting flooded with submissions about the SCO conference call, which is the first "news" out of SCO since the Japan Trip (I don't think their ballyhooed July 9 conference call ever happened). But SCO announcing a Monday conference call is certainly not worth its own story, and there is no point waiting until the next Slashback. So Timothy stuck it in a mildly-related story to stop the submi
KISS (Score:3, Insightful)
The BSD license is pretty simple. And it's equally simple to rule out for-profit use of your code, if that's your beef.
The complexities of the GPL stem from its attempt to be "viral" and enforce the FSF's philosophy on other people. It's easier just to stay away from it altogether than to fuss about with all the niggling details. If you have nothing to do with GPL code, then it's easy to be sure you're not violating the license terms.
Unfortunately, this tends to cause harm to OSS in general, as many people just slap the GPL on their code because it's a popular "free" license, without really understanding or considering the consequence. And thus, it becomes easier "just to stay away from" lots of OSS code that might otherwise get used in more contexts were the license less murky -- or if another license altogether became popular.
We call it "hereditary" (Score:4, Insightful)
How can a voluntarily adopted license "force" anybody? As you say, you just have to reject the use of GPLed software if you don't like it. And remember that the GPL must only be accepted if you redistribute another's program, not just if you use it. A programmer should be aware of the terms in which the code she relies upon is licensed, right?
The whole point of the GPL is to build a community of people freely sharing code and donating it to each other. The license is tuned and tweaked to do just that, and do it really well.
If someone want to use the GPL for a different purpose (like, say, earning some money), hey, the code it's free! They can do it, but they should be very aware that the license is not intended to do that. So, it's not the FSF fault if they got it wrong, as their goals are cristal clear [gnu.org].
Parent
Re:We call it "hereditary" (Score:5, Insightful)
There are good arguments to use the GPL, even for business-minded folks who disagree with RMS's idea that all software must be free.
The GPL is quite usable for making money. Consider TrollTech, the providers of QT. Their use of the GPL/QPL combo (though the GPL alone would work just as well) got the product of a small Norwegian company known all over the world, and the fact that proprietary developers don't like the GPL means that Troll Tech can sell developer licenses at significant cost.
BSD fans who accuse GPL fans of communism have it backwards: giving work away completely for any purpose, from each according to his ability, to each according to his need, is a hallmark of the BSD license. As Russ Nelson (of OSI) has said, "When I write proprietary software I expect to get paid". By choosing the GPL instead of a non-copyleft license, the author is in a sense insisting on compensation for his work, either in the form of changes that get contributed back, or with the possibility of selling someone a license to use terms other than the GPL.
What might really harm the BSD folks is the growing practice by holders of software patents to license those patents for use in GPL code, but not in non-copylefted code. IBM is doing a lot of this: they've made some of their patents available to both the Linux kernel and GCC. I would prefer to see no patents at all, but don't see a way of letting the BSD folks use the patents without effectively giving the patent away to all. They could say, OK, BSD folks, use of the patent is OK as long as full source is provided for the whole app, but did you notice that these conditions are effectively a copyleft, like the GPL (if you use it you have to give the whole source away)?
Parent
Re:KISS (Score:2)
No matter how much we want to, we can't replace bureaucracy with common sense as long as bureaucracy is in power and some people remain unwilling to play fair.
Re:KISS (Score:3, Interesting)
No it's not. Various licenses have tried to rule out "for profit" use, but the term is so vague as to be useless. Pico was rewritten to nano so it could have a free license, for reasons like that iirc.
The problem is, where do you draw the line? IF you use the software in a charity, that gets more donations this month than they spend because of efficiencies gained from using your soft
Oops, wrong FSF... (Score:5, Funny)
That would definitely be from the Free Software Foundation and not the Free Seminar Foundation...
Re:Oops, wrong FSF... (Score:2)
Think free speech, not free beer... Wait a sec, that doesn't work here
Re:Oops, wrong FSF... (Score:5, Interesting)
If you think that is bad the FSF's Deluxe Software Distribution set costs $5000. Clearly the FSF really means it when they say that it is Free as in Freedom and not Free as in Free Beer. Cheapbytes probably sells the same package for $10 + s/h.
$500 is actually a ridiculously low price for what is offered in the seminar. Heck, the State Bar of California has approved this program for 7 hours of MCLE credit, for crying out loud.
Parent
Re:Oops, wrong FSF... (Score:2)
Microsoft Certified Law Engineer?
Oh, please (Score:4, Insightful)
Please spare us the editorial comment. In yesterday's [slashdot.org] article, Dave Turner specifically bemoaned the fact that CowboyNeal had not double-checked [slashdot.org] his facts and just went ahead and posted. The story submitter then apologized [slashdot.org] to Dave for going "sensational", which is apparently the only way to get a story through the "editors" nowadays, with the exception of anything that remotely smells of "M$" or the RIAA.
So I think an apology to the FSF (and your readers) is in order.
Will they address concerns with the GFDL? (Score:5, Interesting)
Debian [debian.org] has moved a large amount of documentation licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License [gnu.org] into the non-free section of its software archive, out of concerns [debian.org] that the GFDL is not free, at least as far as "free" is defined by the Debian Free Software Guidelines [debian.org].
One issue is essentially with the ability of authors to define "invariant sections" of their documents, the subsequent modification of which would violate the GFDL. This conflicts with the requirement of the DFSG that licensing must allow modifications, and must permit the modifications to be distributed under the same licensing terms as the original, as e.g. the GPL does.
