Stop using the GPL

[aaaaa]

Linus' opinions are interesting.

Linus Torvalds says GPL was defining factor in Linux's success
https://www.cio.com/article/3112582/lin ... ccess.html

Linus Torvalds says GPL v3 violates everything that GPLv2 stood for
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRUp

Linus says that GPL V3 is a neat licence but it violates everything that V2 stood for.

I guess it all comes down to philosophy and how you make a living

[jamesbond]

Technosaurus posted the link in this thread, and I thought it was more concerning than the supposed problems with using the GPL license.

I know and I agree with you. I'm just saying that I don't understand how this particular situation can be used as an example that "GPL is bad" (so my post was directed to technosaurus, not you - that's why I quoted his post directly and not yours).

@musher0:

It certainly is not GPL. but what type of license is that, anyway?

Looks like a custom license to me. That license is similar to BSD license, with additional stipulations.

What recourse does Mr. Yakovenko have to enforce his authorship of DeadBeef
internationally? Is his country a member of an international convention on
copyright? Does Mr. Yakovenko have to have a lawyer on retainer or
something like that?

Certainly, Mr. Yakovenko needs to have a lawyer. Copyright violations are something you fight in court. If you have no means to engage a lawyer then just sit in the corner and suck your thumb. Seriously. There are tons of GPL violations - any Android device that doesn't supply the kernel source is in violation of the GPL - and have you heard a big lawsuit coming in about it recently?

I guess it all comes down to philosophy and how you make a living

How true. I cannot express it better myself.

[technosaurus]

Here is the biggest problem with the GPL:

Code: Select all

/*
                    GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
                       Version 3, 29 June 2007

 Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. <https://fsf.org/>
 Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
 of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

                            Preamble

  The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for
software and other kinds of works.

  The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed
to take away your freedom to share and change the works.  By contrast,
the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to
share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free
software for all its users.  We, the Free Software Foundation, use the
GNU General Public License for most of our software; it applies also to
any other work released this way by its authors.  You can apply it to
your programs, too.

  When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
price.  Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you
want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new
free programs, and that you know you can do these things.

  To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you
these rights or asking you to surrender the rights.  Therefore, you have
certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if
you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others.

  For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same
freedoms that you received.  You must make sure that they, too, receive
or can get the source code.  And you must show them these terms so they
know their rights.

  Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps:
(1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License
giving you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify it.

  For the developers' and authors' protection, the GPL clearly explains
that there is no warranty for this free software.  For both users' and
authors' sake, the GPL requires that modified versions be marked as
changed, so that their problems will not be attributed erroneously to
authors of previous versions.

  Some devices are designed to deny users access to install or run
modified versions of the software inside them, although the manufacturer
can do so.  This is fundamentally incompatible with the aim of
protecting users' freedom to change the software.  The systematic
pattern of such abuse occurs in the area of products for individuals to
use, which is precisely where it is most unacceptable.  Therefore, we
have designed this version of the GPL to prohibit the practice for those
products.  If such problems arise substantially in other domains, we
stand ready to extend this provision to those domains in future versions
of the GPL, as needed to protect the freedom of users.

  Finally, every program is threatened constantly by software patents.
States should not allow patents to restrict development and use of
software on general-purpose computers, but in those that do, we wish to
avoid the special danger that patents applied to a free program could
make it effectively proprietary.  To prevent this, the GPL assures that
patents cannot be used to render the program non-free.

  The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
modification follow.

                       TERMS AND CONDITIONS

  0. Definitions.

  "This License" refers to version 3 of the GNU General Public License.

  "Copyright" also means copyright-like laws that apply to other kinds of
works, such as semiconductor masks.

  "The Program" refers to any copyrightable work licensed under this
License.  Each licensee is addressed as "you".  "Licensees" and
"recipients" may be individuals or organizations.

  To "modify" a work means to copy from or adapt all or part of the work
in a fashion requiring copyright permission, other than the making of an
exact copy.  The resulting work is called a "modified version" of the
earlier work or a work "based on" the earlier work.

  A "covered work" means either the unmodified Program or a work based
on the Program.

  To "propagate" a work means to do anything with it that, without
permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for
infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a
computer or modifying a private copy.  Propagation includes copying,
distribution (with or without modification), making available to the
public, and in some countries other activities as well.

  To "convey" a work means any kind of propagation that enables other
parties to make or receive copies.  Mere interaction with a user through
a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying.

  An interactive user interface displays "Appropriate Legal Notices"
to the extent that it includes a convenient and prominently visible
feature that (1) displays an appropriate copyright notice, and (2)
tells the user that there is no warranty for the work (except to the
extent that warranties are provided), that licensees may convey the
work under this License, and how to view a copy of this License.  If
the interface presents a list of user commands or options, such as a
menu, a prominent item in the list meets this criterion.

  1. Source Code.

  The "source code" for a work means the preferred form of the work
for making modifications to it.  "Object code" means any non-source
form of a work.

