GPLv3's Implications Hitting Home For Lawyers 477
Specter writes "The GPL version 3 is getting some attention in legal circles, especially as it relates to its interaction with proprietary software and patents. Edmund J. Walsh penned an article for Law.com discussing the GPLv3 and the risks it poses for hardware and software companies."
What a stupid article (Score:2, Insightful)
It's crap (Score:3, Insightful)
That right there should tell you what you need to know about the guy's understanding of 1) the technical issues related to GPL software, and 2) the actual legal requirements of the GPL.
Fear mongering (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at it this way, if you violate a proprietary license, you get sued and lose a bunch of money. If you violate the GPL, you get sued, and you have the option to settle and open the code, or lose a lot of money. Seems to me the GPL is the less risky option.
Re:GPL 3 (Score:4, Insightful)
Base premise is wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:GPL 3 (Score:3, Insightful)
The article also explains the so called anti-corporate stance. The article says that it restricts the ability of companies to provide differentiated solutions, which is correct. As long as the differentiation exists only in software and the hardware is non-unique (even if DRM locked down), GPL will level the playing field. The differentiation has to be in the product, which I think is acceptable and promotes innovation.
BSD is a free license in the sense that its users are free to do what they want, but restricts the freedom of the software to be developed without restrictions.
Re:GPL 3 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What a stupid article (Score:4, Insightful)
I've said this all along. (Score:3, Insightful)
Just another damned greedy lawyer voicing is woes at OSS.
FUD and more FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
"The new lesson is that the freedom belongs to the software, not to users." This is SO bogus and mis characterizes the whole point of the new GPL. The "freedom" is absolutely for the users, especially the end users. The restrictions quoted in the article have nothing to do with users, but everything to do with ISVs taking GPL software and screwing the users.
"Changes in the GPL impose other limits on the ability to leverage a proprietary position when open source is involved."
This is true, so, write it for yourselves then. Don't think you can capitalize on someone else's work and deny then the ability to capitalize on your modifications to their software, that isn't very fair.
I don't get what the issue is. If you want to develop closed source software, then so be it, however, don't take other's GPL code and try to close that off, that's theft. How hard is it for the reptilian lawyer brain to understand this very simple concept.
We even say what is needed to comply. But NOOO, they have to keep up with the FUD.
Last little bit:
"Edmund J. Walsh is a shareholder and a member of the electrical and computer technologies and the IP transactions groups at Wolf Greenfield."
Ahh, now I understand!
Re:GPL 3 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:GPL 3 (Score:2, Insightful)
A free software environment that significantly restricts other people from making it less free, that's all is what GPLv2 or v3 is all about. You've missed the point.
Bad assumptions (Score:5, Insightful)
This article is confused and makes all sorts of horrible assumptions. In short, the author seems to believe that the only way people make money off free software by adding "differentiating" proprietary software to it. Since the whole point of the GPL is to prevent people from making the software under its purview non-free, it shouldn't really be surprising, then, that the author finds it a huge pain in the neck. Personally, I'd say the license is a success, and I suspect a lot of the companies making money from GPLed software would agree with me.
-- Brett Smith, License Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation
misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
What a lousy, misleading article. He makes it clear upfront that he's talking about two separate things, but then he goes on to mix them together indiscriminately throughout the rest of the article. (1) If you build your business on GPL 2 software, you'd better read the GPL 2. People who don't are getting sued. (2) GPL 3 is different from GPL 2, and may be incompatible with some business models that GPL 2 is compatible with.
Re #1: Duh. Don't agree to a license without making sure you can abide by the license. Re #2: Similar duh, and it's relatively inconsequential because very little software is under GPL 3 so far. (The typical PHB reading this is probably not going to understand that GPL 2 doesn't automatically update GPL 3, but the article could easily leave you with the impression that it does.)
With the filing of court documents, a philosophical debate about the proper place for software in society has become a business dispute with the risk of substantial consequences.
Well, no, it's not a risk. A risk refers to something you can't predict. If you agree to a license and then violate the license, that's not a risk, that's intentionally shooting yourself in the foot.
