The Death Of A Software License
Document Actions
This week I found myself entangled in yet another GPL argument. Opinions on the GPL's infamous viral effect polluted the air as advocates and opponents battled over topics they had no business discussing. My advice: don't argue about a legal license unless you're a lawyer. Scratch that. Don't argue about the GPL, period. Most people have no actual knowledge of the contents, effects, etc. of the license and build their opinions entirely on hearsay and speculation. Current revisions to the GPL are diluting any viral effect it may have had in the past, and distracting us from the real issue: Version 3 is going to distance Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation from the developers that make the organization so influential to begin.
Was it ever truly viral, or just popular? Though there are many derivative works out there, mass adoption of the GPL had little to do with cleverly planned infection and everything to do with winning the license popularity contest. I've spoken to countless project leaders over the years that selected the license not on the advice of legal counsel, not because of benefits for themselves or their customers, but because that's what everyone else used. I’d bet my savings that a catalogue of every GPL licensed project would show a very small percentage were derivatives, or had to use it. Most leaders will tell you they selected the GPL because it was expected, but I’ll save peer pressure for another blog.
Back to the future of the GPL. The FSF should realize by now their influence is waning. Look at the plethora of alternative licenses. Now they’re really hamstringing themselves with Version 3, taking the license further and further from where industry developers are heading. Developers are still the heart of the open source community, and their support is integral to success. Are provisions concerned with patents and digital rights management really what developers want to see addressed? Do they care when Eben Moglen says "the time is rapidly approaching when the GPL is capable of leveling the monopolist to the ground?" Developers demand more freedom, not less. They want clear, practical leadership, not bombast.
Thankfully there are those in the community who clearly get it, like Greg Stein. Greg’s an Engineering Manager at Google and the chairman of the Apache Software Foundation. In his recent presentation at Linux World Tokyo he told the crowd, “Due to pressure from developers, all software is moving towards permissive licensing.” He calls this, oddly enough, “license pressure.” Developers care about the licenses on the software they use and incorporate into their projects, they like permissive licenses, and they will increasingly demand permissive licenses.
I know Greg, and I consider him a friend. We don't always agree, but this time he's 100% correct. Regardless of what the old guard believes, their little circle is no longer in control. By design, developers are the controlling species in the open source ecosystem, and those licenses that can't adapt face extinction.
Few realize the depth of open source’s impact on the industry, and even the leaders of the FSF may not yet feel the earth shifting beneath their feet. But if GPL continues down its current path, will it be around in 10 years? The FSF’s apparent lack of vision will lead to the obvious outcome—the death of the GPL.
<< The Bugatti Principle | Slashdot It! | No Penguins On Today's Safari? >>
_____
tags:
Can you be more specific....
Posted by
Chris Marino
at
2007-06-06 18:42
Not exactly sure what you're referring to? Apache compatibility??
Lack of vision? Nah.
Posted by
Christopher St. John
at
2007-06-06 18:45
If you accept Stallman's premises and his logic, you're pretty much obliged to accept his conclusions. Sadly, most of the arguments I see skip right to an emotional "I don't like his conclusions" without going back and rejecting a premise or two or poking a hole in the logic.
It may be absolutely true that developers are demanding more permissive licensing, but that's the "all my friends are jumping off the roof" pseudo-argument, not a logical response to a tricky bit philosophical reasoning.
It may be absolutely true that developers are demanding more permissive licensing, but that's the "all my friends are jumping off the roof" pseudo-argument, not a logical response to a tricky bit philosophical reasoning.
disagree
Posted by
hmmm
at
2007-06-07 03:52
When GPLv3 goes into effect it will prevent future Microsoft-Novell deals from happening on any GNU GPLv3 toolchain based system without possibly weakening of patent enforcibility in court for the offensively defending party. But it will take advantage of and exploit the current deal Microsoft shares with Novell and now Xandros to weaken the inforcibility of Microsoft's patents concerning "GPLv2 or later" components. And anything either Linux company ships while the deal is still in effect. However, these protections will not apply to any GPLv2 only, BSD, ASL, MPL, MIT or alternative licenses unless they adopt the GPLv3 and are somehow distributed by Xandros or Novell.
Sure, this is an opportunity for developers to fork off GPLv2 only branches and maintain them if they want, but I bet most of the communty sticks together, considering the threat Microsoft poses..
Plus the draft of the Affero GPLv3 has just been released. Now this license is truely viral in nature, as it has been designed to force source code redistribution under certain uses of Affero GPLv3 covered works. I find this very intersting, and I wonder where our community can take this license. I see no need to rush it, do you?
Let's see, I think forcing redistribution for use as a web service might be able to be extended to other common commercial uses. This is not about forcing businesses to give away their proprietary property, but it is about forcing them to respect our property and our rules as well as their our. Microsoft, Novell and Xandros clearly violate the spirit of these rules, as did SCO before them. One day they'll learn not to mess with this community, or we'll live in this post-SCO legal war / patent cold war hell until enough businesses lose enough money to demand the patent system be reformed. So basicly, this is our only opportunity to help anyone break free of Microsoft's anti-competitive patent threats. /shrug/ But what do I know, I'm just a GNU zealot.
Sure, this is an opportunity for developers to fork off GPLv2 only branches and maintain them if they want, but I bet most of the communty sticks together, considering the threat Microsoft poses..
Plus the draft of the Affero GPLv3 has just been released. Now this license is truely viral in nature, as it has been designed to force source code redistribution under certain uses of Affero GPLv3 covered works. I find this very intersting, and I wonder where our community can take this license. I see no need to rush it, do you?
Let's see, I think forcing redistribution for use as a web service might be able to be extended to other common commercial uses. This is not about forcing businesses to give away their proprietary property, but it is about forcing them to respect our property and our rules as well as their our. Microsoft, Novell and Xandros clearly violate the spirit of these rules, as did SCO before them. One day they'll learn not to mess with this community, or we'll live in this post-SCO legal war / patent cold war hell until enough businesses lose enough money to demand the patent system be reformed. So basicly, this is our only opportunity to help anyone break free of Microsoft's anti-competitive patent threats. /shrug/ But what do I know, I'm just a GNU zealot.