  A "Standard Interface" means an interface that either is an official
standard defined by a recognized standards body, or, in the case of
interfaces specified for a particular programming language, one that
is widely used among developers working in that language.

  The "System Libraries" of an executable work include anything, other
than the work as a whole, that (a) is included in the normal form of
packaging a Major Component, but which is not part of that Major
Component, and (b) serves only to enable use of the work with that
Major Component, or to implement a Standard Interface for which an
implementation is available to the public in source code form.  A
"Major Component", in this context, means a major essential component
(kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system
(if any) on which the executable work runs, or a compiler used to
produce the work, or an object code interpreter used to run it.

  The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all
the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable
work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to
control those activities.  However, it does not include the work's
System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free
programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but
which are not part of the work.  For example, Corresponding Source
includes interface definition files associated with source files for
the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically
linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require,
such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those
subprograms and other parts of the work.

  The Corresponding Source need not include anything that users
can regenerate automatically from other parts of the Corresponding
Source.

  The Corresponding Source for a work in source code form is that
same work.

  2. Basic Permissions.

  All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of
copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated
conditions are met.  This License explicitly affirms your unlimited
permission to run the unmodified Program.  The output from running a
covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its
content, constitutes a covered work.  This License acknowledges your
rights of fair use or other equivalent, as provided by copyright law.

  You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not
convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains
in force.  You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose
of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you
with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with
the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do
not control copyright.  Those thus making or running the covered works
for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction
and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of
your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you.

  Conveying under any other circumstances is permitted solely under
the conditions stated below.  Sublicensing is not allowed; section 10
makes it unnecessary.

  3. Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law.

  No covered work shall be deemed part of an effective technological
measure under any applicable law fulfilling obligations under article
11 of the WIPO copyright treaty adopted on 20 December 1996, or
similar laws prohibiting or restricting circumvention of such
measures.

  When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid
circumvention of technological measures to the extent such circumvention
is effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to
the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit operation or
modification of the work as a means of enforcing, against the work's
users, your or third parties' legal rights to forbid circumvention of
technological measures.

  4. Conveying Verbatim Copies.

  You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you
receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and
appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice;
keep intact all notices stating that this License and any
non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code;
keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all
recipients a copy of this License along with the Program.

  You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey,
and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.

  5. Conveying Modified Source Versions.

  You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to
produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the
terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

    a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified
    it, and giving a relevant date.

    b) The work must carry prominent notices stating that it is
    released under this License and any conditions added under section
    7.  This requirement modifies the requirement in section 4 to
    "keep intact all notices".

    c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this
    License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy.  This
    License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7
    additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts,
    regardless of how they are packaged.  This License gives no
    permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not
    invalidate such permission if you have separately received it.

    d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display
    Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive
    interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your
    work need not make them do so.

  A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent
works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work,
and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program,
in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an
"aggregate" if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not
used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users
beyond what the individual works permit.  Inclusion of a covered work
in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other
parts of the aggregate.

  6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.

  You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms
of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the
machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License,
in one of these ways:

    a) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product
    (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by the
    Corresponding Source fixed on a durable physical medium
    customarily used for software interchange.

    b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product
    (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a
    written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as
    long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product
    model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a
    copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the
    product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical
    medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no
    more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this
    conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the
    Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.

    c) Convey individual copies of the object code with a copy of the
    written offer to provide the Corresponding Source.  This
    alternative is allowed only occasionally and noncommercially, and
    only if you received the object code with such an offer, in accord
    with subsection 6b.

    d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated
    place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the
    Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no
    further charge.  You need not require recipients to copy the
    Corresponding Source along with the object code.  If the place to
    copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source
    may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party)
    that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain
    clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the
    Corresponding Source.  Regardless of what server hosts the
    Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is
    available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements.

    e) Convey the object code using peer-to-peer transmission, provided
    you inform other peers where the object code and Corresponding
    Source of the work are being offered to the general public at no
    charge under subsection 6d.

  A separable portion of the object code, whose source code is excluded
from the Corresponding Source as a System Library, need not be
included in conveying the object code work.

  A "User Product" is either (1) a "consumer product", which means any
tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family,
or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation
into a dwelling.  In determining whether a product is a consumer product,
doubtful cases shall be resolved in favor of coverage.  For a particular
product received by a particular user, "normally used" refers to a
typical or common use of that class of product, regardless of the status
of the particular user or of the way in which the particular user
actually uses, or expects or is expected to use, the product.  A product
is a consumer product regardless of whether the product has substantial
commercial, industrial or non-consumer uses, unless such uses represent
the only significant mode of use of the product.

  "Installation Information" for a User Product means any methods,
procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install
and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from
a modified version of its Corresponding Source.  The information must
suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object
code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because
modification has been made.

  If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or
specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as
part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the
User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a
fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the
Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied
by the Installation Information.  But this requirement does not apply
if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install
modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has
been installed in ROM).