Other people have raised the concern [debian.org] that the GFDL's restrictions on the use of "technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute" -- a restriction that, on the surface, makes sense in that it prevents attempts to limit the freedom others have to read the distributed copies -- could have the unintended consequence of forbidding putting documents covered by the GFDL on devices which are encrypted for personal security.
I'm curious whether FSF folks speaking about licenses plan to discuss this at the seminar(s).
GPL question... (Score:2)
What causes them to form this opinion? The GPL section 2 even states the following, which seems to contradict it:
Free (as in beer) (Score:2)
Regarding GPL (Score:4, Insightful)
Regarding the comment earlier about how "sensationalistic article submissions" seems to be the way to make it through the editors, I completely agree. So many story submissions are one-paragraph editorials versus simple presentation of the facts/details that it's getting downright annoying. It certainly doesn't feel like the
you are not using a proper browser (Score:2, Funny)
Re:(L)GPL advocates please read (Score:2)
The criteria for whether a license is "free software" or "open source" are identical: the Open Source Definition was originally called the Debian Free Software Guidelines. The cases where the OSI says something is an open source license and the FSF says it's a free software license are boundary cases, much like two baseball umpires might rule the same pitch a strike or a ball if it's right on the line. The OSI says the GPL and the LGPL are open source licenses, and the FSF says that the BSD license is a
Re:(L)GPL advocates please read (Score:2)
The "Free software" license is intended to build code that will always stay free, and the "Open Source" licenses that you advocate simply don't guarantee that.
Re:(L)GPL advocates please read (Score:3, Insightful)
I will agree with you that the previous poster was spouting metaphysical bullshit. But you are making the mistake of confusing freedom with privilege.
Privilege belongs to a few, freedom belongs to everyone. There is no such think as the freedom to take away the freedoms of others. You are confusing this with the privilege of taking away the freedoms (or privileges) of others. Please understand the difference.
Freed
just find us a sucker (Score:2)
Re:GPL: Is It Legal? (Score:2)
Why? So far they've gotten every single challenger to back down, without going to court.
Read all about it. [columbia.edu]. People with a strong case don't need to go to court because the other side caves. Disputes only reach court when both sides think they have a good shot at winning.
FSF vs Open TV (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the Free Software Foundation (FSF), which monitors the scene and enforces the GPL, says a Mountain View company has been violating the GPL for more than a year. The foundation calls the violations serious and is threatening a lawsuit.
The specifics of the FSF's beef with OpenTV have to do with the company's policies in sending source code to licensees of OpenTV software tools created under the GPL. According to the foundation, OpenTV has either refused to provide the code, or has attached improper conditions on providing it, to several programmers who have every right to it.
OpenTV's intellectual property lawyer, Scott Doyle, says there's been missed communications on both sides but that the company has no intention of violating any legal agreements. He says the company plans to post the code in question online.
But if the FSF is right that OpenTV is violating the GPL, and if this behavior is found to be legal by the courts, the entire free-software and open-source movements could be derailed. Agreeing to share the improvements you make in the GPL-licensed software you've used is an essential part of the larger ecosystem.
Some people I respect say the GPL is a bad idea, period. They say it's too restrictive of programmers' rights, in the sense of forcing them to open what they've done to the world. Fine: If you don't like the GPL, don't create software from code that used it in the first place. Then put different licensing terms on what you've done.
But legal agreements are supposed to matter in our system. Just because the GPL turns the idea of intellectual property somewhat around doesn't make it less valid.
Parent
Re:FSF vs Open TV (Score:2)
"the GPL turns the idea of intellectual property somewhat around" is a flawed statement, or rather, "intellectual property" is a word which doesn't well describe what you probably mean.
First of all, the term accepts the premise that products of the intellect (ideas, code etc) can be owned, which is precisely what the spirit of the GPL is against. It's true that the copyleft strategy relies on co
Re:US vs. Iraq - Software Business vs. FSF communi (Score:2)
Actually, GNU products are excellent and free-as-in-beer. They're so good they're usually invisible. When's the last time you had to work around a bug in ls, or gcc?
Re:US vs. Iraq - Software Business vs. FSF communi (Score:3, Interesting)
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
So if they go mad, and
MY GPL is v3... (Score:2)
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
You know what, I wonde
RMS shot that to hell long ago... (Score:2)
Re:RMS shot that to hell long ago... (Score:2)
Right, because the Open Sourcers are painted red on the right and black on the left, while the Free Softies are painted black on the right and red on the left.
Or is it that the Open Sourcers where purple, while the Free Softies where green?
Regardless, I think think the division of these two camps is overplayed. I can see the points o
Re:US vs. Iraq - Software Business vs. FSF communi (Score:2)
Ok, guess you are viewing it from a developer's perspective. The GPL is about giving freedom to the USER. You have the freedom as a user to inspect, repair and modify the program as you see fit. With many other licenses you may not even be able to look at the source code. (Think TCP/IP stack in Windows, it's licensed to Microsoft under BSD and then licensed again to the en
Re:What I find confusing (Score:2)
Let's take your example. You wish to link Xerces into a GPLd program. The Apache 1.1 license is incompatible with the GPL.
Firstly, let's take a look at why this is so. You can read it here [apache.org]. The FSF page says :
Re:Context for comparison (Score:2)
FreeBSD did not "turn into" MacOS X. It's still just as available as it is supposed to be, and will always be available.
I prefer having both kinds of freedom, personally, which is exactly what the BSD and other defensive opensource licen
Re:Ability to follow through legally on GPL? (Score:2)