Ah, Another "Developers Are Idiots" Post...
Posted by
John Brown
at
2007-06-07 08:01
First, you ignore the possibility that some developers actually understand the Four Freedoms and choose the GPL on that basis.
Second, your statement "because that's what everyone else used" conflates all-the-cool-kids-use-GPL with I-want-to-be-GPL-compatible scenarios. The latter is important because that is the second half of the "viral" nature of the GPL -- it's not only from cases where you derived from GPL'd code, but also cases where you want other GPL'd code to be able to readily use yours. That's why there was some sturm und drang around GPL3-Apache2 license compatibility.
Third, "Look at the plethora of alternative licenses." -- GPL was one out of tens of thousands of licenses when it was first written. Now it is one of hundreds of thousands of licenses including a few dozen FOSS ones. Not much difference. The world isn't FOSS, by and large.
Fourth, "Are provisions concerned with patents and digital rights management really what developers want to see addressed?" -- the GPL held open comments on all their revisions to try to gauge this very question. How many other licenses have been developed that way?
Fifth, "Developers demand more freedom, not less." <insert standard "BSD vs. GPL, which is more free" debate here>
Sixth, "Due to pressure from developers, all software is moving towards permissive licensing." -- compared to proprietary licenses), the GPL *is* "permissive licensing" (just ask SCO). Since I rather doubt Mr. Stein delivered a speech at LinuxWorld that amounted to "the GPL sucks, use Apache2", you might consider linking to a transcript or YouTube or something to prove that his definition of "permissive licensing" matches yours, and that you're not twisting his words.
Second, your statement "because that's what everyone else used" conflates all-the-cool-kids-use-GPL with I-want-to-be-GPL-compatible scenarios. The latter is important because that is the second half of the "viral" nature of the GPL -- it's not only from cases where you derived from GPL'd code, but also cases where you want other GPL'd code to be able to readily use yours. That's why there was some sturm und drang around GPL3-Apache2 license compatibility.
Third, "Look at the plethora of alternative licenses." -- GPL was one out of tens of thousands of licenses when it was first written. Now it is one of hundreds of thousands of licenses including a few dozen FOSS ones. Not much difference. The world isn't FOSS, by and large.
Fourth, "Are provisions concerned with patents and digital rights management really what developers want to see addressed?" -- the GPL held open comments on all their revisions to try to gauge this very question. How many other licenses have been developed that way?
Fifth, "Developers demand more freedom, not less." <insert standard "BSD vs. GPL, which is more free" debate here>
Sixth, "Due to pressure from developers, all software is moving towards permissive licensing." -- compared to proprietary licenses), the GPL *is* "permissive licensing" (just ask SCO). Since I rather doubt Mr. Stein delivered a speech at LinuxWorld that amounted to "the GPL sucks, use Apache2", you might consider linking to a transcript or YouTube or something to prove that his definition of "permissive licensing" matches yours, and that you're not twisting his words.
Replies to this comment
Kinda odd position.
Posted by
drag
at
2007-06-07 11:10
Moving away from were the Developers are going?
Realy?
What makes you think that developers are moving torwards DRM and doing nothing by providing frameworks for developing proprietary applications, and supporting proprietary enterprise software at the top of a open source software stack?
Is that realy were you see things going?
Because DRM and OSS-using proprietary software is the only things that realy could benifit from a change in how the GPLv3 is operating today.
I don't know if you noticed, but GPlv3 is a huge leap ahead in terms of license compatability with a whole host of currently GPLv2-incompatable licenses. Not also to mention internationalization efforts.
I am no lawyer, but I expect the changes are ultimately going to prove to be popular once developers wrap their heads around it.
And there is no 'moving'. There is only 'moved'. For the GPLv3 this is about it. There is probably not going to be a GPLv4 for another 10 years.
Realy?
What makes you think that developers are moving torwards DRM and doing nothing by providing frameworks for developing proprietary applications, and supporting proprietary enterprise software at the top of a open source software stack?
Is that realy were you see things going?
Because DRM and OSS-using proprietary software is the only things that realy could benifit from a change in how the GPLv3 is operating today.
I don't know if you noticed, but GPlv3 is a huge leap ahead in terms of license compatability with a whole host of currently GPLv2-incompatable licenses. Not also to mention internationalization efforts.
I am no lawyer, but I expect the changes are ultimately going to prove to be popular once developers wrap their heads around it.
And there is no 'moving'. There is only 'moved'. For the GPLv3 this is about it. There is probably not going to be a GPLv4 for another 10 years.
The RMS vision
Posted by
Great Geek
at
2007-06-07 11:41
It is indeed strange that you say the influence of FSF is waning. What I see is that the far-sighted vision of RMS bearing fruit after many people, like you, laughed at him. It is absolutely clear to me that GPL is the most important "enabler" of free software.
Leaving aside the clearly articulated reasons for GPLv3, I am inclined to give RMS/FSF a lot of credibility - they have earned my respect and trust. Given that RMS understood the problem a looong time ago, and solved the problem with GPL; why would I not
trust him for this problem?
Leaving aside the clearly articulated reasons for GPLv3, I am inclined to give RMS/FSF a lot of credibility - they have earned my respect and trust. Given that RMS understood the problem a looong time ago, and solved the problem with GPL; why would I not
trust him for this problem?
Open Source != Free Software
Posted by
DaveCar
at
2007-06-07 12:52
It can be a bit tedious when RMS constantly corrects people who ask him questions which mention "open source" and tells them that he is nothing to do with open source and that he represents the Free Software movement, but unfortunately it is necessary because even developers such as yourself are still confused about it.
What next? A complaint that the GPLv3 is not doing enough for the needs of Closed Source Proprietry Software developers and the industry?
Developer perspective
Posted by
Paul
at
2007-06-07 13:12
I'm a developer. I've released code under GPLv2, both my own original projects and contributions to other projects. Not a lot of code, probably about 50k to 100k lines over the last several years.
I plan to switch to GPLv3. To me, it's just a version upgrade that fixes security holes (the "tivo" issue, in particular). Just like an OS upgrade, there may be minor quirks, but security holes suck. A new, more secure version that does everything the old one tried to do it perfectly fine by me.