  The requirement to provide Installation Information does not include a
requirement to continue to provide support service, warranty, or updates
for a work that has been modified or installed by the recipient, or for
the User Product in which it has been modified or installed.  Access to a
network may be denied when the modification itself materially and
adversely affects the operation of the network or violates the rules and
protocols for communication across the network.

  Corresponding Source conveyed, and Installation Information provided,
in accord with this section must be in a format that is publicly
documented (and with an implementation available to the public in
source code form), and must require no special password or key for
unpacking, reading or copying.

  7. Additional Terms.

  "Additional permissions" are terms that supplement the terms of this
License by making exceptions from one or more of its conditions.
Additional permissions that are applicable to the entire Program shall
be treated as though they were included in this License, to the extent
that they are valid under applicable law.  If additional permissions
apply only to part of the Program, that part may be used separately
under those permissions, but the entire Program remains governed by
this License without regard to the additional permissions.

  When you convey a copy of a covered work, you may at your option
remove any additional permissions from that copy, or from any part of
it.  (Additional permissions may be written to require their own
removal in certain cases when you modify the work.)  You may place
additional permissions on material, added by you to a covered work,
for which you have or can give appropriate copyright permission.

  Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you
add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of
that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms:

    a) Disclaiming warranty or limiting liability differently from the
    terms of sections 15 and 16 of this License; or

    b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or
    author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal
    Notices displayed by works containing it; or

    c) Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or
    requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in
    reasonable ways as different from the original version; or

    d) Limiting the use for publicity purposes of names of licensors or
    authors of the material; or

    e) Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some
    trade names, trademarks, or service marks; or

    f) Requiring indemnification of licensors and authors of that
    material by anyone who conveys the material (or modified versions of
    it) with contractual assumptions of liability to the recipient, for
    any liability that these contractual assumptions directly impose on
    those licensors and authors.

  All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further
restrictions" within the meaning of section 10.  If the Program as you
received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is
governed by this License along with a term that is a further
restriction, you may remove that term.  If a license document contains
a further restriction but permits relicensing or conveying under this
License, you may add to a covered work material governed by the terms
of that license document, provided that the further restriction does
not survive such relicensing or conveying.

  If you add terms to a covered work in accord with this section, you
must place, in the relevant source files, a statement of the
additional terms that apply to those files, or a notice indicating
where to find the applicable terms.

  Additional terms, permissive or non-permissive, may be stated in the
form of a separately written license, or stated as exceptions;
the above requirements apply either way.

  8. Termination.

  You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly
provided under this License.  Any attempt otherwise to propagate or
modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under
this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third
paragraph of section 11).

  However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your
license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a)
provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and
finally terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the copyright
holder fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means
prior to 60 days after the cessation.

  Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is
reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the
violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have
received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that
copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after
your receipt of the notice.

  Termination of your rights under this section does not terminate the
licenses of parties who have received copies or rights from you under
this License.  If your rights have been terminated and not permanently
reinstated, you do not qualify to receive new licenses for the same
material under section 10.

  9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.

  You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or
run a copy of the Program.  Ancillary propagation of a covered work
occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission
to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance.  However,
nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or
modify any covered work.  These actions infringe copyright if you do
not accept this License.  Therefore, by modifying or propagating a
covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so.

  10. Automatic Licensing of Downstream Recipients.

  Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically
receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and
propagate that work, subject to this License.  You are not responsible
for enforcing compliance by third parties with this License.

  An "entity transaction" is a transaction transferring control of an
organization, or substantially all assets of one, or subdividing an
organization, or merging organizations.  If propagation of a covered
work results from an entity transaction, each party to that
transaction who receives a copy of the work also receives whatever
licenses to the work the party's predecessor in interest had or could
give under the previous paragraph, plus a right to possession of the
Corresponding Source of the work from the predecessor in interest, if
the predecessor has it or can get it with reasonable efforts.

  You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the
rights granted or affirmed under this License.  For example, you may
not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of
rights granted under this License, and you may not initiate litigation
(including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that
any patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for
sale, or importing the Program or any portion of it.

  11. Patents.

  A "contributor" is a copyright holder who authorizes use under this
License of the Program or a work on which the Program is based.  The
work thus licensed is called the contributor's "contributor version".

  A contributor's "essential patent claims" are all patent claims
owned or controlled by the contributor, whether already acquired or
hereafter acquired, that would be infringed by some manner, permitted
by this License, of making, using, or selling its contributor version,
but do not include claims that would be infringed only as a
consequence of further modification of the contributor version.  For
purposes of this definition, "control" includes the right to grant
patent sublicenses in a manner consistent with the requirements of
this License.

  Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free
patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to
make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and
propagate the contents of its contributor version.

  In the following three paragraphs, a "patent license" is any express
agreement or commitment, however denominated, not to enforce a patent
(such as an express permission to practice a patent or covenant not to
sue for patent infringement).  To "grant" such a patent license to a
party means to make such an agreement or commitment not to enforce a
patent against the party.

