Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 22:22:11 -0500 (EST) From: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net> To: joelh@gnu.ai.mit.edu Cc: dyson@freebsd.org, cmott@srv.net, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GPL Message-ID: <199702190322.WAA17162@dyson.iquest.net> In-Reply-To: <199702182348.SAA09936@kropotkin.gnu.ai.mit.edu> from "Joel Ray Holveck" at Feb 18, 97 06:48:33 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > For a user, the GPL is as much of a carte blanche as you want. You > can use it, you can distribute it, you can sell it, whatever you want, > just so long as it stays GPL'd. > But if you change the software one IOTA, you must make the source of the changes available to those that you distribute binaries to. > >The second (and more substantial) complaint, is that derived works > >using GPLed code end up being encumbered by the terms of the GPL. > > This is a feature, not a bug. It was designed that way intentionally, > to keep GNU's works from becoming tools for the proprietary software > people. > What is wrong with the proprietary software people? Especially the little guy just getting started with a good idea that the original software author didn't have (or perhaps imagine?) The guy who adds to the GPLed software needs to understand that his additions will likely be encumbered, and perhaps question the value of the original (GPLed) works relative to the value of his invention. > >The third (and yet more substantial) complaint, is that the original > >author who releases code to the world under GPL, is also bound by the > >GPL that is applied to the modifications of his original source code. > > This is misleading. > Actually, it is precisely correct. The original author is bound by the GPL applied to the derived works in the same way that those who add to the original works are bound by his GPL encumberance. For the author who wants to distribute his code under GPL, and he wants to be safe in redistributing his code with net-created enhancements, it would be wise to get signed releases when including the GPLed code of others into the code base. Otherwise, the original author (if he wants to maintain is redistribution freedom), must simply ignore the net-enhancements, or clean-room redesign them. (I guess that there are some loopholes in copyright law that allows simple changes to be included without encumberance, but it certainly -- to me -- violates the intent of GPL for someone to even take a small amount of GPLed code, and optionally be able to redistribute it under other terms.) > > An author can write code, release it under GPL, > modify it, and release it non-GPL'd. (Example: ICS chess server) If > somebody else writes modifications, and signs the copyright over to > the original author (as most people do), then the author is still free > to release it non-GPL'd. > So those people who write the enhancements would have fewer rights than the original author? Why would someone make substantial enhancements to a GPLed base that the original author can capitalize on? :-). Specifically, those people who add to the GPLed base are at a disadvantage, no matter how much work they put into it. (The reason for the smiley, is that there is a strong anti-proprietary sentiment in the GPL community, and it appears in this case, GPL seems to make it not-so-desirable to spend alot of work producing a GPLed derived work, from a GPLed original.) > > If somebody else writes modifications, > copyrights and GPLs them, and shows them to the author for inclusion > without signing over the copyright, then either work can only come out > of GPL if all involved parties agree. > So this is part of the GPL encumberances and complications. Does it mean that one who spends alot of time/money producing a derived work is playing odds that the person who GPLed the code will allow other redistribution terms? > >In essense, if the GPL is inappropriate for a given application, there > >is a large number of authors that need to be negotiated with to release > >the code from GPL and allow distribution under terms other than GPL. > > This is assuming there is such a case. > What I said, above pretty much agrees with your statement. You have to go through red-tape to use other redistribution terms when using GPLed software. > >The fourth (and the basis for the above points being of concern) complaint, > >is that if you distribute binaries of a program under GPL, then you are > >obligated to make sure that the receiver of your distribution is able > >to get the source code of the program. > > Assuming that you don't mind giving out your source, this isn't a > problem. > Agreed, and much of the time, source code can have cost either alot of money to produce, or have unique and novel ideas that would be undesirable to disclose. This is especially important for the small manufacturer, or large company with paranoid (rightfully so) lawyers. > > I realize that you didn't do this, but I'll point it out before > somebody brings it up. Some people have interpreted that section of > the GPL to mean that you must, in perpetua, provide your customers and > their friends and neighbors with source. It doesn't. It means you > just stick the source code on the end of the tape with your binaries, > and your obligations are fulfilled. > That is all and well, but the information in those sources is a combination of both the GPLed original, and code that