Much of the logic behind this article seems to be that "developers" who want permissive (presumably BSD & Apache) licensing are my customers. If that were true, if they were paying me and I wanted to continue receiving their dollars, then I may be inclined to give them what they desire. But they're not my customers.
I never expect to receive a dime for any GPL code I publish. I don't get paid, so why should I care what they want? I release code under the GPL for a few reasons... perhaps self promotion, though also to benefit users. Users love the GPL. They don't edit the code or write their own, and it allows them to copy as long as the source is available.
As far as other developers are concerned, if they're going to use my code, the code I released for free and never expect to get paid for, they can do the same. That's only fair.
Some people disagree. If you ask developers who believe in the BSD/MIT/Apache license, as this article appears to be based upon, then sure they'll say permissive licenses are the way. But those opinions are the minority. The vast majority of developers are in the "it's only fair" camp, to the tune of upper 70% of all free software.
GPLv3 is just an update, fixing security holes and bugs in GPLv2. As a developer who chooses the GPL, version 3 looks like just more of the same, with bugs fixed.
To say the FSF and Stallman lack vision is just crazy. GPLv2 is very, very old, and just look how well it's worked.
I plan to switch to GPLv3. To me, it's just a version upgrade that fixes security holes (the "tivo" issue, in particular). Just like an OS upgrade, there may be minor quirks, but security holes suck. A new, more secure version that does everything the old one tried to do it perfectly fine by me.
Much of the logic behind this article seems to be that "developers" who want permissive (presumably BSD & Apache) licensing are my customers. If that were true, if they were paying me and I wanted to continue receiving their dollars, then I may be inclined to give them what they desire. But they're not my customers.
I never expect to receive a dime for any GPL code I publish. I don't get paid, so why should I care what they want? I release code under the GPL for a few reasons... perhaps self promotion, though also to benefit users. Users love the GPL. They don't edit the code or write their own, and it allows them to copy as long as the source is available.
As far as other developers are concerned, if they're going to use my code, the code I released for free and never expect to get paid for, they can do the same. That's only fair.
Some people disagree. If you ask developers who believe in the BSD/MIT/Apache license, as this article appears to be based upon, then sure they'll say permissive licenses are the way. But those opinions are the minority. The vast majority of developers are in the "it's only fair" camp, to the tune of upper 70% of all free software.
GPLv3 is just an update, fixing security holes and bugs in GPLv2. As a developer who chooses the GPL, version 3 looks like just more of the same, with bugs fixed.
To say the FSF and Stallman lack vision is just crazy. GPLv2 is very, very old, and just look how well it's worked.
Face the facts
Posted by
Nicolas Mailhot
at
2007-06-07 12:19
Projects and developpers who don't care will always choose the most common license. Since the most common license is the GPL this argument means the GPL & the FSF will remain prevalant.
If on the other hand you want to argue projects and developpers make educated choices and could dump the GPL for something else, well you have the *huge* example of Solaris, Java, Mozilla, OpenOffice etc where legal & market analysis ultimately led to the choice of FSF licenses.
The Apache foundation is deluding itself if it thinks it's more aligned with marked needs - they've largely coasted on their own "most used" license effect (in the domains they target). If it was true both "better license" and "most used license" effects would have played for its licensing when Java was relicensed.
Guess what? SUN chose the GPL
If on the other hand you want to argue projects and developpers make educated choices and could dump the GPL for something else, well you have the *huge* example of Solaris, Java, Mozilla, OpenOffice etc where legal & market analysis ultimately led to the choice of FSF licenses.
The Apache foundation is deluding itself if it thinks it's more aligned with marked needs - they've largely coasted on their own "most used" license effect (in the domains they target). If it was true both "better license" and "most used license" effects would have played for its licensing when Java was relicensed.
Guess what? SUN chose the GPL
You are SO wrong
Posted by
Bruce Perens
at
2007-06-07 13:11
I think the basic flaw in your argument is that you have mis-defined who developers are. Ultimately, it is not BMC Software, Google, or Sourcelabs (where I work) who make GPL software. It is a much larger community including those entities, but also including a great many others who do not share the same interests as those entities. A great many of those developers will go with GPL3 for one of two reasons:<p>
1. They are commercial entities who want to make money from their work. GPL3 will the best way for them to run a dual-licensing system and collect money from those who don't want to share their work under GPL3. It seems only fair that if someone does not want to share, they <i>should</i> have to pay.
2. They are commercial, institutional, or individual entities who are sharing their work with no expectation of ever making any money from it, and who want to have the greatest possible positive effect on Free Software. They will use the multiplier effect of the GPL: the fact that it encourages others to share under the same terms as the original contributor, so that their contribution becomes much larger than the piece they wrote while staying entirely Free.<p>
But why would these parties not go with GPL2? GPL3s goals are entirely the same as those of GPL2. Law and technology have changed and GPL3 is how the GPL keeps up with them.>p>
When GPL2 was written, we used phonograph records and video tape, the only DRM was "dongles" and floppy disk sector format scrambling, and the most powerful computer input device in most people's homes was a touch-tone keypad. There has been a tremendous lot of change in law and case-law since then, GPL3 is just keeping up with it. If we were just to hold still, GPL2 would become progressively less enforcible.<p>
GPL2 is the most-used license in Open Source today. It seems a lot of people already share the reasons I've outlined above to license that way. They will want GPL3, because it will continue to help them have sharing with rules.<p>
There's no reason for Google to have a problem with GPL3. Their profit center is not proprietary software, and they know how to keep two pieces of software apart so that GPL3 is never a concern regarding their internal trade secrets. I don't know enough about BMC, but if you are having a theoretical problem with GPL3, I think it must be because you're not up to speed on keeping those two pieces of software apart. Please rest assured that it is eminently possible, and that GPL3 becomes a powerful business asset once you know how to do it.<p><p><i>
Bruce
</i>
1. They are commercial entities who want to make money from their work. GPL3 will the best way for them to run a dual-licensing system and collect money from those who don't want to share their work under GPL3. It seems only fair that if someone does not want to share, they <i>should</i> have to pay.