  If you convey a covered work, knowingly relying on a patent license,
and the Corresponding Source of the work is not available for anyone
to copy, free of charge and under the terms of this License, through a
publicly available network server or other readily accessible means,
then you must either (1) cause the Corresponding Source to be so
available, or (2) arrange to deprive yourself of the benefit of the
patent license for this particular work, or (3) arrange, in a manner
consistent with the requirements of this License, to extend the patent
license to downstream recipients.  "Knowingly relying" means you have
actual knowledge that, but for the patent license, your conveying the
covered work in a country, or your recipient's use of the covered work
in a country, would infringe one or more identifiable patents in that
country that you have reason to believe are valid.

  If, pursuant to or in connection with a single transaction or
arrangement, you convey, or propagate by procuring conveyance of, a
covered work, and grant a patent license to some of the parties
receiving the covered work authorizing them to use, propagate, modify
or convey a specific copy of the covered work, then the patent license
you grant is automatically extended to all recipients of the covered
work and works based on it.

  A patent license is "discriminatory" if it does not include within
the scope of its coverage, prohibits the exercise of, or is
conditioned on the non-exercise of one or more of the rights that are
specifically granted under this License.  You may not convey a covered
work if you are a party to an arrangement with a third party that is
in the business of distributing software, under which you make payment
to the third party based on the extent of your activity of conveying
the work, and under which the third party grants, to any of the
parties who would receive the covered work from you, a discriminatory
patent license (a) in connection with copies of the covered work
conveyed by you (or copies made from those copies), or (b) primarily
for and in connection with specific products or compilations that
contain the covered work, unless you entered into that arrangement,
or that patent license was granted, prior to 28 March 2007.

  Nothing in this License shall be construed as excluding or limiting
any implied license or other defenses to infringement that may
otherwise be available to you under applicable patent law.

  12. No Surrender of Others' Freedom.

  If conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License.  If you cannot convey a
covered work so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may
not convey it at all.  For example, if you agree to terms that obligate you
to collect a royalty for further conveying from those to whom you convey
the Program, the only way you could satisfy both those terms and this
License would be to refrain entirely from conveying the Program.

  13. Use with the GNU Affero General Public License.

  Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have
permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed
under version 3 of the GNU Affero General Public License into a single
combined work, and to convey the resulting work.  The terms of this
License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work,
but the special requirements of the GNU Affero General Public License,
section 13, concerning interaction through a network will apply to the
combination as such.

  14. Revised Versions of this License.

  The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of
the GNU General Public License from time to time.  Such new versions will
be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
address new problems or concerns.

  Each version is given a distinguishing version number.  If the
Program specifies that a certain numbered version of the GNU General
Public License "or any later version" applies to it, you have the
option of following the terms and conditions either of that numbered
version or of any later version published by the Free Software
Foundation.  If the Program does not specify a version number of the
GNU General Public License, you may choose any version ever published
by the Free Software Foundation.

  If the Program specifies that a proxy can decide which future
versions of the GNU General Public License can be used, that proxy's
public statement of acceptance of a version permanently authorizes you
to choose that version for the Program.

  Later license versions may give you additional or different
permissions.  However, no additional obligations are imposed on any
author or copyright holder as a result of your choosing to follow a
later version.

  15. Disclaimer of Warranty.

  THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY
APPLICABLE LAW.  EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT
HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY
OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE.  THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM
IS WITH YOU.  SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF
ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.

  16. Limitation of Liability.

  IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING
WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MODIFIES AND/OR CONVEYS
THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY
GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE
USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF
DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD
PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS),
EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
SUCH DAMAGES.

  17. Interpretation of Sections 15 and 16.

  If the disclaimer of warranty and limitation of liability provided
above cannot be given local legal effect according to their terms,
reviewing courts shall apply local law that most closely approximates
an absolute waiver of all civil liability in connection with the
Program, unless a warranty or assumption of liability accompanies a
copy of the Program in return for a fee.

                     END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS

            How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs

  If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest
possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it
free software which everyone can redistribute and change under these terms.

  To do so, attach the following notices to the program.  It is safest
to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively
state the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least
the "copyright" line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.

    <one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does.>
    Copyright (C) <year>  <name of author>

    This program is free software: 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 3 of the License, or
    (at your option) any later version.

    This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
    but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
    MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
    GNU General Public License for more details.

    You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
    along with this program.  If not, see <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.

Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail.

  If the program does terminal interaction, make it output a short
notice like this when it starts in an interactive mode:

    <program>  Copyright (C) <year>  <name of author>
    This program comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'.
    This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
    under certain conditions; type `show c' for details.

The hypothetical commands `show w' and `show c' should show the appropriate
parts of the General Public License.  Of course, your program's commands
might be different; for a GUI interface, you would use an "about box".

  You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or school,
if any, to sign a "copyright disclaimer" for the program, if necessary.
For more information on this, and how to apply and follow the GNU GPL, see
<https://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.