For-profit companies using open source software should take notice
He talks about "for-profit" like this all through the article. That's stupid. The GPL doesn't discriminate between for-profit and not-for-profit use. Of course the people getting sued are all for-profit companies. Is this a surprise? A nonprofit probably wouldn't have any motivation to violate the GPL, and anyhow you don't usually pick people to sue who don't have money.
The new lesson is that the freedom belongs to the software, not to users. You are not free to do whatever you want with the open source software and may find yourself in a legal fight if what you do restricts the freedom of the software.
Huh? This is idiotic. Software doesn't have human rights. The GPL also doesn't place any restrictions on how software is used. In fact, you can use GPL'd sofwtware without even agreeing to the license. You only have to agree to the GPL if you want to modify the software and then redistribute it.
Any activity that leverages software for business advantage is likely to restrict the software's freedom
Hmm...say Joe's Garage uses Firefox and OpenOffice. Can anyone explain why that's likely to "restrict the software's freedom?" Or say Barnes and Noble runs Linux on their servers. Does that mean they're "likely to restrict the software's freedom?" What he really means is that if you try to violate the GPL by making OSS into proprietary software, you've got a problem. That's a lot narrower than "leveraging software for business advantage."
and the growing use of open source software by for-profit companies has been a growing irritant for free software advocates.
Oh, God, it just gets dumber and dumber. The OSS community wants users. Everyone I know in the OSS community is typically overjoyed that IBM got on the Linux bandwagon. They're happy that Google is generally OSS-friendly. They love it that more and more OEMs are offering machines with Linux preinstalled.
Re:GPL 3 (Score:5, Insightful)
I haven't lost anything, because no one took MY code and told me I couldn't use it anymore. Likewise, I didn't *TAKE AWAY* their ability to do what they wanted with THEIR WORK.
No freedom is lost under BSD.
Under GPL, if someone uses my code to do something else, then their code effectively becomes my code as well, and they have to play by my rules. Therefore, I am restricting their ability to access control over their own time and creative works. I have effectively limited the other developer.
"End users" by the definition probably don't give a crap if they can see the code. If they did anything with it, they'd be developers. I don't see how end users lose out either way -- license arguments really only affect other developers.
Re:Article Worthless FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's crap (Score:5, Insightful)
The debacle last month with ExtJS proved this.
ExtJS is a case where people want the developer mindshare of open-source development without actually releasing their code as open-source. They are trying trick after trick to avoid the implications of open-source development. Right now it's a weird interpretation of the GPLv3. Before that it was "we are releasing under the terms of the LGPL, but you aren't allowed to redistribute as LGPL because we aren't offering it as LGPL, just under the terms of the LGPL". Before that it was another trick. This doesn't mean the licenses in question aren't any good, it means they aren't acting in good faith.
Again the FSF has NO ANSWER to this question.
Of course the FSF has no answer to this question. Courts are the final authority when it comes to licenses. The same was true of previous incarnations of the GPL as well. The same is true of every other license. Until there is case law, it's all speculation.
Look at the bile flowing here (Score:2, Insightful)
Business adoption of OS has in the past been facilitated by working around the GPL2 restrictions. How the hell do you build a business advantage over a competitor when you are forced to divulge your developments to everybody?
A previous poster correctly noted that business will be forced to develop everything themselves - or use alternatives which make business sense. How amazing it is when what was a hobby for people becomes mired in profit. This begs a question: will GPL3 ruin open source development in the business world? If they cannot use or protect innovation why would business work in this space?
Is GPL3 a dead end scenario where only the only development is done by hobbyists and business never develop in it? Linux would not be where it is today without business support - IBM for example - so you pay a price for guaranteeing the software itself over all else.
I am sure it is worth it to some.
Re:Conceptually Accurate (Score:5, Insightful)
you write the software once and can sell a billion copies with no overhead costs to you. Do you think dell or apple can sell a million computers without buying a million computer cases? if everyone was a millionare how much would a loaf of bread cost?
Software by it's very nature means unlimited supply of the product thus making it worthless. Novell, IBM, Red Hat, etc are making Billions by not selling software, but by selling the service, and customization of said software for particular needs.