2. They are commercial, institutional, or individual entities who are sharing their work with no expectation of ever making any money from it, and who want to have the greatest possible positive effect on Free Software. They will use the multiplier effect of the GPL: the fact that it encourages others to share under the same terms as the original contributor, so that their contribution becomes much larger than the piece they wrote while staying entirely Free.<p>
But why would these parties not go with GPL2? GPL3s goals are entirely the same as those of GPL2. Law and technology have changed and GPL3 is how the GPL keeps up with them.>p>
When GPL2 was written, we used phonograph records and video tape, the only DRM was "dongles" and floppy disk sector format scrambling, and the most powerful computer input device in most people's homes was a touch-tone keypad. There has been a tremendous lot of change in law and case-law since then, GPL3 is just keeping up with it. If we were just to hold still, GPL2 would become progressively less enforcible.<p>
GPL2 is the most-used license in Open Source today. It seems a lot of people already share the reasons I've outlined above to license that way. They will want GPL3, because it will continue to help them have sharing with rules.<p>
There's no reason for Google to have a problem with GPL3. Their profit center is not proprietary software, and they know how to keep two pieces of software apart so that GPL3 is never a concern regarding their internal trade secrets. I don't know enough about BMC, but if you are having a theoretical problem with GPL3, I think it must be because you're not up to speed on keeping those two pieces of software apart. Please rest assured that it is eminently possible, and that GPL3 becomes a powerful business asset once you know how to do it.<p><p><i>
Bruce
</i>
not required to back 3.0
Posted by
anon
at
2007-06-07 13:53
Just because GPL 3.0 is being created does NOT mean anyone has to adopt it. You can easily stay with GPL 2.0, or whatever you are at currently, and stay just like you are.
So take your marbles and go home then.
Posted by
Daniel
at
2007-06-07 14:16
"We want all your work, and be able to use it for free, and not give anything back. We want what makes COMMERCIAL development easy."
This is usually the true motivation for those who complain about the GPL. And how is opensource different? Are many licenses a bad thing? How many of the hundreds of closed source software packages share a common license or Eula? Probably ZERO.
I have no problem with GPL, or BSD, etc. At the end of the day, you the developer choose what you need to use. I do think it's sad when BSD libraries are used, as improvements can disappear forever down a closed source hole, never to be seen by other users.
Hey, if I use your products, I never get to see the source, never get to modify it, and I can't use it how I see fit. We don't make you play by our rules. If you want to join in, you have to agree to the GPL. Just as we have to agree to your license. Which, BTW, probably provides far far fewer rights than even the "Restrictive" GPL. As a developer, how can I use YOUR software code?
This is usually the true motivation for those who complain about the GPL. And how is opensource different? Are many licenses a bad thing? How many of the hundreds of closed source software packages share a common license or Eula? Probably ZERO.
I have no problem with GPL, or BSD, etc. At the end of the day, you the developer choose what you need to use. I do think it's sad when BSD libraries are used, as improvements can disappear forever down a closed source hole, never to be seen by other users.
Hey, if I use your products, I never get to see the source, never get to modify it, and I can't use it how I see fit. We don't make you play by our rules. If you want to join in, you have to agree to the GPL. Just as we have to agree to your license. Which, BTW, probably provides far far fewer rights than even the "Restrictive" GPL. As a developer, how can I use YOUR software code?
Replies to this comment
Death? Hah!
Posted by
Chase Venters
at
2007-06-07 15:53
The Death of a Software License might be more plausible if some of the most important enterprise free software projects were not about to move to GPLv3 the day it comes out. This includes Samba and likely the whole of the GNU underpinnings that are often forgotten but quite vital to a complete GNU/Linux system.
The GPL doesn't hurt anybody that isn't on a mission to try and extract more freedom from other people's code than they wanted to give. It doesn't apply at all to end users.
If you think there is an increasing demand for permissive licenses, you should consider weighing that factor against the increasing number of open source projects. If the ratio of demand for permissive licensing to copyleft is 1:4 (probably less, if you measure license popularity), an increase in the whole pool of open source might appear to increase the demand for permissive licensing. But that is likely matched with an equal or greater increase in demand for copyleft licensing.
And I wouldn't expect a chairman of Apache Software, which has its own more permissive license, to speak on the subject of copyleft demand increasing. He might not even legitimately see it, because of the "sub-communities" if you will that he is exposed to. The guys working on Apache and Java are a different breed than the guys working on the GNU/Linux operating system.
By the way... I've heard the claim that GPL's success is due only to some kind of popularity contest, and I still think it is absolutely absurd. If developers are inclined to want more permissive licensing, why did anyone start using GPL in the first place? GPL was the newcomer.
The GPL doesn't hurt anybody that isn't on a mission to try and extract more freedom from other people's code than they wanted to give. It doesn't apply at all to end users.
If you think there is an increasing demand for permissive licenses, you should consider weighing that factor against the increasing number of open source projects. If the ratio of demand for permissive licensing to copyleft is 1:4 (probably less, if you measure license popularity), an increase in the whole pool of open source might appear to increase the demand for permissive licensing. But that is likely matched with an equal or greater increase in demand for copyleft licensing.
And I wouldn't expect a chairman of Apache Software, which has its own more permissive license, to speak on the subject of copyleft demand increasing. He might not even legitimately see it, because of the "sub-communities" if you will that he is exposed to. The guys working on Apache and Java are a different breed than the guys working on the GNU/Linux operating system.
By the way... I've heard the claim that GPL's success is due only to some kind of popularity contest, and I still think it is absolutely absurd. If developers are inclined to want more permissive licensing, why did anyone start using GPL in the first place? GPL was the newcomer.
Replies to this comment
More freedom == more potential for problems
Posted by
ThomasJ
at
2007-06-07 17:07
This article makes the very valid point that we developers want more permissive licensing, but at the same time seems to imply that none of us will think any further than that. For those who think no further, more permissive licensing is bound to win them over... but for those of us who think things through a bit further, we realize that more freedom is not always better.