  The GNU General Public License does not permit incorporating your program
into proprietary programs.  If your program is a subroutine library, you
may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with
the library.  If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Lesser General
Public License instead of this License.  But first, please read
<https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html>.
*/
int main(int argc, char **argv){
    return 0;
}

[musher0]

@technosaurus:
Funny guy! This would have done the trick too, you know!!!
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html

[musher0]

A confusing clarification...
https://opensource.stackexchange.com/qu ... nder-mit-l

(Edit, 10 minutes later:)
Confusion somewhat clarified:
https://www.zdnet.com/article/the-fall- ... e-licenses

At least those two sources are not rants. The first one tries to provide a
how-to, and the 2nd one tries to provide a reasoned comparison of the
various licences, plus why a programmer should choose one.

BFN.

[woodenshoe-wi]

Technosaurus posted the link in this thread, and I thought it was more concerning than the supposed problems with using the GPL license.

I know and I agree with you. I'm just saying that I don't understand how this particular situation can be used as an example that "GPL is bad" (so my post was directed to technosaurus, not you - that's why I quoted his post directly and not yours).

Aah, and I was even wondering how the /url tag got back in the quote when I was sure I deleted it. I guess I shouldn't be posting at almost 2:00 in the morning...

Back on subject, I think the concern related to the GPL that the article has is that the GPL 2 lacks a no-rescission clause and that is the reason that the disgruntled kernel developers can threaten to withdraw their submissions.

Even if there was no issue with rescinding permission, disgruntled developers might leave. And stranger still, what if the employer of a "blacklisted" developer doesn't fire them and they continue working on the project? Would there be patches that would be used in vendor kernels and distro kernels that would not be allowed in official vanilla kernels?

Regardless of the type of license used by a project, I think maintaining a civil tone on any official mailing lists or forums by having good moderators is probably as far as it should go. To me the idea of "blacklisting" people, potentially for their political views, is scary. Unless of course they are trying to submit code with legal strings attached. That could be a threat to the project and is serious.

Technosaurus must not read any End User License Agreements...

[jamesbond]

My counter-view of "GPLv3 is too long" is the story from Geoff Graham, who single-handedly built a single-chip Personal Computer that can output to VGA and TV and released it long before Raspberry Pi was even a gleam in Eben Upton's eyes (and it's open hardware too - you can build it yourself if you want, unlike the Pies. And yes you can do GPIOs with it too - just like the Pies).

He initially use GPL as his license of choice. Here is the link to the story: http://geoffg.net/OpenSource.html, and read what happened. While you're there, feel free to browse his sites for many interesting tidbits.

TL;DR He eventually dropped the GPL all right - but not because of it's not free enough, in fact, it's the other way around: after what he has experienced, he felt that the GPL, with all of its intricacies and special clauses, still didn't protect him enough. His (own) new license is something that is even stricter ("less free") than the GPL. In his situation, are we going to tell him to drop the GPL and go for BSD/MIT/WTFPL/etc instead? (this is rhetorical question and doesn't need an answer).

So, to re-iterate: when it comes to choosing licenses - to each his own. Choose carefully for one that suits needs and objectives; and make sure that you know what you get from the license you choose.

_______________________________

On the side topics:

Regardless of the type of license used by a project, I think maintaining a civil tone on any official mailing lists or forums by having good moderators is probably as far as it should go.

Agreed.

To me the idea of "blacklisting" people, potentially for their political views, is scary.

Welcome to the 21st century.

[woodenshoe-wi]

There are plenty of other arguments against the GPL including its extensive legalese, being "viral", the FSF itself and many others. Why do you use/avoid the GPL?

Code: Select all

/* Alternatives
 * Use a permissive license (MIT, BSD, CC0, etc...) and trust in people.
 * Use LGPL v2.x with static linking exception and no later version clause
 */

On the subject of alternatives, I read the MIT and BSD licenses and they don't seem to have any requirement to distribute the source code.

For a project written in a scripting language that would not be a problem because there would be no way to "compile" the code and distribute an un-modifiable version.

Unlike musher0 I don't care about getting the credit and would rather remain pseudo anonymous than put my full legal name on a license. Especially since I don't have the money to pay lawyers to defend my copyright, and the FSF is probably only willing to defend GPL licenses in court.

If I had to pick a license for a script based project I would be more inclined towards the "Unlicense". https://choosealicense.com/licenses/unlicense/ Since it is basically public domain, it should have the best compatibility of all.

If there was ever a problem that someone didn't want to contribute because of the license they could start working on it with whatever license they wanted.

[technosaurus]

If I had infinite time, I'd love to sit down and do a line by line analysis of the whole text, but that would be wasting a lot of time better spent on useful code. ... so I will just take a look at the "Evil" clause that allows for unilateral modification (like Facebook and MoviePass) and causes different versions to be incompatible if it is omitted (why samba and Linux cannot share code)

14. Revised Versions of this License.

The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of
the GNU General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will
be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
address new problems or concerns.