Software doesn't follow standard economic rules of supply and demand. Stop trying to pretend that it does.
Re:GPL 3 (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell that to frustrated Tivo users. Don't like GPL3 software? Use software with a BSD license. But getting the code and locking it in so that users can't modify THEIR software inside your box, isn't what we could consider "freedom".
You're still thinking commercially. ALL software should be free. The only reason why companies use "secret" software is so that they can implement their proprietary extensions and charge for them.
You know, like the iPhone.
Re:Lawyer he may be... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is very evident in his opening paragraph: "Two recent events should give for-profit companies new reasons to re-evaluate the ways in which they use open source software as well as the extent to which they use it."
This is a "heads-up" to let people know that they need to be more careful with how they use other peoples' work. The GPLv3 doesn't change the fact that they should have been more careful before, but it does make abuse more risky. I think this is what Mr. Walsh is trying to point out.
Re:GPL 3 (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems the lawyer gets some of it, GPLed software truly is free software.
As far as BSD vs GPL, they are both open source licenses for free software but they both have their restrictions. If you don't consider GPLed software to be free software then BSD licensed software is not free either as there are still restrictions, i.e. you cannot remove copyrights from the code and claim it to be your own.
The BSD license is more acceptable to businesses who see open source as a resource to be harvested but never invested in. The GPL is not and is designed to keep the software free. Does this mean the GPL in any of its forms is "anti corporate licensing"? Absolutely not, it simply enforces the give and take nature of open source, it in no way stops corporations from using the software to enhance their business as long as they are not in the business of leeching free software and attempting to create false monopolies and false supply limitations with the same software.
Really I find the entire anti-GPL fray to be an outlandish waste of time and effort, the GPL is not forced on anyone, if you don't like the license then stop coveting the code, pay the cost and develop your own stinking code.
crying over presents (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, nobody forces you to use it, you know? You can write your own if you don't like the GPL. Different from patents, the GPL doesn't prevent you from coming up with the exact same thing, on your own time and expense.
Re:It's crap (Score:5, Insightful)
The ExtJS example is somewhat special because since it is javascript you clearly distribute their software. That's not the case for your database software, or the software you use to generate your HTML pages. However, even if using ExtJS required that you distributed your code under the GPL that's only problematic if you actually distribute the software that runs your web site.
Basically this sort of thing is pretty old hat in the Free Software community. Lots of companies, including MySQL AB and TrollTech, have proffered interpretations of the GPL that are more stringent than what the FSF has said it believes is defensible in court. The purpose of these interpretations has generally been to encourage people doing proprietary development using the vendor's tools from using the GPL version of the tool.
Personally, I don't have a problem with these tactics. If your project has grown to the point where you are concerned that you might get sued for copyright infringement, you probably can afford a commercial license. Alternatively, you can always use someone else's software.
The point is that just because someone at a Free Software vendor says you need a commercial license doesn't necessarily make it true. It's in their best interest to stretch what the GPL requires. Don't expect the FSF to contradict what the commercial Free Software vendors say either. After all, the folks at the FSF would *love* to wake up and find that a court had ruled in ExtJS's favor. That would give the GPL even more power than it currently has, and it would further their goal of making Free Software ubiquitous.
Re:GPL 3 (Score:2, Insightful)
As a developer, if I want to use GPLv3 code, I'm restricted, right off the bat, whehter or not I have actually done any "harm" to GPL'ed software. Also, you can look at the GPLv3 as a tool to restrict those that did adhere to the terms of v2, but in ways the writers of v2 hadn't considered or made clear in v2. Essentially, it looks like they threw a hissy fit, even though v2 was being followed to the letter, because someone else didn't do exactly what the FSF wanted (but didn't encode into the license).
Re:Author may actually understand.... (Score:4, Insightful)
If I were a PHB, this article alone would be enough to scare me off GPL'd software -- because I would interpret this as a potential threat of unknown magnitude. Remember the average PHB isn't going to distinguish between GPL2 and GPL3, either. A lawsuit against a GPL3 violator WILL be perceived as a lawsuit against ALL companies that use GPL'd software, regardless of which license version. And in at corporate management levels, the perception is what counts.
