Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
20 New User Misconceptions about Linux
mwb1100:
They state that is based on freedom but fail to indicate that the freedom of the consumer is at the cost of freedom for the developer
-rxantos (February 24, 2011, 02:52 PM)
--- End quote ---
Actually, I think the FSF is pretty clear that the GPL only imposes obligations/restrictions if you modify or distribute the software. Really, I think the only reason that the GPL is at all complex and needs a FAQ is that without the complexity to cover all the legal 'loopholes' there would be rampant disregard for the intent of the GPL (and maybe there already is - but it would certainly be worse). The intent of the GPL is clear: you were given certain benefits with this code, if you're going to use it in your own software then you need to pass those benefits on.
A GPL license lets you use the software however you like, wherever you like (whether it's useful there or not is another issue), and to be able to modify it if you want. The only time restrictions come into play is when you redistribute the software, and in that situation, the GPL is intended to ensure that those same benefits you had also get passed on. Remember, the GPL was created to benefit end-users not developers/distributors. Any benefits developers/distributors see are purely a side-effect of end-user benefits.
As for using "even one line of this code in your own code" from GPL'd software , if it's only one line of code (or only a few lines of code), it's likely to be only a tiny bit more difficult to write the code yourself using whatever ideas you might need from the original code than it is to merely copy the code. Also, even the FSF acknowledges that there's a "fair use" right to the code that's not subject to the license (though fair use isn't particularly well-defined): http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLFairUse
I'm no GPL fanatic (I do use GPL software, but mostly non-GPL software), but if you want or need to use a significant amount of code from someone else's work, you should do so under his terms. It's nice when someone releases code under a BSD-like license, but the important thing is it's their choice.
Except for public domain or the WTFPL there aren't many software license terms that have no restrictions.
40hz:
You can't un-GPL something later on, or otherwise try to get it back by adding proprietary elements to it. Because those will also fall immediately under GPL if you do.
-40hz (February 24, 2011, 01:19 PM)
--- End quote ---
This is only half correct. Once you GPL something and distribute it, you can't remove the GPL rights that you've essentially already passed on to someone else for what they have.
However, GPL doen't remove *your* ownership of the code (or whatever) - you can re-release the code under whatever other terms you like (even simultaneously). As the owner - *you* are not obligated to the GPL terms for subsequent releases (modified or not).
-mwb1100 (February 24, 2011, 01:47 PM)
--- End quote ---
Oooo right! I had forgotten about that. What I should have said was once you released under GPL the part that was GPLed can't be taken back and turned exclusively into proprietary.
You are quite correct when you say you may release under multiple license models . And it is true that there are products out there that do just that. My understanding was that it was mostly done (at least originally) because many corporate clients had (have?) an internal IT policy of not allowing GPL licensed products because:
* their IT departments don't understand GPL
* their legal department doesn't understand GPL
* they've been told the GPL software is loaded with viruses, trojans, and backdoors
* they've been told Linux is mostly a "European phenomenon" (?) and therefor somewhat subversive, Communist, un-American, and unpatriotic
* they have a contract with a government agency which dictates what software may be deployed in the company the contract was awarded to. (Note: because there's often no company to go after if something goes wrong, libre software has a great deal of trouble getting "certified" for government use unless it's as part of some token "open software migration" project.
* they're afraid the GPL may someday be ruled invalid and they'll be exposed to patent or license infringement litigation
* they're afraid they may be breaking some sort of law (thank you Microsoft and all the other FUDders for that - especially Steve 'Monkeyboy' Balmer for likening Linux to pirated software)
Then there's also the customer who wants to modify and then distribute your code, but still keep all its changes to itself. That you couldn't do under GPL. Although why not just don't go with the BSD license if you want to allow that is anybody's guess - unless maybe for one of the bulleted reasons above.
Of course it becomes a legal quagmire if you've licensed a commercial version, go after somebody for something, and they haul out the GPL license you also issue. Because then you have to make an argument for how "a rose is a rose is a rose"....except here where it's also sometimes a petunia.
Judges 'love' that stuff.
So do attorneys. ($$$$)
;D
40hz:
My only gripe with the FSF is their use of the phrase "FREE SOFTWARE". -rxantos (February 24, 2011, 02:52 PM)
--- End quote ---
That's because 'free' (as was noted earlier) is a somewhat vague word in English. (thank you Wikipedia!):
[Gratis versus libre is the distinction between two meanings of the English adjective "free"; namely, "for zero price" (gratis) and "with few or no restrictions" (libre). The ambiguity of "free" can cause issues where the distinction is important, as it often is in dealing with laws concerning the use of information, such as copyright and patents.
--- End quote ---
And you're right. It was an unfortunate word choice made by the early FSF because it depended on certain understandings that came out of the political climate in the United States at the time the FSF got started. Back then, few people would have had a problem realizing that the "free" Stallman was promulgating was the libre variety. That's how most people thought when you said "free.".
They state that is based on freedom but fail to indicate that the freedom of the consumer is at the cost of freedom for the developer.
--- End quote ---
FWIW, I think developers understand that. They're not dumb. And GPL has been around long enough that there shouldn't be any surprises about how it works any more.
And nobody is required to sign in under the GPL. It's purely voluntary. So how is that "taking freedom away" from anybody?
:)
-------
@rxantos - thanks for sharing those plain English summaries of the various licenses. They're quite good, and very accurate despite their brevity. Are they your own? I'd like your permission to quote them (with attribution) in the future if they are. :Thmbsup:
Paul Keith:
And nobody is required to sign in under the GPL. It's purely voluntary. So how is that "taking freedom away" from anybody?
--- End quote ---
This (but an example for Creative Commons) http://blog.internetcases.com/2007/09/21/scandal-over-use-of-creative-commons-photo-on-flickr-results-in-lawsuit/
Freedom also involves opt-out. Just in case, a license maker may not be fully aware of the implications.
It's something that FSF rarely address but it can't be helped. Libre impression has helped them a lot but if they really wanted to align themselves with the gratis movement - they'd replace Free with Released. Would summarize many of the licensing ignorance around. Of course "software that might be potential abandonware" isn't as catchy as "open source".
Also for GPL, there isn't as major a controversy yet as what happened with Creative Commons.
40hz:
As for using "even one line of this code in your own code" from GPL'd software , if it's only one line of code (or only a few lines of code), it's likely to be only a tiny bit more difficult to write the code yourself using whatever ideas you might need from the original code than it is to merely copy the code. Also, even the FSF acknowledges that there's a "fair use" right to the code that's not subject to the license (though fair use isn't particularly well-defined): http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLFairUse
-mwb1100 (February 24, 2011, 04:19 PM)
--- End quote ---
Very true.The FSF is not going to go after anybody for a single line of code. Nor will they do so for multiple lines as long as the borrower keeps it within reason. They've stated that repeatedly. And their actions (or more correctly inactions) when they've run into that have proved they mean it.
The same can't be said for commercial software, where people have been sued for alleged use of code snippets and "too similar" variable or function names.
One company even got sued by a competitor because the competitor claimed the structure of its program was similar enough to the competitor's that it constituted a 'theft' of their IP despite the fact that not a single line of code had been duplicated.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version