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the
Program specifies that a certain numbered version of the GNU General
Public License "or any later version" applies to it, you have the
option of following the terms and conditions either of that numbered
version or of any later version published by the Free Software
Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of the
GNU General Public License, you may choose any version ever published
by the Free Software Foundation.

If the Program specifies that a proxy can decide which future
versions of the GNU General Public License can be used, that proxy's
public statement of acceptance of a version permanently authorizes you
to choose that version for the Program.

Later license versions may give you additional or different
permissions. However, no additional obligations are imposed on any
author or copyright holder as a result of your choosing to follow a
later version.

and the equivalent section in gpl2

9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will
be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
address new problems or concerns.

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of
this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
Foundation.

Which is similar in GPL1 (section 7)

"similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns"
* "similar in spirit" isn't defined in section 0 (Definitions)
* "new problems or concerns" is the FSF problems/concerns - not yours

"Later license versions may give you additional or different permissions."
"additional or different permissions" is not restricted to the code, so the FSF could (for instance) decide to give permission to freely use any trademarks contained within the code... thus making it difficult for end users to distinguish between the original and a knock-off filled with malware, adware, crypto currency miners or data collection.
That is just an example; it could be more innocuous or way worse (I recall an EULA that transferred ownership of your immortal soul)

FWIW, I pointed out last year that the FSF hadn't even trademarked their name; thus leaving the whole GPL vulnerable to being taken over by one of the many Microsoft shell companies by simply renaming itself and grabbing the trademark. Imagine a GPL4 rewritten by Microsoft and the Chinese government. Thankfully they (the FSF) finally got a trademark in May of this year, so that's one less thing to worry about - that doesn't prevent bad actors from infiltrating the FSF board.

We need an MIT-style license for copyleft, something that makes aggregation into a combined work less complicated - not moreso. As it stands, the GPL has so much poorly written legalese that individuals mostly ignore it and thus corporations would have to audit the whole code base to ensure compliance, so most of them just avoid it even if they would have no issues with contributing their code (Lawyers are expensive)

for example, here is a modified version of the MIT license

Code: Select all

/** MIT+
Copyright <YEAR> <COPYRIGHT HOLDER>

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of
this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in
the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to
use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies
of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do
so, subject to the following conditions:

  * The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
    all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
  * The complete corresponding source code is made freely available to all
    recipients and copyright holders of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR
COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER
IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN
CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
*/

Note the "copyright holders" addition. This basically makes it stronger copyleft than the AGPL, more inclusive than the LGPL and easier to understand than anything from the FSF.

[musher0]

Hi.

This sub-topic may be related -- to a point:
(If not, Flash, please transfer this post where it belongs. TIA.)

The GPL and other licences having originated in the USA and having been
written according to US Law, how valid are they internationally? Are they
worth using by non-Americans?

I have read about a case in France where the Court there recognized that the
GPL text could be considered a French regulation (don't ask me how?!), and
the French Court accepted to hear the case.

In Canada? Blank. No idea. I think we never had such a case.

For example, a non-American programmer uses the GPL, the MIT or what-
ever. A problem pops up with the code in say, Canada, or Italy. Is then the
licence used by the programmer even worth the disk sector it resides on?

I'm thinking about myself of course, but surely many others are in this case.
PuppyLinux is of Australian origin, and many Australian programmers
contribute to it, as well as some Austrians, Germans, Finns, etc. etc.
All using American-based licences?

Could the national branches of major software companies be used to ignore
or go around the licences?

As a fictitious example: a national branch of Adobe (or whichever int'l
software company) could use licenced code from say, (as I said this is a
fictious example) fellow forum members vovchik (based in Austria, AFAIK),
or Smokey01 (an Australian), or pemasu (a Finlander), and laugh all the
way to the bank?

I mean they'd be saving a lot in programmers' honoraria / salary, using the
excuse that licence X is a US Contract of no value in another country.

Does anybody know how that works? TIA for any insight.

[technosaurus]

Does anybody know how that works? TIA for any insight.

That might work in Eritrea see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... agreements

[musher0]

In San Marino too. (Thanks for the ref.)

[chillinfart]

Electronic voting will take here tomorrow and i was discussing the GPL dilemma due to secrecy of authorities about the software. They changed it to customized android forks, but no code is shown, even kernel, what violates GPL.

Then i found why GPL exists. When the case was released, devs excused the Apache preference by Google for Android, ignoring Linux kernel is GPL only license atm.

Is a matter of transparency, it says how open or not is a project. And this case is dark.

Hi.

This sub-topic may be related -- to a point:
(If not, Flash, please transfer this post where it belongs. TIA.)

The GPL and other licences having originated in the USA and having been
written according to US Law, how valid are they internationally? Are they
worth using by non-Americans?

I have read about a case in France where the Court there recognized that the
GPL text could be considered a French regulation (don't ask me how?!), and
the French Court accepted to hear the case.

In Canada? Blank. No idea. I think we never had such a case.