For example, take flying a kite -- you have to have a string to fly a kite. But at the same time, that string binds the kite, restricting it, tying it to the ground. If what we want is total freedom, then don't include the string -- just don't expect the kite to fly. Open source software is like that kite -- what we really want for our open source kite is NOT more permissive lack of strings, but rather we want that kite to fly! Of course, open source software is a pretty complex kite -- it takes more than one simple string to keep it in the air. And as time goes on, new winds have blown our way: winds in the form of patents and DRM. These require a couple more strings to keep our kite flying, and I'm of the opinion that the GPL v3 offers those very strings. Because really, how am I gaining more freedom by using a license that leaves my software open to being patented or DRM'd?
So, maybe I'm in the minority, but as long as there IS a minority the GPL will live -- even 10 years from now, and more.
For example, take flying a kite -- you have to have a string to fly a kite. But at the same time, that string binds the kite, restricting it, tying it to the ground. If what we want is total freedom, then don't include the string -- just don't expect the kite to fly. Open source software is like that kite -- what we really want for our open source kite is NOT more permissive lack of strings, but rather we want that kite to fly! Of course, open source software is a pretty complex kite -- it takes more than one simple string to keep it in the air. And as time goes on, new winds have blown our way: winds in the form of patents and DRM. These require a couple more strings to keep our kite flying, and I'm of the opinion that the GPL v3 offers those very strings. Because really, how am I gaining more freedom by using a license that leaves my software open to being patented or DRM'd?
So, maybe I'm in the minority, but as long as there IS a minority the GPL will live -- even 10 years from now, and more.
More freedom == more potential for problems
Posted by
ThomasJ
at
2007-06-07 17:14
This article makes the very valid point that we developers want more permissive licensing, but at the same time seems to imply that none of us will think any further than that. For those who think no further, more permissive licensing is bound to win them over... but for those of us who think things through a bit further, we realize that more freedom is not always better.
For example, take flying a kite -- you have to have a string to fly a kite. But at the same time, that string binds the kite, restricting it, tying it to the ground. If what we want is total freedom, then don't include the string -- just don't expect the kite to fly. Open source software is like that kite -- what we really want for our open source kite is NOT more permissive lack of strings, but rather we want that kite to fly! Of course, open source software is a pretty complex kite -- it takes more than one simple string to keep it in the air. And as time goes on, new winds have blown our way: winds in the form of patents and DRM. These require a couple more strings to keep our kite flying, and I'm of the opinion that the GPL v3 offers those very strings. Because really, how am I gaining more freedom by using a license that leaves my software open to being patented or DRM'd?
So, maybe I'm in the minority, but as long as there IS a minority the GPL will live -- even 10 years from now, and more.
As a last point, does it seem to anyone else that quoting Greg Stein, the chairman of the Apache Software Foundation, which uses it's own license, is a bit of a conflict of interest? If whurley had quoted some other, usually pro-GPL guy as being against v3 it might have some weight behind it, but as it is it really doesn't mean much.
For example, take flying a kite -- you have to have a string to fly a kite. But at the same time, that string binds the kite, restricting it, tying it to the ground. If what we want is total freedom, then don't include the string -- just don't expect the kite to fly. Open source software is like that kite -- what we really want for our open source kite is NOT more permissive lack of strings, but rather we want that kite to fly! Of course, open source software is a pretty complex kite -- it takes more than one simple string to keep it in the air. And as time goes on, new winds have blown our way: winds in the form of patents and DRM. These require a couple more strings to keep our kite flying, and I'm of the opinion that the GPL v3 offers those very strings. Because really, how am I gaining more freedom by using a license that leaves my software open to being patented or DRM'd?
So, maybe I'm in the minority, but as long as there IS a minority the GPL will live -- even 10 years from now, and more.
As a last point, does it seem to anyone else that quoting Greg Stein, the chairman of the Apache Software Foundation, which uses it's own license, is a bit of a conflict of interest? If whurley had quoted some other, usually pro-GPL guy as being against v3 it might have some weight behind it, but as it is it really doesn't mean much.
Which developers did they ask?
Posted by
Paul
at
2007-06-07 19:42
I'm a software developer, and (L)GPL are the *only* licenses i feel comfortable in releasing software under. I'm currently working on a proprietary scientific application, and the licensing terms are rather vague. This means that i can never feel comfortable in reusing the code i'm working on now later (even though some of it is good code), because my client owns the copyright, and the license is rather unclear.
With proprietary code, there's no question whether i can reuse the code later - i can't (at least not without paying money). With (L)GPL code, at least there's the *possibility* of it.
And like the first poster said, some of us do care that our code is not used for Digital Repression Measures (a.k.a. DRM).
With proprietary code, there's no question whether i can reuse the code later - i can't (at least not without paying money). With (L)GPL code, at least there's the *possibility* of it.
And like the first poster said, some of us do care that our code is not used for Digital Repression Measures (a.k.a. DRM).
This is NOT about GPLv2 versus GPLv3
Posted by
Greg Stein
at
2007-06-07 20:14
This not a blog post about "gee, people should not upgrade to GPLv3". That's not what whurley is saying at all.
The primary point is that a large number of software developers desire or need libraries/components/software that is under a permissive license. That large body of developers (OSS devs and commercial devs) create a demand for permissively-licensed code. If producers of those components want to remain popular and relevant, then they are going to feel a pressure to be more permissively-licensed. That is what "license pressure" is about.
There is a huge Free Software movement, embodying lots of developers who author and who consume Free software. Great. Continue to do so. However, I believe that the pressure towards permissive licensing will result in the majority of code eventually falling under a permissive license. Under that belief, the corollary is that reciprocally-licensed code (e.g. GPL'd code) will fall into the minority. Next corollary is that if you're advocating a reciprocal license, then you're in the minority and out of touch with the mainstream. Now, that might be a arguable :-), especially because I think there will always be room for Free software. But I am pretty confident in the continued rise of permissive licensing.
Cheers,
-g
The primary point is that a large number of software developers desire or need libraries/components/software that is under a permissive license. That large body of developers (OSS devs and commercial devs) create a demand for permissively-licensed code. If producers of those components want to remain popular and relevant, then they are going to feel a pressure to be more permissively-licensed. That is what "license pressure" is about.