Re:It's crap (Score:2, Insightful)
"Whilst the GPL does allow commercial distribution of GPL software, the market price will settle near the price of distribution--near zero--since the purchasers may redistribute the software and its source code for their cost of redistribution. This could be seen to inhibit commercial use of GPL'ed code by others wishing to use that code for proprietary purposes--if they don't wish to avail themselves of GPL'ed code, they will have to re-implement it themselves."
This quote would seem to indicate that the writer of the article is right and understands the actual legal requirements of the GPL.
How is Mr. Walsh wrong, exactly?
Restrictions on which "users"? Muddled arguments (Score:4, Insightful)
There appears to be a goodly bit of confusion in this discussion about how the word "users" is employed. Some posts include the word to indicate end users, generally the consumers that purchase the end products and use the software included. Other posts seem to include the word to indicate anyone making use of the software, mostly intimating the developers who would leverage the software as part of producing the end product.
The lack of proper distinction here is causing a real absence of clarity in what people mean. AFAICT, there is as-yet little legal precedent in the US backing up any sort of EULA-type "agreement" that restricts how end users can actually use the end products. Corporations are increasingly trying to dictate various limits, but so far I'm not sure that case law really backs this up. As such, *all* end users are essentially free to do what they want with software under *any* license, within the (admittedly obfuscated, and currently imperiled) bounds of copyright.
Meanwhile, for intermediate users such as developers, there are much more cut-and-dried legal definitions for how and what folks can do. I think TFA is dealing mostly with this aspect (though I haven't completely RTFA). Just in terms of basic ethics, which might well be very foreign territory both for the author of TFA and the PHB target audience, most folks can agree that, if you're essentially selling something that belongs to someone else, that someone else has a say in how you go about doing so.
-----
The assumption that anyone can own what are essentially ideas (i.e. book plots, computer code, artistic designs, etc.) is the foundation of the whole concept of intellectual property. If we accept that such ideas can be owned, then we must accept all the rest of the baggage of ownership that goes with this position -- including the stipulation that selling someone else's things as your own, without proper permission, is in violation of property rights.
The GPL in all its various forms simply attempts to define that proper permission. If folks don't like what such permission entails, fine -- bloody well don't use GPL-covered code. They're still completely free to develop their own code that does what they need it to (note that I'm totally ignoring the whole issue of patents, which is plenty of grist for another mill or twenty). Whining about not getting a free ride just makes people look like wankers. Whine, whine, whinge. Meh.
Cheers,
Re:misleading (Score:2, Insightful)
With the filing of court documents, a philosophical debate about the proper place for software in society has become a business dispute with the risk of substantial consequences. He's right about this. If I use ExtJS, am I required to either buy a license or open source my entire website? Yes or no? If I modify but do not distribute GPL3 software, must I release my modifications? Yes or no?
And the real kicker: If I have software patents, and want to be able to enforce them, can I legally use any GPL3 software at all? Yes or no?
These are all risks one must consider before using GPL3 software. Which source code must I release? FSF isn't sure the ExtJS people are wrong that using their stuff touches ALL the code that has ANYTHING to do with my website. So if I use GPL3 stuff on my web server, I could get sued for not releasing proprietary stuff I've developed to make that website work. Guess what -- getting sued is a risk, no matter which way the verdict goes.
GPL3 ain't all that simple, and it ain't all that clear, at the edges. Which source code must I redistribute, and what can I keep to myself? If the FSF can't say, then it's not clear. If I own software patents, can I enforce any of them against a potential Open Source violation of those patents after using any GPL3 software in my business? Probably not. Both of those are pretty big risks to a fair number of businesses.
doc
Re:What a stupid article (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Article Worthless FUD (Score:4, Insightful)
Not really - most of the text seems to be claiming that it's incompatible with commercial use, which is the opposite of most peoples' interpretation.
(this is achieved in the article by suggesting that commercial anything requires placing restrictions on other peoples' software)
There are plenty of clues that this article differs substantially from the plain language of the GPL, for example suggestions that you could be sued for merely using the software (what does freedom 0 say again?)
