Re: [ox-en] Dangerous changes in the GPL 3.0
- From: Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de>
- Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 19:12:59 +0200
Hi Tom, Karel, Niklas, all!
Last week (11 days ago) Tom Chance wrote:
It's not yet clear exactly how the change will work, so your objection rings a
little hollow.
Hopefully :-) .
How do you propose the FSF can close the loophole that allows
GPL-ed internet services to be modified and used without reciprocity?
Thanks for fueling my scepticism. The GPL is *not* based on
reciprocity so far. It only ensures that someone who receives the
binaries of (modified) Free Software should have the same rights as
the distributor has. This is only enforcing the original authors will
and this a big difference to reciprocity.
Also I find the point with the Internet services ridiculous. From the
very beginning of Free Software similar situations existed. One of the
big, early Free Software projects was the GCC (a compiler) and you can
process all kind of source code with the GCC. I remember well that in
the company where I worked at that time we wondered whether we need to
GPL the sofware because it has been compiled with the GCC. This is not
the case. Neither would we were required to publish a modified GCC we
could have built to compile proprietary software. So where is the big
difference with Internet services based on Free Software?
No this control attitude is new and it haunts the discussion for at
least a year now.
On Sunday 25 Sep 2005 12:10, Stefan Merten wrote:
* FSF tends to rule the world
One of the things I really liked in Free Software and Richard
Stallman's attitude was the free going thing. For instance the
non-discrimination of any kind of endeavor I find really a step in
the right direction. Now Free Software is really successful they say
"Hah, now you are depending on us, now we change the rules of the
game". This is bad style to say the least.
They're actually going about this now in a more open way than previous
revisions. Both the FSF and FSFE are planning public consultation periods,
where I'm sure they'd value your input.
Can you - or someone else - drop us a note when this starts?
This problem was always existed. Everybody could stubbornly stick with the GPL
v2 if v3 really is onerous.
I checked the default formulation:
you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published
by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License,
or (at your option) any later version.
So yes, v3 is not automatically used.
Forking is the only democratic check on the FSF's
benevolent dictatorship of the GPL. I'm not sure how else it could be done -
could you imagine how chaotic a truly participatory redrafting of the GPL
would be?
To me it looks like a betrayal of the ideas of Free Software. FSF
starts to damage Free Software with this because it leaves the ground
it created so well. I only can hope they get back to their senses.
I'd welcome if they continue the GPL in the spirit of the GPL. I.e.
make modifications to fit different legal systems and so on. If they
want to give the world a new license they are of course free to do so
but they should label this clearly as different from the GPL.
* It fundamentally introduces exchange into Free Software
This I find the most dangerous development indeed. You are not
longer allowed to do what you like with the software as long as you
do it in your own four walls. If you do something which might be
useful you *must* give it away. This is a form of exchange and on
the basis of the Oekonux thoughts I consider this more dangerous
for Free Software than any patent claims.
That allegation, again, isn't substantiated yet. In fact, I'd say you're plain
wrong, because I see no reason why they'd change the GPL so that any changes
made to any software must be distributed. As far as I can see they're simply
extending "if you distribute it" clause to include distribution as an
internet service.
But this is illogical. What makes the use of Free Software as an
Internet service different from compiling a program or writing this
mail?
No, to me this is discrimination of certain endeavors and this is
against the spirit and the logic of Free Software.
However, it reminds me very much of the attitude of many Lefts who
want to restrict use of Free Software to all those people they do not
like. I'm fighting this attitude for years now and won't stop because
the FSF now is among its supporters.
Last week (11 days ago) Karel Kulhavy wrote:
That's difficult - freedom is lack of enforcement,
I disagree very much. What you describe is unlimitedness and the right
term for this is chaos. Chaos, however, is the opposite of freedom.
On the other hand what if some multi-billion-dollar globalized company
takes Linux kernel, does it's own changes, and will use it on 300 000
computers and noone will have access to that, because "that's inside
our walls"?
What's wrong with this? This happened in the past and Free Software
were not damaged by it. Rather the multi-billion-dollar globalized
companies doing so were damaged because they did not contribute their
changes to the bigger pool and as a consequence could not profit from
the improvements of their own changes by others. They damage
themselves and nobody is harmed. Why stop them?
Last week (10 days ago) Niklas Vainio wrote:
Stefan Merten wrote:
says that the new GPL 3.0 may change the rules insofar as changes to
GPL software made locally must be published.
I believe this is a hoax. It would be contrary to Stallman's previous
ideas. See what he (or FSF) wrote in the "Free Software Definition":
"You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them
privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they
exist." (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)
This was exactly my first reaction when I heard of this Internet
service stuff some time ago. However, at least the Internet service
stuff *is* a reality.
Mit Freien Grüßen
Stefan
--
Please note this message is written on an offline laptop
and send out in the evening of the day it is written. It
does not take any information into account which may have
reached my mailbox since yesterday evening.
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de