GPLv3 license marks GNU's decline

[Valour]

The GNU General Public License version 3 (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html) is unleashed to the world today, ready and willing to conquer perceived problems with the legal system in the U.S. and other countries. It's been carefully considered, debated, and examined by very smart people with a lot of experience with software license law and advocacy. Programmers, lawyers, and businesspeople have looked it over and petitioned changes until most parties were reasonably satisfied with the result. So today is, ostensibly, GPLv3 release day, but I think in the future that it will be remembered in a sad sort of way. We will look back on this and say that June 29, 2007 was the day when the Free Software Foundation jumped the shark, creating an impassable chasm where there was already an uncomfortable rift between the Free Software Foundation and GNU Project, and the larger free software and open source worlds. The GPLv3 adds restrictions galore for developers and users alike, none of which are designed to be understood by the people who matter most -- programmers and users. The FSF tells us that the new restrictions in the GPLv3, on patents, patent licensing, and hardware capabilities, are there to make us more free. That's right -- more restrictions are being forced on us so that we can be "more free." If that sounds like a big steaming pile of nonsense to you, then I'm with you, brother.

GPLv3 license marks GNU's decline

[J.F.]

I think the problem is that you're not a developer. You don't seem to understand software patents at all, either. GPLv3 is response to proprietary closed-source companies trying to "game" the system so that they can do what they want with GPL code. If they wish to do that, they should stick to BSD code. People who write code and then place it under the GPL do so for a reason. If they wished to allow closed-source usage of their code, they'd make it BSD or public domain.

The change in language is one of those "necessary evils"... to keep the corporate sharks from eating the people in the life-raft, you need to use their language against them. You think GPLv3 is hard to understand? Try reading an EULA from MS or any other close-source proprietary company... and that's just to USE the software. You don't EVEN want to see the legal documents you'd have to agree to to use their code (in the rare cases where you can). For an example, look over the UNIX contracts in the IBM/TSG case. You'll find them posted in a variety of places that track the case. They make the GPLv3 look simple and sane.


There is a saying - Freedom isn't free. The GPLv3 is a reflection of this. To keep the USAGE of code MEANT TO BE FREE to ACTUALLY be free, there is a price to pay, and with companies trying to steal the code and game the courts, the price has gone up since the last version of the GPL. If you don't like, that's fine. No one is FORCING anyone to use it. That's why there are dozens of open source licenses. You can even stick with GPLv2 if you like (the linux kernel is doing just that).

Let's make it simple - just like always, the GPL (any version) boils down to this: if you don't like the GPL terms, don't use GPL code. You're free to go looking for non-GPL code elsewhere, or write it yourself. If you wish to use GPL code, abide by the terms the authors chose for their own work.

[Valour]

The FSF created a license to enforce its political agenda, which is ill-conceived to begin with. They have created a situation in which they are the sole arbitor of freedom, and we must put faith in the FSF that they won't abuse their dominance over us. We've allowed someone else to "own" us, which is precisely the matter that RMS originally meant to combat. Somewhere along the line, this issue stopped being about computer software and started being about patent laws and compulsory licensing and what programs are and are not meant to be replaced. I'm going back to the simpler way of life, myself, but I may have some trouble doing that. The FSF waited until it had enough programs in GNU that we all depended on, then changed the license so that we are more restricted. I will have to stop using software that has no reasonable restriction-free alternatives, or bend to the FSF's will. That is dirty pool.

[Valour]

I added a paragraph to the last section. I wanted to add this earlier, but in my haste to publish before noon, I forgot about it:

There is an important moment in the history of psychology (please Tom Cruise, don't jump on my couch) that applies well to this situation. Though Carl Jung had defended Sigmund Freud on many occasions, the latter said something to Jung that forced them to part ways: "My dear Jung, promise me never to abandon the sexual theory. This is the most essential thing of all. You see we must make a dogma of it, an unshakable bulwark against the black tide of mud of occultism." At that point, Jung understood that it was more about Freud's ego (ha!) than it was about figuring out how the human mind works -- it was about being "right" over being "correct." I frequently think of this whenever I find myself defending a principle based on old assumptions. Here we have RMS telling us that restrictions mean freedom, and I can't help but think that this is more about ego and "being right" than it is about being free to use, modify, and distribute software.

[J.F.]

Well, we must agree to disagree on this (God! I hate that phrase. ). The added restrictions are on PREDATORY BUSINESSES, not the vast majority of developers who license their code under GPL, nor on the vast majority of users of GPL software. If it's "less free" to businesses like that, GOOD! I welcome that, and so do most other developers who knowingly select GPL as their license of choice.

[Valour]

Originally Posted by J.F.

Well, we must agree to disagree on this (God! I hate that phrase. ). The added restrictions are on PREDATORY BUSINESSES, not the vast majority of developers who license their code under GPL, nor on the vast majority of users of GPL software. If it's "less free" to businesses like that, GOOD! I welcome that, and so do most other developers who knowingly select GPL as their license of choice.