There is a huge Free Software movement, embodying lots of developers who author and who consume Free software. Great. Continue to do so. However, I believe that the pressure towards permissive licensing will result in the majority of code eventually falling under a permissive license. Under that belief, the corollary is that reciprocally-licensed code (e.g. GPL'd code) will fall into the minority. Next corollary is that if you're advocating a reciprocal license, then you're in the minority and out of touch with the mainstream. Now, that might be a arguable :-), especially because I think there will always be room for Free software. But I am pretty confident in the continued rise of permissive licensing.
Cheers,
-g
Just another OSS developer's perspective...
Posted by
Ethan Galstad (Father of Nagios)
at
2007-06-07 20:37
Based on the comments I've seen thus far, I guess I'm a part of the minority of OSS developers who have some doubts about the GPL v3. More on that in a bit.
When I started developing Nagios over 8 years ago, I remember considering what license I was going to release it under. The main options I had to choose from (based on my limited OSS exposure at the time) were BSD, GPL, and public domain (which is not really a license). GPL seemed the best for me because it was better suited to my needs than the other two options, I understood the basic principles it addressed, and many other OSS projects that I used at the time were released under the GPL. The fact that the GPL was adopted by projects like the Linux kernel went a long way in convincing me it was a reasonable license to use for Nagios.
One of the earlier commenters mentioned that there were tens of thousands of licenses out there already when the GPL was first written. That may be true, but I'm betting that 99.99% of them wouldn't be considered "Open Source compatible" by today's standards. And who wants to try and wade through the muck of so many licenses anyway? With the proliferation of OSI licenses that are out there today, you could have a serious case of analysis paralysis if you want to get things “just right” before starting out. If you're starting a new OSS project as an individual, you probably wouldn't want to go through all that. Hence, you're more likely to go with the crowd and pick on of the more popular licenses like the GPL.
The GPL license was no doubt an enabler in the OSS movement, as were Richard Stallman and the FSF, but they're not the end all. I don't consider the opinions of Richard or the FSF to be representative of the entire OSS community, or even a majority of it. I think the OSS movement is bigger than the FSF, so exactly what impact the GPL v3 will have on the community and future project development remains to be seen. Kudos to them for creating the GPL v2 though – it may not be perfect, but it has proved to be a strong, lasting license that has certainly help spur the OSS movement along.
One of the things that just doesn't sit well with me regarding the GPL v3 is its anti-DRM provisions. While I'm not a fan of software patents or DRM, I can't say I'm totally against them in all situations. It depends on the situation. It feels like things are getting more restrictive, rather than more open. Coming from a fear-based position of “we must protect ourselves against evil DRM” doesn't sit right either. I'd rather let the market force its hand in abolishing DRM, but sheeple don't always realize they're headed off to the slaughter. *sigh*
I certainly won't be jumping on to the GPL v3 bandwagon anytime soon. I may even choose to ditch the GPL license entirely for new projects I start in the future. The anti-DRM provisions in GPL v3 may help with the battle again evil DRM implementations, but might cause some bigger losses in the “war” against proprietary software. If it is even a war – but that's a different blog entry. I support proprietary software over OSS in some instances, so I guess I'm not made out to be a flag waving FSF spokesperson anyway. I have been called a communist hippie though, so I can't be all bad. :-)
Enough for now. Time to go back to fixing Nagios bugs...
- "Father of Nagios"
When I started developing Nagios over 8 years ago, I remember considering what license I was going to release it under. The main options I had to choose from (based on my limited OSS exposure at the time) were BSD, GPL, and public domain (which is not really a license). GPL seemed the best for me because it was better suited to my needs than the other two options, I understood the basic principles it addressed, and many other OSS projects that I used at the time were released under the GPL. The fact that the GPL was adopted by projects like the Linux kernel went a long way in convincing me it was a reasonable license to use for Nagios.
One of the earlier commenters mentioned that there were tens of thousands of licenses out there already when the GPL was first written. That may be true, but I'm betting that 99.99% of them wouldn't be considered "Open Source compatible" by today's standards. And who wants to try and wade through the muck of so many licenses anyway? With the proliferation of OSI licenses that are out there today, you could have a serious case of analysis paralysis if you want to get things “just right” before starting out. If you're starting a new OSS project as an individual, you probably wouldn't want to go through all that. Hence, you're more likely to go with the crowd and pick on of the more popular licenses like the GPL.
The GPL license was no doubt an enabler in the OSS movement, as were Richard Stallman and the FSF, but they're not the end all. I don't consider the opinions of Richard or the FSF to be representative of the entire OSS community, or even a majority of it. I think the OSS movement is bigger than the FSF, so exactly what impact the GPL v3 will have on the community and future project development remains to be seen. Kudos to them for creating the GPL v2 though – it may not be perfect, but it has proved to be a strong, lasting license that has certainly help spur the OSS movement along.
One of the things that just doesn't sit well with me regarding the GPL v3 is its anti-DRM provisions. While I'm not a fan of software patents or DRM, I can't say I'm totally against them in all situations. It depends on the situation. It feels like things are getting more restrictive, rather than more open. Coming from a fear-based position of “we must protect ourselves against evil DRM” doesn't sit right either. I'd rather let the market force its hand in abolishing DRM, but sheeple don't always realize they're headed off to the slaughter. *sigh*
I certainly won't be jumping on to the GPL v3 bandwagon anytime soon. I may even choose to ditch the GPL license entirely for new projects I start in the future. The anti-DRM provisions in GPL v3 may help with the battle again evil DRM implementations, but might cause some bigger losses in the “war” against proprietary software. If it is even a war – but that's a different blog entry. I support proprietary software over OSS in some instances, so I guess I'm not made out to be a flag waving FSF spokesperson anyway. I have been called a communist hippie though, so I can't be all bad. :-)
Enough for now. Time to go back to fixing Nagios bugs...
- "Father of Nagios"
I love the GPL
Posted by
Thierry Fernand
at
2007-06-08 00:02
The GPL is popular because it is copyleft. Like many people, I think my work is valuable, and am not going to give it away to someone who makes it proprietary and gives nothing back. There's no benefit to it. Copyleft is the only reason I would accept to write free software.