For example, a non-American programmer uses the GPL, the MIT or what-
ever. A problem pops up with the code in say, Canada, or Italy. Is then the
licence used by the programmer even worth the disk sector it resides on?

I'm thinking about myself of course, but surely many others are in this case.
PuppyLinux is of Australian origin, and many Australian programmers
contribute to it, as well as some Austrians, Germans, Finns, etc. etc.
All using American-based licences?

Could the national branches of major software companies be used to ignore
or go around the licences?

As a fictitious example: a national branch of Adobe (or whichever int'l
software company) could use licenced code from say, (as I said this is a
fictious example) fellow forum members vovchik (based in Austria, AFAIK),
or Smokey01 (an Australian), or pemasu (a Finlander), and laugh all the
way to the bank?

I mean they'd be saving a lot in programmers' honoraria / salary, using the
excuse that licence X is a US Contract of no value in another country.

Does anybody know how that works? TIA for any insight.

According to one case (ScummVM vs Atari) and some legal analysis from my land, copyright laws can rule open source licenses too.

In the case with electronic voting described above, is the same situation than violating the EULA from M$ software. Even worse being a public state-wide event where this software is used.

[musher0]

(...)
According to one case (ScummVM vs Atari) and some legal analysis from my land, copyright laws can rule open source licenses too.
(...)

Reassuring; good to know.
Thanks, chillinfart.

[nosystemdthanks]

a few points--

1. it is shameful that anyone claiming to believe in "open source" thinks osi/open source would even exist without software under the gpl and the fsf to bootstrap it (i understand theyre trying to replace it all, but treating the gpl as some awful thing seems to forget that the gpl and fsf gave birth to open source-- even if its the bastard child.)

the gpl created your open source, in the same way that pagan beliefs created judaism and judaism created christianity. go back in time and delete the mean awful gpl, and the thing you believe in simply wont exist. not a call for respect, just for perspective, eh? its so "terrible" that it resulted in everything you care about.

2. despite not believeing in free software, and being one of the principal drivers of its rival, open source, linus torvalds says putting the kernel was one of the best decisions he ever made.

as a result-- the linux kernel benefits from contributions from everyone who redistributes the linux kernel with their own changes to it. without the gpl, that might well not happen. unlike with bsd, there is no movement to make the linux kernel permissively licensed.

3. musher-- you want credit for your one-liners because of the reasearch you did, but do your one-liners have footnotes that credit the places you learned the tricks from? again, not a call for change, just for perspective. one-liners are often not copyrightable. a collection of them could be.

good thing, too. otherwise someone could claim copyright on the line that mounts initrd in all distros or your puppy sfs, and then youd have to develop different tools as a workaround.

4. i happen to think the gpl is too tedious for use with small enough programs. so does the fsf, actually. we might have different ideas about what constitutes a small program-- i public domain code that has > 1000 lines. i consider that a small program.

5. the link someone provided which was asked what this has to do with the gpl--

gpl 2 (the linux kernel license) doesnt have a clause that prevents the user from rescinding the license.

this means you could spend a year or two building a puppy derivative, only to have the author of some of the gpl 2 licensed code revoke your right to redistribute it. some people are threatening to do so under certain circumstances.

6. if linus hadnt made a fuss about tivoisation and the inability to incorporate proprietary code, the same benefits he enjoys with contributions back (the ones he is happy he chose gpl for) might go even farther, and we all might enjoy that.

instead, he championed the gpl 2 and encouraged everyone to reject the gpl 3, meaning that now we have this situation where you can lose the legal right to redistribute puppy if some author of gpl2 code revokes your right to redistribute the kernel with their contributions.

the good news is, they probably dont have the legal power to go after you for it-- so they would sooner go after the linux kernel developers themselves.

the bad news is-- this means that microsoft could go after anyone who incorporates microsoft-authored gpl 2 licensed code in the future, if they simply rescind the license to their code.

in other words-- microsoft could rescind their (very few) gpl 2 contributions to the kernel, and after that treat the distribution of any distro that uses an older kernel as "pirated software."

the gpl 2 needs to be retired now. gpl 3 has a clause that prevents this nonsense.

obviously, you cant retire gpl 2 code unless each author rereleases under gpl 3, or unless they had taken the advice of saying "gpl 2 or later."

which means that any monopoly that contributes code that is incorporated into the linux kernel could hold it hostage later on. source-based distros are unaffected, binary distros could be forced by court order to take older versions offline.

that probably wont happen. its a huge vulnerability though-- one that can be addressed by having an implied non-revocation clause in the gpl 2 interpreted by a court case, or by not using gpl 2 and upgrading to 3 wherever possible.

the vulnerability may not be exploited-- but some authors are already threatening to.

this also means that people can stack requirements onto gpl 2 by threatening to revoke it otherwise. which the gpl 2 explicitly forbids, but then fails via this giant loophole.

7. personal note: i use cc0 for almost everything, and like gpl3, it has a non-revoking clause so i cant hold my code hostage this way.

but cc0 is not the thing you want to use, if credit/attribution is important to you. you should probably use apache 2 (permissive) or gpl 3 (copyleft.)