My point isn't to dissuade others from using it... it's just to show that "hey, this is not what I signed up for." And I think that more restriction in the GPL will lead to more factionalism, primarily in the form of FSF/GNU vs. everyone else. Time will tell.

So agree to disagree I suppose... while still keeping an eye on the situation to document its progress.

[J.F.]

Originally Posted by Valour

My point isn't to dissuade others from using it... it's just to show that "hey, this is not what I signed up for." And I think that more restriction in the GPL will lead to more factionalism, primarily in the form of FSF/GNU vs. everyone else. Time will tell.

So agree to disagree I suppose... while still keeping an eye on the situation to document its progress.

Oh yes, definitely. Lot's of people will be watching this. It may yet fizzle out - it's not popular with many people right now. Like I said, the linux kernel is sticking to v2 at this time. I'm not 100% sure I like it yet either. I just haven't seen enough one way or the other, so I'm not discounting it yet either. More of a "wait and see" attitude that I think is perhaps what the majority are doing right now. We'll see something to persuade us one way or the other eventually.

My points were 1) the more legal jargon used was to prevent "gaming" like we've seen in the past (TiVo as a prime example), and 2) the added patent and DRM restrictions won't affect 99.9999% of GPL software in any case. Those clauses are aimed at a few very specific situations that were prime for "gaming" the system.

[Carl]

Originally Posted by J.F.

I think the problem is that you're not a developer. You don't seem to understand software patents at all, either.

That’s a popular misconception, there’s actually no such thing as a “software patent”. When people patent software they do so with a utility patent. This is the exact same type used for mechanical inventions.

This may seem like a trivial distinction to someone who only thinks about software. Here’s an example why it’s not.

Every CD-ROM drive that can decode CD audio has to pay a small royalty to the companies that invented the CD. Since not all drives are needed for audio, companies also sell marginally cheaper drives that do not include this feature.

An unscrupulous software company decided to ignore this patent and include the CD audio decryption in their software. That violates the law and they got caught.

If you don’t apply patents fairly to hardware and software, it offers people the ability to circumvent paying royalties for patented hardware by making software that does the same job.

[Valour]

The whole point of patenting something is to make money through royalties (or an outright sale). The whole point of the patent system may have more lofty goals of making a capitalist market more competitive, but from an individual standpoint, patents are about making money.

It's really hard to get a patent. My father just went through the process twice, spending a lot of money on both the application and on a lawyer to guide him through everything. The whole bureaucracy favors large corporations that have lawyers on staff and tons of money to make it all go smoothly. The single inventor is almost a thing of the past these days.

In writing this article I read a lot about the Eolas patent suit against Microsoft for browser plugin technology. The first time I heard of it, I thought it was pretty ridiculous. After reading about it, I learned that Eolas actually came to Microsoft offering that technology when Internet Explorer did not yet have it. Microsoft turned them down, then went ahead and used the technology anyway. Then they got sued by Eolas some time later. Frankly, they deserved to get sued and I'm glad Microsoft lost. They were offered the technology and refused, then tried to get away with using it anyway. Dirty pool.

The one that gets me is the RIM patent suit that threatened to shut down the entire Blackberry network last year. Why should users suffer because of things corporations do? Sun Microsystems was in the same situation a few years ago with Eastman Kodak Co. over some kind of technology integrated into the Java Runtime Environment. The whole Java world threatened to come to a halt because of a latent patent claim. Also dirty pool, but this time on Kodak's part -- Sun wasn't doing anything underhanded or shady.

The system is screwed -- there is no doubt about that. But I have a big problem with software that I use in every part of my computing life getting involved in this situation in exactly the wrong way. Linux will suffer because of this FSF arrogance. RMS thought he would be very clever and trap developers, software companies, and distributors into being "more free." The result will be exactly the opposite -- there will be more proprietary software as companies and commercial software developers are scared off by the GPLv3, and increasingly associate the concept of free software with it.

[Carl]

U.S. patent law is reliant on the U.S. political and judicial system for policy, alteration, and enforcement, and that’s where I would attribute most of its problems. I take issue with people who think that the fundamental idea of intellectual property and protection of inventions is bad. Although I have no proof, I strongly suspect that we are far better off with this (flawed) system than no system at all.

As for the intent of the system-

Before we had patent law, the only way to protect inventions was as trade secrets. This had a couple problems which patent law was intended to fix.

The first, which is pretty obvious, is that trade secrets can really only be applied to processes used to make products that can be done behind closed doors and leave no evidence in the final product (if they did, they could be reverse engineered). Patents extended protection to inventors whose innovations were easy to see in, or incorporated into the final product.

The second problem with a trade secret is that unless someone independently invents the same thing, the inventor’s monopoly essentially lasts forever. Patents have a finite number of years which they are valid, after that anyone can use the invention.

The third problem with trade secrets is that they not only prevent others from making commercial use of an invention, they also stop others from learning about how an invention works. One of the basic principles of patent law is that it is a bargain between the inventor and the government. The inventor discloses to the public how his/her invention works, and in exchange he/she receives government protection from others who would reduce or nullify the inventor’s ability to profit from an invention.

The intent of the system is to foster innovation, by solving these problems.