Eben Moglen — GPLv3 Not About MS and Novell

Linux.com's Joe Barr was recently able to sit down with Professor Eben Moglen at the San Diego Red Hat Summit and discuss the GPLv3 and what it means beyond the Microsoft/Novell deal on video. "Professor Moglen explains briefly about GPLv3's work on globalization of the software license, preventing harm to others by members of the community, and the most contentious in earlier drafts, DRM."

Nice but

[Mateo_LeFou]

I'd like someone at linux.com to explain the rationale behind publishing one brief clip per day over the course of the week, instead of just publishing the interview. I'm not saying its a horrible thing to do.. just can't figure out why.

Re:Nice but

[otomo_1001]

I am guessing the theory was that if they broke it up that more people would come back to read it. More pageviews = more ad revenue?

God I hope not, the "news" with 5 pages of 2 paragraphs each is bad enough as it is. Now if the news sources think that spacing the article out over time will help, we can pretty much kiss the usefulness of the web goodbye.

This pretty much guarantees I will not be reading anything from linux.com now.

Re:they're right

[iminplaya]

That's far too complicated. My "license" simply says, "Go nuts." I won't let anybody prohibit me from using and copying and distributing anything that contains any code that I wrote. You can't steal the sun from me...or something like that.

Re:Nice but

[alexgieg]

I think it's about time for someone to develop a "MergeNews" Firefox addon. You load an article in a known news source that suffers from multiple-page syndrome, it loads all the pages in the background, constructs a single, merged one, without the useless things of the original, presenting you the result.

Who's up to the task? ;)

Re:LOL

[marcosdumay]

The GPL is not anti-bussiness nor anti-capitalist. It is just against one kind of business, that is selling the same software again and again for huge profits at each copy. A business plan that can not be sucessfull on a free society.

Re:Opensource software sucks.

[multisync]

Go to hell, communists

I love how whenever you start talking about "freedom" with certain types of people you get called a "communist."

I know the AC is just trolling (or he's a total ass-hat), but I've actually encountered this in real life with otherwise intelligent people. You start talking about openness and choice and they feel threatened by that for some reason. I guess the only freedom they care about is their freedom to amass wealth.

Re:LOL

[beyondkaoru]

you bring up a decent view. you shouldn't be modded down or given stupid answers so i'll try to give a good one. i can definitely understand the feeling of wanting money for selling one's work.

i can try to give a rebuttal, but to do so requires primarily me giving an anti-intellectual-property speech. well, here it is. the argument here is that having a world of all free software is _more_ according to capitalist ideals than having a world that is all or mostly proprietary software. the capitalist ideal involves a lot of different things, but a large part of it is that the government should stay out of the workings of things and keep order. second, a big part of capitalism is having people invest in something then get a benefit later because they invested wisely in some corporation.

if we get rid of software (or other stuff) patents or copyrights or whatever, there will be fewer laws. this means that people are, literally, freer to do stuff. since copyright and patent involve governments stepping in and telling people not to do stuff (much like with real property), a person who desires smaller government would prefer property laws be there only for situations that disrupt the system (in other words, it primarily depends on whether you think an idea can be property).

a big thing about capitalism that separates it from the simple ideals anarchy or libertarianism is the concept of capital-- that is, one invests in a way that he wishes to see returns. this spirit would live on in a world without sofware patents and software copyright, and we already see the beginnings of it. many corporations hire people to work on open source stuff (probably the biggest example is ibm, though they're not the best example since they have a huge stake in keeping z/os and aix proprietary). basically, if someone wants some software, he and others who want software to do something would invest in some group of coders who would then produce the software. the benefit to the investors is not as obvious as investing in stocks and bonds, but it would produce the same net effect; if the investors were wise in their choice and thus the software is useful to them, they benefit.

at the same time, software or information freedom has all the benefits of communism without the downsides. if i and some friends want a program, we can code it or hire people to code it. then, if we give it away, we are not made worse off, while the world can benefit from it. communism didn't work because the efforts of a person weren't seen by that person.

basically, it's got the best elements of laissez-faire and communism. it's pretty compelling if you look at it that way. businesses that have built up on intellectual property would be harmed, and significantly so. but the practice of coding would definitely not die, or even diminish (most coding and/or computer science is done for in-house stuff, not for sale of a software product).

ok, that got kind of disorganized, but anyway, my 2 cents.

Re:LOL

[sharperguy]

No, no it is not It is against people putting restrictions on the use of software once it has been obtained. These rescrictions can include restriction to modify, redistribute, or even just use in a way other than originally intended. They are against this because they feel it directly affects the freedoms of you and me. Most people in the modern world use computers, many on a daily basis. They say that if restrictions are placed on how the computers are used, then restrictions are placed on how people live their lives.

Re:Opensource software sucks.

[Ant P.]

