GPL declines as open source moves to the Web(news.cnet.com)
news.cnet.com
GPL declines as open source moves to the Web
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10276903-16.html
4 comments
> the GPL protects nothing in a world where software is delivered over the Web
The author seems to be aware of GPLv3 but neglects to mention this is one of the problems it's intended to solve. Odd.
The author seems to be aware of GPLv3 but neglects to mention this is one of the problems it's intended to solve. Odd.
The only meaningful changes in the GPLv3 are the Tivoization clause (distribution doesn't count if there's code-signing) and marginal edits to remove their imagined incompatibility with the Apache license.
The GPLv3 doesn't have shit to do with SaaS -- for that kind of wank you'll have to look to the AGPL
The GPLv3 doesn't have shit to do with SaaS -- for that kind of wank you'll have to look to the AGPL
Thanks, I thought that had happened, but instead they apparently chose to fork GPLv3 into AGPLv3 for those requirements.
Personally I generally advise our developers to avoid using GPL-ed software, even as part of web services, as much as possible - only exception being Linux, which we use as a OS, but we are moving to BSD steadily.
Surprisingly (or perhaps not so surprisingly) there are excellent non-GPL open source alternatives today. And my subjective impression is that recent open source projects that use GPL are less popular than BSD/MIT/Apache based alternatives. That may be confirmation bias, of course.
So in that sense, I agree that GPL is declining ... frankly, I am happy with that development, because I don't consider GPL to be a license so much as a political philosophy, a philosophy I strongly disagree with. Which is why we choose not to use GPL software to the maximum extent possible (much as Stallman would choose not to use the software we create, which is perfectly fine with me!).
Surprisingly (or perhaps not so surprisingly) there are excellent non-GPL open source alternatives today. And my subjective impression is that recent open source projects that use GPL are less popular than BSD/MIT/Apache based alternatives. That may be confirmation bias, of course.
So in that sense, I agree that GPL is declining ... frankly, I am happy with that development, because I don't consider GPL to be a license so much as a political philosophy, a philosophy I strongly disagree with. Which is why we choose not to use GPL software to the maximum extent possible (much as Stallman would choose not to use the software we create, which is perfectly fine with me!).
As long as your software is "Free Software" then Stallman would use it. It doesn't need to be GPL, or even necessarily "compatible" with the GPL to be "Free Software" (a common misconception).
You (like many others in these parts) seem to be avoiding the GPL, to the detriment of your business, and for no practical or pragmatic purpose. Personally I have no time for such zealotry.
You (like many others in these parts) seem to be avoiding the GPL, to the detriment of your business, and for no practical or pragmatic purpose. Personally I have no time for such zealotry.
Why avoid using? You can only get into license trouble if you copy and paste code from a GPL'ed project. Using GPL'ed software shouldn't affect you in any way whatsoever.
Doesn't the AGPL cover this problem?
No, because exceedingly few people are wanky enough to consider it.
It's basically a shrinkwrap EULA -- and about as legally enforceable -- the restrictions it adds on top of the GPL have no basis in copyright law. On top of that nobody's going to notice if you break it's rules, and there's no enforcement mechanism anyway.
The only logical reason for its existence is so that you could open-source an end-of-life product in a form that noone else could legitimately pick it up and take your place. Poisoning the well.
It's basically a shrinkwrap EULA -- and about as legally enforceable -- the restrictions it adds on top of the GPL have no basis in copyright law. On top of that nobody's going to notice if you break it's rules, and there's no enforcement mechanism anyway.
The only logical reason for its existence is so that you could open-source an end-of-life product in a form that noone else could legitimately pick it up and take your place. Poisoning the well.
I don't think this is entirely accurate. I am AGPL-ing a lot of new open-source software. The intention is not to poison the well, but rather to ensure that all users of the software have the same freedom to modify it, even if they are users of a modified copy. It also ensures that contributers' contributions won't become proprietary. If you send me a patch, you know that the software has to stay free forever; you can fork the project and have all the rights you did as a contributer to the original.
As for enforceability, that might be tough. The point of the license is to help keep honest people honest. If someone wants to steal your code, they are going to do it whether or not they think the license is enforceable. (Look at all the piracy of closed-source software, and all the blatant violations of the GPL. Nobody cares what the license says, they just do what they want.)
As for enforceability, that might be tough. The point of the license is to help keep honest people honest. If someone wants to steal your code, they are going to do it whether or not they think the license is enforceable. (Look at all the piracy of closed-source software, and all the blatant violations of the GPL. Nobody cares what the license says, they just do what they want.)
Providing web services with GPL software is well within the recognized use of software. It's yours to use, modify and run, and this includes creating and serving static or dynamic web pages on (modified) GPL software stack as well as essays written on (modified) Emacs. What are the copyright holders missing if GPL is not enough for web software?
AJAX is a different case but then again GPL'd javascript libraries are already covered by GPL. You're effectively distributing the GPL js libraries to the user, hence triggering the distribution clause.
Tivoization is a whole another issue that certainly stomps on the user's rights and that is indeed addressed by GPLv3. But that has nothing to do with web software.