Look at where is BSD now. They represent a much smaller part than linux, precisely because BSD is not copyleft. Every 3 or 4 years, companies will hire people to work on proprietary derivatives. The BSD wins nothing out of it, just loose their best programers. With Linux things are different: companies are forced to really wok for the benefit of the community.
Look at where is BSD now. They represent a much smaller part than linux, precisely because BSD is not copyleft. Every 3 or 4 years, companies will hire people to work on proprietary derivatives. The BSD wins nothing out of it, just loose their best programers. With Linux things are different: companies are forced to really wok for the benefit of the community.
Replies to this comment
The short-sighted can only see so far...
Posted by
G Fernandes
at
2007-06-08 09:11
You've got it all wrong - as many have pointed out to you. RMS sees things far, far, far, far, .... REALLY REALLY FAR ahead of what most people can. Here, 'most people' include me. And most certainly includes you. It even includes Linus actually - if you think about it.
The GPLv3 is extremely important to developers who care about OWNERSHIP and CONTROL. This is why it is also important to corporates. It is extremely important to developers who care about the four freedoms.
Now, not all people - including some very bring developers - can see how their freedom is going to be impacted by various combinations of events that will occur in the near and not-so-near future. Such people say various things like "I will not use the 'version 2 and later' clause advocated by the FSF because I do not know what later versions will look like". Such language has been heard of some very prominent developers.
People who care about the 4 freedoms and have learned to trust the FSF in it's veritable legal wisdom, use that clause. These same people will ALL upgrade. Such savvy people have participated in the process of the GPLv3 and have committed to upgrading to it.
So, in summary, while I can fully understand that you are short-sighted and can't see the future impacting you in any significant way, it'd be REALLY great if you didn't presume everybody else to be the same.
You walk with hallowed company - including Linus Trovalds himself. But ce'st la vie.
The GPLv3 is extremely important to developers who care about OWNERSHIP and CONTROL. This is why it is also important to corporates. It is extremely important to developers who care about the four freedoms.
Now, not all people - including some very bring developers - can see how their freedom is going to be impacted by various combinations of events that will occur in the near and not-so-near future. Such people say various things like "I will not use the 'version 2 and later' clause advocated by the FSF because I do not know what later versions will look like". Such language has been heard of some very prominent developers.
People who care about the 4 freedoms and have learned to trust the FSF in it's veritable legal wisdom, use that clause. These same people will ALL upgrade. Such savvy people have participated in the process of the GPLv3 and have committed to upgrading to it.
So, in summary, while I can fully understand that you are short-sighted and can't see the future impacting you in any significant way, it'd be REALLY great if you didn't presume everybody else to be the same.
You walk with hallowed company - including Linus Trovalds himself. But ce'st la vie.
silly little man
Posted by
Moose
at
2007-06-08 11:29
Companies that want to make profits with other people's code wish those developers were using permissive licenses. Developers who want to contribute to a growing body of computer science knowledge use the GPL. And developers who don't want companies to take their code with weasely legal workarounds use GPL3.
Not a declaration, but a warning. (Learn to Read)
Posted by
James G.
at
2007-06-08 11:59
I applaud the author for taking issue with where the GPL is heading. I personally see Stallman as anything BUT a visionary. Yes, he's done a ton of good for open source. But I remember when 'code' was given away on mainframes while Stallman wasn't even getting his lunch money taking by the cool kids in middle school. RMS DID NOT invent OSS. Please!
Now about this post, most of the people commenting on this blog need to learn how to read. This is a warning, not a declaration. People who speak up in our community should be praised, not chastised. To many RMS/GPL/FSF fans have a heard mentality and it shows here. READ what this guy is saying...that if developers and the GPL go in opposite directions, the GPL will loose. He's right about where the power in OSS comes from, developers. And those of you who don't realize that there are more "permissive license" developers and projects than GPL developers and projects need to snap out of it. This guy is giving his opinion, what a blog is for, and thanks to him for trying to shed a little light on the mess that is GPL v3.
Now about this post, most of the people commenting on this blog need to learn how to read. This is a warning, not a declaration. People who speak up in our community should be praised, not chastised. To many RMS/GPL/FSF fans have a heard mentality and it shows here. READ what this guy is saying...that if developers and the GPL go in opposite directions, the GPL will loose. He's right about where the power in OSS comes from, developers. And those of you who don't realize that there are more "permissive license" developers and projects than GPL developers and projects need to snap out of it. This guy is giving his opinion, what a blog is for, and thanks to him for trying to shed a little light on the mess that is GPL v3.
GPL and the monopolist
Posted by
anonymous
at
2007-06-08 12:15
The GPL3 may try to bring "the monopolist down", but I think that for now is bringing down a monopolist-competitor (TiVo) who bought into GPL2 in first place. Monopolist will be happy
Good Points
Posted by
Stephen Paskaluk
at
2007-06-08 13:28
First a small disagreement: I doubt the GPL will die out. Firstly because many people seem to be on board with the GPLv3 and secondly because many people will just continue to use GPLv2
Other than that I agree with your points. The GPLv3 is about activism in my eyes and I want nothing to do with it. All the paranoia about "tivoization" is nothing I care about, as long as they're redistributing their code I don't need to run their hardware. Trying to adapt to a failing patent system is a poor treatment for the symptom while the problem remains.
GPLv2 really hit a nice spot where people wanted to release code in their spare time but were afraid to lose it if someone else ripped it off and took it for themselves. Then again I'm a BSD/MIT licensing proponent and a Windows developer ... my opinion will almost certainly be disregarded by anyone who feels the GPLv3 is worth pursuing.
Other than that I agree with your points. The GPLv3 is about activism in my eyes and I want nothing to do with it. All the paranoia about "tivoization" is nothing I care about, as long as they're redistributing their code I don't need to run their hardware. Trying to adapt to a failing patent system is a poor treatment for the symptom while the problem remains.