Re:GPL 3 (Score:5, Insightful)
Users want to develop on the code aswell. Users can be companies, experienced software developers and even regular old Joe, who just wants to have an annoying bug fixed in his favorite software package. The nonexistent distinction between users and developers is exactly the reason why BSD is less free than GPL.
I don't see the problem (Score:3, Insightful)
As I see it the creators of some software relesase this software under the GPL, which grants you certain liberties you would not have if the software were released under a more classic closed source commercial licence (think Microsoft/Adobe/Apple...). I think that if you are to use the work of the original creators you should abide by their wishes/terms. If you won't/can't then dont use their work and create your own software doing the same function.
As far as I am concerned, this is a non-issue: it doesn't matter what licence software is released with, you need to understand that licence before using the software in you own products, if at all! The difference between commercial licence and GPL is that the GPL gives you more freedom from the start, while placing certain limits on how much secrecy you can 'afford your products.
1: not likely to ever happen, but play with the thought.
I'd rephrase the conflict (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd rephrase that as ".. the irreconcilable conflict between users and those who wish to limit the maintenance options available to those users."
Re:Lawyer he may be... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:crying over presents (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:GPL 3 (Score:3, Insightful)
Women are free to walk at night because the jailing of the rapist GRANTS that freedom. Society BAR is the society only a maroon (nods to previous genius) would support.
Re:GPL 3 (Score:4, Insightful)
You can use GPL code however you want, it explicitly states it is not a usage license. What you can't do is distribute GPL code in a manner that gives those who receive it less freedom that it gave you.
BSD gives you the right to give, GPL gives you the right to receiving.
Re:GPL 3 (Score:4, Insightful)
They don't care until $APPLICATION_THEY_DEPEND_ON stops being maintained or the manufacturer of $EXPENSIVE_HARDWARE_THEY_BOUGHT decides it needs more money so the people that bought its hardware should better move on and buy a new $EXPENSIVE_HARDWARE_THEY_BOUGHT and, to `motivate' them, stops releasing drivers...
End users do not care about licenses in the same way as people being subjected to experimental drugs unwillingly do not care: they do not know they care.
Re:GPL 3 (Score:3, Insightful)
As far as "we have to wait and see what the courts will say" the article is actually informative.
Re:Author may actually understand.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Lawyer he may be... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Base premise is wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Many of the newer restrictions put in between GPL2 and GPL3 were due to this little factoid, namely Tivo using GPL2 software in a way that RMS didn't like, and making money off of it.
Plenty of people use GPL2 software in ways that are distasteful, however, the only ones being protested against (via GPL3) are commercial. I wonder why!
Re:Author may actually understand.... (Score:3, Insightful)
And that's the point where company lawyers will say NO, the money saved here is not worth the risk. In their mind, it is better to buy something with a license that says "You may use NN copies of it and do absolutely nothing else with it" rather than wonder when they're going to inadvertently miss some GPL restriction and wind up sued for it.
(I know most people here won't RTentireFA, but the last part is the most relevant, and it's what I'm talking about.)
Re:Lawyer he may be... (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmm... The vibe I got from the article was that the "heads up" was regarding the need for more lawyers. "This is scary stuff man, you better watch out... You don't even know! I mean, you'll need, like, twice the number of lawyers now!"
It reads like FUD, but not so much against open source as for pair-programming with a lawyer. The first clue was his assertion that open source == GPL v3.0.
Re:GPL 3 (Score:4, Insightful)
Something changed in GPL3, where code becomes almost secondary to how the code is used. It no longer cares about the code, or changes to it. It cares more about who, how, and what it is being used for.
No matter if you agree with the changes or not, you have to admit that the changes have nothing to do with improving the code, because GPL2 already handled this perfectly fine.
The changes have nothing to do with improving the code, which makes the changes philosophical, and restrictive.
Re:Conceptually Accurate (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:GPL 3 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Lawyer he may be... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:GPL 3 (Score:2, Insightful)
At least in terms of what's best for the software, and therefore for the users of the software, they present different and mutually exclusive benefits. GPL forces anyone who makes improvements to the code (and releases them) to provide source, thereby giving back to the community. BSD allows those who can't (or won't, or think they can't) release their own work to use and modify the open code. These folks might give back in the form of binary-only programs based on the original (a mixed blessing, in my opinion), or by releasing select patches to the community, while retaining whatever secrets they wish.
