Linux license overhaul, a FUD?
Well, i have suspicions about this news report:
Linux license overhaul--don't hold your breath
No, i don't believe that the "news" about writing a third version of GPL is disinformation.
I am rather refering to the way that this is recently being published in the news. And this is a rather tricky part because, if this is some kind of a subtle FUD attempt, many of free software and open source advocates wont recognize it that well.
This is actually something incinerator pointed out to me, that all this GPL rewriting talk may actually be a FUD on a mission to blur the current GPL's capabilitie to handle free software including the blooming gnu/linux.
Now, why am i putting this article under suspicion?
Here is why..
1.) There are some things in this article being repeated as they were already published in another article recently, such as this:
from this article:
"It is going to be a screaming match some days, but it is going to be a noble effort when it's over," Moglen said. And in the end, "Nobody, dare I say even Mr. Stallman, will get from this process everything he wants."
from another older article:
"The dignity of every stakeholder must and will be respected. No one will get everything they want, including Mr. Stallman, but everyone will feel heard............." he said.
2.) Some very "controversal" quotes:
"There are restrictions in the GPL today that prevent us from doing anything with it," Taylor said. Microsoft prefers licenses that permit software to be used in proprietary projects as well.
Alright, he didn't say anything new, he just put it like GPL was one "mean" license which really provides soo much restrictions that it prevents you "from doing anything with it".
This however is a real mess:
The CDDL, like the GPL, lets anyone change software but requires that those changes be publicly released. Unlike the GPL, though, the CDDL permits a tight coupling between its open-source components and other proprietary components.
"If people want to use the GPL and integrate with it, they have to adopt the proprietary license called the GPL," said Sun President Jonathan Schwartz in an interview this month. "Basically it forces your hand. You don't have any choice anymore."
Should i add anything? GPL proprietary? Oh i can just imagine a guy that's just learning what linux and free software is reading this and thinking: "man, this GPL is a really bad deal"..
3.) These two articles are not the only ones recently speaking up about rewritting GPL. There are probably at least two more published that deal with the same subject. It makes you wonder really.. Why is that suddenly such a "hot topic", i mean, of course it is a hot topic, but why write news articles that practically repeat what's already being said? Why raising so much noise about GPL being rewritten, overhauled.. whatever? Yeah, i'll be blunt, could it be that they are trying to blackpaint GPL as it is now to be a "bad license" that needs to be changed ASAP?
You be the judge, if you think this falls to the "FUDZilla" category, i'll be compelled to take that "drastic" measure and put this up to the FUDZilla FUD listing with a link to this thread in the explanation.
Thank you
Daniel
I have read this article, too. While it is not really bad, its focus is wrong and misses quite a big point. Let me explain what I don't like about it:
1.)This article takes business quite important. I don't have any problem with corporations using free software, as long as they stick to the rules. I even praise companies for doing so. It is a good thing if companies release free software, that has many advantages, for the company as well as for the customer.
Now, when RMS and his FSF fellows created the GPL, the companies did not care. They weren't even aware of the thing. And the FSF probably did not care much about whether companies generally wanted to use free software, nor specifically the GPL. Now that free software has become quite popular (especially GPL'ed software) companies take care. And it is only rightful if they give their input to the FSF about how they want GPLv3 to look like. However, this article gives the impression that this will be the main focus of the whole thing. One gets the impression that the FSF may sacrifice things to make the GPL more fit for business needs and therefore to attract more companies to use it.
Well, I seriously doubt that. Of course the business dudes will have their say, and the FSF dudes will listen to them, but they won't sacrifice freedom for corporate convenience. Being suitable for business use is something the GPL just happened to be, and a GPLv3 may be even more suitable. But that is not the point. The point is that the GPL is a free software license, something which the article fails to mention (see section 2 for more).
Also the article creates the impression that the companies will have great influence in the re-write and shape of a GPLv3-to-be. I doubt that. Legal and technical issues will be paramount, business suitability will totally be a secondary matter. If everybody would prefer business convenience over freedom the GPL would not exist at all.
2.) This article does not get the message about free software at all. That is easily displayed by the moot mention of Microsoft. Writing that MS does not like the GPL is like telling the sun will rise tomorrow. Should the FSF adapt the GPL to make it that weak MS joins the gang? Lol, what a silly idea. The author doesn't seem to understand that the purpose of the GPL is to promote and spread freedom of software and therefore a wee bit of freedom for us all. If all software in the world was free we would not need licenses anymore, software copyright would not be necessary anymore. Until then, we need a good license which makes software free and makes sure it stays free.
For people like RMS business needs and software quality are marginal matters. RMS propagates that people should rather use bad-quality free software than non-free software. Even if not everybody else goes that far, I still think RMS made a very good point here.
3.) The article (like so many others) try to create a sensation of urgency. While there are certainly technical and legal issues with the GPLv2 they are minor and are no good excuse to stop using that license. There is no urgency at all. I'd rather like Eben Moglen et al to take as much time as they need to create a bulletproof GPLv3, even if it takes significantly longer to do so. Some issues are really tricky (like distributed/networked software or the old statical linking discussion) and one should not try to solve them in a hurry.
Conclusion: This is a business article again, with no perspective about software freedom whatsover. That makes it so bad. GPL does not care about business, so why should the FSF care about that. All articles suggesting anything else are rubbish.
Cheers,
Dominik