GPLv2 really hit a nice spot where people wanted to release code in their spare time but were afraid to lose it if someone else ripped it off and took it for themselves. Then again I'm a BSD/MIT licensing proponent and a Windows developer ... my opinion will almost certainly be disregarded by anyone who feels the GPLv3 is worth pursuing.
THE GPL IS NOT THE TOOL TO FIGHT PATENTS OR DRM...
Posted by
Andrew C.
at
2007-06-08 12:06
Community is. Wake up lemmings, time to snap out of the religious viewpoints and apply some basic objectiveness and logic to what's going on around you. The GPL is not to tool we need to fight injustice in the patent system, or the threat of DRM. The changes in the GPL v3 are way out of line with reality and some serious thought should be given to the subject of where we should fight this battle and with what tools. GPL is not the tool.
Just another proprietary license
Posted by
Steve
at
2007-06-11 00:24
The GPL is just another proprietary license. It tells me what I can do, and more importantly, what I can't do with a piece of software. It's not fundamentaly different to, say, the Oracle license, and it's moving more in that direction with v3.
There's a lot of good code out there released under GPL, under BSD, under Artistic, and under commercial licenses. I'm happy to use all of 'em. But if I'm writing code that I want to be widely used, I'll avoid the GPL, thanks. BSD, Artistic or LGPL? Sure. Not GPL.
There's a lot of good code out there released under GPL, under BSD, under Artistic, and under commercial licenses. I'm happy to use all of 'em. But if I'm writing code that I want to be widely used, I'll avoid the GPL, thanks. BSD, Artistic or LGPL? Sure. Not GPL.
Linus Torvalds on GPLv3
Posted by
Linus Torvalds on GPLv3
at
2007-06-14 02:26
The creator of the Linux operating system sees "no reason" to move his invention to new licensing terms under consideration by the group that governs open source software. "I still think GPLv2 is simply the better license," Linus Torvalds said in a posting Sunday on the Linux kernel developer mailing list.
The Free Software Foundation is in the midst of revising open source software's most widely used license -- the so-called General Public License. GPLv3 is expected to be published in final form this summer.
Key changes from GPLv2 include a ban on deals under which open source distributors agree to patent protection arrangements with commercial software developers. GPLv3 also adds a prohibition on including open source software in consumer appliances that don't allow user modifications.
The Free Software Foundation says such arrangements and features violate the spirit of open source software, which is meant to be used and shared freely. The two provisions are squarely aimed at Microsoft and digital video recorder manufacturer Tivo.
http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199903437
The Free Software Foundation is in the midst of revising open source software's most widely used license -- the so-called General Public License. GPLv3 is expected to be published in final form this summer.
Key changes from GPLv2 include a ban on deals under which open source distributors agree to patent protection arrangements with commercial software developers. GPLv3 also adds a prohibition on including open source software in consumer appliances that don't allow user modifications.
The Free Software Foundation says such arrangements and features violate the spirit of open source software, which is meant to be used and shared freely. The two provisions are squarely aimed at Microsoft and digital video recorder manufacturer Tivo.
http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199903437
You're completely high.
Posted by
Scramblejams
at
2007-06-18 02:36
I can't count the number of developers I know who have chosen the GPL precisely because of its "viral" effect -- they don't want others to benefit from their work without forcing any improvements to be contributed back to them. I've even been involved in a project where potential contributors told me in so many words that they were holding back because they didn't like the project's BSD license -- they didn't like the idea of big companies (which were actively using this software) benefiting from their contributions without being forced to give something back. When the project's license changed to the GPL, contributions went through the roof and the project was revitalized. Apparently you think developers are mostly a) sheep or b) only interested that the code is free for all use, BSD-style. When you're coding for love rather than your boss, that's not how it is, and for you to dismiss that is to dismiss the origins of the software we have to thank for today's rich OS ecosystem -- GNU and the Linux kernel.
Freedom isn't just about riciprocating
Posted by
Sam Hiser
at
2007-07-07 09:15
Bill, you're missing something.
When commercial interests are trying to kill you, you recognize eventually -- as the FSF has and many Linux developers have -- that you need to focus tangentially, orthogonally or in whatever direction the threats come from which propose morality for the free flow of knowledge.
It would be more useful if you would describe the mechanism by which GPL is committing hari kiri. Perhaps it's merely bad for you (of BMC). But something tells me you're not interested in a learning discussion.
GPLv3 is grand!
When commercial interests are trying to kill you, you recognize eventually -- as the FSF has and many Linux developers have -- that you need to focus tangentially, orthogonally or in whatever direction the threats come from which propose morality for the free flow of knowledge.
It would be more useful if you would describe the mechanism by which GPL is committing hari kiri. Perhaps it's merely bad for you (of BMC). But something tells me you're not interested in a learning discussion.
GPLv3 is grand!
Bwaahahahaha!
Posted by
Paul
at
2007-12-31 14:06
That made me laugh because I disagree with everything the article said.
Google is not winning points with this developer by selecting a more a license which is more permissive of corporate control of users.
For me, the GPL is the gold-standard for protecting user freedoms. I'm especially excited about the Affero GPL because I've seen companies rip off web application published under the GPL2.
Viva Free Software!
Google is not winning points with this developer by selecting a more a license which is more permissive of corporate control of users.
For me, the GPL is the gold-standard for protecting user freedoms. I'm especially excited about the Affero GPL because I've seen companies rip off web application published under the GPL2.
Viva Free Software!
But, in most cases this has nothing to do with DRM in software, it's all about DRM in hardware. DRM in software is simple, don't use it and it doesn't affect you. Most open source developers I know are more annoyed by the articles about DRM on slashdot than they are about dealing with DRM software. But everyone is scared about what's happening with hardware.
It's a great time to write software as an open source developer. You have millions of libraries to choose from and decent support for every language on every platform. You have thousands of open web interfaces to hook up to and hundreds of open API's on all platforms (yes, even windows has some).
The big worry right now is getting locked out of hardware. The most painful part of running linux right now is dealing with advanced graphics chipsets and their locked down hardware. DRM in hardware, and locking out "unsigned" code is a huge concern among the open source community, and out of all the provisions in the GPLv3, I think it's the one that other licenses will be imitating 5 years from now.