If freedom is a communist idea, what does that make the United States, in your opinion?

A fascist dictatorship?

Re:GPLv3 Not About MS and Novell

[kinglink]

See there's the exact problem. People think working with corporations are a bad thing and a contradiction. And that's why Linux will die. Because you can't see any benefits from working with corporations. Not every corporation is Microsoft. They want to do business and make money. That doesn't mean they don't want you to make money also, but their goals are their own company's growth. What Linux needs to do is work with companies that are willing to build up Linux as well. The doesn't mean open it up for someone to make a product for it, it means working with them.

If Linux users want Linux to be any more popular they have to open it up a little more and make the system work. OpenOffice is a great step, but let's be honest. It's still not acceptable for corporations because Microsoft is willing to cut deals to get THEIR OS, THEIR office suite, and THEIR mail program as well as IE, and all the other bells and whistles. It still costs them a bit but a license gives them instant technical support and it's friendly and welcoming in it's UI. That's what matters to business, not the fact it's open and expendable.

Linux as a whole will never win against the big M with out getting some help and that help will be in the form of corporations or Linux will continue to spin it's wheels, and the fact the market share's stagnation is what's slowing new development. But instead of trying to work with corporations GPL v3, as well as the general consensuse is "fuck corporations" and I still can't find a way to see that work when you're dealing with an OS that needs programs on it. Why are we pushing aways corporations who might be willing to support us with those programs?

Or are we just going to assume Windows emulation is going to get us through the day? Oh yeah because running Linux and emulating windows is really different than just running windows? That's what we do while gaining support to run all sorts of programs, that's not a viable end game.

Linux itself can continue to be free and open while programs are running on it that are closed. People CAN make money off programs for Linux. Linux doesn't have to be all about free to use, or else we're just going to keep running into the same hurdles we have been. These aren't contradictions, these are possible alliances and ways to open up Linux to a larger group.

Re:Opensource software sucks.

[Dionysus]

Where did Stallman or Kuhn ever say that the GPL is the only license with a right to exist?

Guess you haven't read Why Software Should Be Free [gnu.org] or Kuhn's response to the Slashdot interview [slashdot.org]. Both men believes the choice of license is not something the developer should be allowed to decide.

To quote Kuhn:

Today, some argue that the "right to choose your own software license" is the greatest software freedom. By contrast, I think that, like slavery, it is an inappropriate power, not a freedom. The two situations both cause harm, and they differ only in the degree of harm that each causes.

Re:they're right

[Teun]

People don't get rich by making dumb business decisions.

What makes you think Getting Rich is the (ultimate) goal in life?
Most that I know who write their code under the GPL just want to have a good life and share with like minded.
Sharing != giving away.

Re:LOL

[honkycat]

Others have said it, probably better, but the GPL is not really aligned with either socialism or capitalism, merely with the idea that software (and perhaps more generally information, but it only deals with software) should not have artificial restrictions placed on its duplication. This embraces aspects of socialism ("share the wealth") and capitalism (only scarce commodities have value, and information by its nature is not scarce). You can argue about whether it's beneficial to an economy to enforce artificial scarcity through patents and copyrights, but that's really not a question of capitalism vs socialism.

Now, many people argue that the FSF is hypocritical because in a very real sense, GPLed software is less free than, say, Berkeley or MIT Licensed software. However, IMO this is consistent with their aim not merely to create free software, but to rid the world of non-free software. Basically, you can embrace their view that software should be free (as in freedom) and reap the benefits of their efforts. If they did not choose a license that required you to join the movement by making your derived software free, then they'd merely be aiding those who use their software and give nothing back to the community.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. As a proprietary developer, you lose nothing due to the existence of GPLed software. You're not free to use that code in your product, but in your view you had no right to expect anyone to license you software that would do what you needed anyway. I frankly don't understand the argument that the GPL somehow takes something away from would-be proprietary developers. Sure, it's harder to sell your program when someone can download a GPL competitor for free (neglecting support costs), but hey... that's capitalism at its finest. If someone is willing to sell for $0, only a broken market would allow you to sell at >$0.

Re:GPLv3 Not About MS and Novell

[djmurdoch]

Heck, end-users are not even allowed to OWN the code/software they buy from a proprietary vendor.

End-users don't own my GPL'd code. I do.

If the end-user owned it, they wouldn't be required to distribute their source with their modifications. They could do whatever they liked with it.

Re:GPLv3 Not About MS and Novell

[edwdig]

They do not know that the trademark "Open Source" meant originally Free/Libre Software. They do not know that it is their freedom which is at stake here.

Or, just maybe, most people don't see it that way.

People generally don't consider it a blow against their freedom that their car doesn't come with the required information to make an exact replica of the engine, or when their microwave doesn't come with a circuit diagram, or their music CDs don't come with sheet music.

Why would they see it any differently with software?