must necessarily come under the GPL encumberance because of interface issues (per RMS.) This implies that the payment for using GPLed code is to give away potentially valuable trade secrets. > >However, if you have put many hard hours into improving > >and enhancing the GPLed code, your modifications most likely come > >under GPL. > > We were discussing putting original code under various copyrights, not > modifying previously copyrighted code. > I am talking about the comment that was originally made about those people (including myself) who are critical of GPL. Since my goal on my free software project is to make it available for those who want to commercialize it in any reasonable way with the minimum of red-tape (which GPL IMO causes), I avoid GPL. In commercial projects, where I would have to make substantial modifications which include trade-secrets, I also avoid (not just avoid but ignore) GPLed code as a base. > >With that, you will be divulging ideas that were potentially time consuming > >(expensive) to create. You will then be compelled to give that hard fought > >work to the person that you gave the binary to. > > That is the basis of the GPL. I work as a contract programmer on > occasion. My customer asks me to write a program to help him track > his oil production. (I live in West Texas, not Boston, despite my > address.) I write that program. He now can track his oil. If his > neighbor wants to keep track of oil, then my customer can give this to > him. My efforts can help his neighbor as well, and it was good. This > is the idea behind free software. > In the above case, GPL is not needed. If you wrote your program on a PC clone or common U**X clone, then you can give your customer binary redistribution rights. That is orthogonal to the source redistribution requirements of GPL. In cases such as the above, you did contract work for money. Depending on how your contract was written, you might have lost out on a sale (the second customer.) In that case I hope that you were adequately compensated for the rights that your first customer received from you. Of course, if you were just an hourly worker, it is likely that the customer owns your work anyway, and he can likely give it away. It is all in how your contract was written with him though. (So I am just speculating about the situation.) > >The fifth (and probably not very important point) is that it is commonly > >misunderstood that the person who has distributed a GPLed program has > >to give it to anyone who asks. They don't have to. > >My complaint here > >is primarily to show that the GPL doesn't provide a guaranteed > >redistribution of source code. Of course, many other license terms don't > >either, but this point was made just to show that there are ways around > >the intent of GPL. > > This was not the intent of the GPL, in my interpretation. The intent > was for me to prevent my code from falling into proprietary control. > If I want the world to have access, I will publish it myself, or ask > an interested university or the FSF or somebody to. > You always have control over your code (unless you sign it away.) Various kinds of employment or consulting contracts can do that. Anytime you create a work, and give it to someone (unless you have assigned rights away), you are free to redistribute it through other means also. GPL doesn't help in that case at all. Even in the case where the customer makes significant modifications -- he can still "hoard" the code as long as he doesn't redistribute the binaries. The derived works then become effectively proprietary (you don't necessarily have access to the derived works), and the customer doesn't have to donate the changes back to you. If the customer chooses to redistribute the derived works, he then has to make the source code available to those that receive them. Of course, that customer can make proprietary changes to what was originally your code, and keep them confidential also. GPL doesn't help that situation at all, other than forcing each individual in the chain to give away his trade-secrets, novel ideas or other kind of intellectual property to the receiver of the binaries. Summing things up, GPL does not prevent code from becoming proprietary. It does however, make it less desirable to invest alot of time/money into a code base, unless you are the original author of the code, and maintain the predominant version of the code base. The original author who uses GPL would certainly not want to violate someone else's GPL by including the new code into the author's codebase without permission. That means that the original author has to go through the trouble to get permission from the contributors. It is easy for big orgs like FSF, but the little guy might have problems. It just seems like red-tape to me. > > >There is a lot of wonderful software under the GPL, however, there is > >alot of wonderful software under BSD and or more restrictive license terms > >than GPL also. IMO, the quality of software is pretty much orthogonal to > >the terms of software use and redistribution. > > Not entirely orthogonal. The ability to make source-level > modifications to the code is often extremely useful. > I did say "pretty much." :-). I don't think that good software needs to have source given away. Take QNX for example, it certainly isn't awful from what I have heard :-). John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199702190322.WAA17162>