As for which is better for a given piece of software, you'd probably have to take circumstances into account and apply a bit of game theory. I think how much freedom you end up giving, either to the users or to the software, is more a question of math than ethics.
The only ethical dilemma I see is whether ideas can be owned, and to what extent -- and if you're applying licenses, there's at least some implicit acceptance of the idea of IP. After that, it's just up to your personal preference what you'd like to see done with your code.
Re:Article Worthless FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
The key to the GPL is that the restrictions only apply when you distribute the code or a binary to another party.
Re:GPL 3 (Score:2, Insightful)
BSD is truly free license
Yeah it is, if you are lucky enough to get something BSD licensed. No guarantee that's going to happen even if all the projects it was based on were BSD, it might be all locked up proprietary when you obtain a derivative software.
Theoretically, that holds water. Code A could be licensed under BSD, adopted by a company, and released as a binary blob as Code B.
After that, there is a range of possibilities. One is that B is basically a rebranded version of A, without much noticeable improvement. In this case, end users can just grab A instead. The other end of the spectrum is that A was a half-baked mess, and the company overhauled it to produce a great product. In this case, I'd be pleased if they released B under a similarly free license, but if they did 90% of the work on the project, then it's about 90% as fair for them to be able to keep it locked up as it is for a completely in-house proprietary project.
Basically, as the amount of "stealing" increases, the company's relevance in the market decreases.
That said, I could see an argument in the middle range, where A was pretty good, and B was just a lot better, that the company has let the community do the bulk of its work, but holds control over the best-in-class product. That strikes me as somewhat unfair. On the other hand, everyone who contributed to the BSD licensed code knew that could happen, which would seem to make it fair.
Back in reality, though: Can you site an example of BSD licensed software getting gobbled up by suits, and the end users left without free options?
I guess there's OS X -- then again, I'm using FreeBSD today, and enjoying it quite thoroughly.
Re:Lawyer he may be... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, when he says "software" he really means "users," and when he says "users" he really means "developers," and that inaccuracy of terminology doesn't help him make his point clearly.
Of course, half the people talking about this issue make a similar mistake; there'd be a heck of a lot less argument about this sort of thing (as well as ancillary issues, such as why it doesn't make sense to argue that either the GPL or BSD license is "more free" than the other) if English didn't make it so hard to be precise.
Re:GPL 3 (Score:2, Insightful)
>
> No, it forces me to attribute the work to original author, thus not free - and you know it.
What do you think of releasing the software into the public domain? Is that free?
I have seen lots of arguments, on Slashdot, claiming that PD reduces freedom, by letting MS use it without attribution or a requirement to contribute their changes back to the source (ignoring that everything is going into the public domain, eventually, unless Disney convinces the right people to extend copyright to eternity). I think that some people here are not so interested in freedom as in achieving their desired state, where they are free to do what they want, and restricted from doing what they did not want to do, in any case, and are not willing to accept that reasonable people can disagree where the divide should be.
Re:GPL 3 (Score:3, Insightful)
That's rather irrelevant.
Without the GPL or equivalent approaches, it is impossible to do anything. With it, you have at least the possibilty of doing something. It is irrelevant whether `doing something' means `hiring the only person in the world capable of doing something' or something else.
No licencing scheme is going to magically turn everyone into people capable of doing what they want.
Re:Lawyer he may be... (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, when he says "software" he really means "users," and when he says "users" he really means "developers," and that inaccuracy of terminology doesn't help him make his point clearly.
Of course, half the people talking about this issue make a similar mistake [...]
It's not a mistake, it's a disagreement. Users vs. developers is an artificial distinction, and it is possible to do things to the software which I am not free to share with others.
Re:Look at the bile flowing here (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, GPL certainly has it's place.
However, I'm sure Sid Meier wants to make more than an hourly rate after creating _his_ software masterpiece.
Re:Lawyer he may be... (Score:4, Insightful)
y'know, the whole reason why v3 was created in the first place.