8. if you dont like the gpl, it is easy to avoid-- just dont use any software written by authors who want you to not make proprietary derivatives of their software. that means saying goodbye to the linux kernel and hello to bsd. its a very nice os, and we will miss you. linus will miss you. the fsf may miss you. rms will probably not.

but without the gpl, your linux kernel would be lower quality and have far fewer contributions. something worth considering.

9. finally, im against the contributor covenant. its a fascist solution to a real problem-- and im not in favour of the problem, im against fascism as a solution.

that doesnt change the fact that the method contributors have chosen to fight this reveals a giant problem with with gpl 2 itself. creative commons fixed this in all of their licenses pretty much from day one-- because they know youre not really free to use the code for any purpose, if the right can be revoked at any time for any reason.

this is the best reason to upgrade to gpl 3 that ive ever heard, and there are a few.

[rufwoof]

OpenBSD licence is nice and simple ...

https://cvsweb.openbsd.org/src/share/mi ... e?rev=HEAD

Basically says "here's the source code ... do whatever you like with it, but if you have problems - it's your problem". So you can even take BSD'd code and turn it into a proprietary application if you so wish.

[musher0]

Hello all.

Their disclaimer part is better written, clearer (IMO), more detailed, than
that of the other licenses.

(Please cover your kids' ears for the next sentence:)
But to me, that OpenBSD license is sort of a "You can even use this
software as toilet paper if you wish" license...

Very subjective, but I don't like it.

~~~~~~~~~
Edit, 5 minutes later:

Come to think of it, are you automatically hung high and dry if you use
GPL'd software on OpenBSD?

BFN.

[nosystemdthanks]

But to me, that OpenBSD license is sort of a "You can even use this
software as toilet paper if you wish" license...

actually all free software can be used as toilet paper, whether under the gpl license or not. for two reasons:

freedom 0 is "the freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose." this includes printing it out and using it as toilet paper.

all free software licenses, whether copyleft or permissive, allow this. since flushing it down the toilet doesnt count as conveying the work, gpl 3 restrictions are not even triggered by using it as toilet paper, but wouldnt apply if they were.

permissive licenses also allow you to use the work as toilet paper, provided that you include the proper copyright notice.

version 2 of the gpl might raise some issues if authors use the kill switch, but that could also possibly be said for any free software license lacking a no-revocation clause. if you are concerned about that possibility, you are free to use cc0 works as toilet paper and avoid even these extremely hypothetical scenarios.

of course open source will tell you that companies find permissive licenses to be softer on the skin, while free software advocates will tell you its more important to preserve your right to use the bathroom and have all the source code needed to use, study, change and share your toilet.

personally i think eulas are better for toilet paper, but to each his own.

the question you should be asking is-- if you use agpl-licensed software as toilet paper, are you then required to upload a stool sample to a public server?

if so, then what instructions should it include for compiling, and is stool considered a binary or do you have to upload copies of the same things you ate as the source code for the changes you made?

these are probably also unfounded concerns however, as flushing it down the toilet is not considered conveying the work, nor is it considered running it from a server.

Come to think of it, are you automatically hung high and dry if you use
GPL'd software on OpenBSD?

no, the bsd community uses tar and feathers-- as long as it is a version of tar that is under a permissive license and compiled with clang instead of gcc.

i dont really begrudge this aspect of the bsd community. i think of their love of permissive licensing as more of a backup plan/alternative than a plot to destroy everything that free software works for.

an exception to all this is whether americans can use software from their phones as toilet paper. under the dmca, unlocking your phone to get the software from it directly could trigger the anti-circumvention clause, which means that if there is a year where there is not a specific exception made, you may need to ask the librarian of congress for permission to wipe. you can thank bill clinton for that-- it was his administration that passed the dmca.

hollywood frequently lobbies canadas government to import this nonsense, so check your own laws before you assume they are different. i note with pleasure that so far-- i am unaware of hollywood succeeding at passing bills like that. but i certainly dont trust trudeau with this.

this is not a snipe at canada, and i wish you all the best in this regard. there is absolutely no reason that hollywood should be given the opportunity to control anything outside of california. they are some of the worlds worst legislators, and they are perfectly welcome to find another planet to bother instead at any time they wish to do so.

i am not a lawyer or proctologist, and this does not constitute legal advice or medical advice.

[rufwoof]

no, the bsd community uses tar and feathers-- as long as it is a version of tar that is under a permissive license and compiled with clang instead of gcc.

i dont really begrudge this aspect of the bsd community. i think of their love of permissive licensing as more of a backup plan/alternative than a plot to destroy everything that free software works for.

gcc move to (more restrictive) gpl3 meant FreeBSD having to stay with a older gpl2 version of gcc .. and as that increasingly became outdated a move was made over to clang. Pretty much a necessity to fulfil commercial usage requirements/regulations.

OpenBSD do not permit blobs (lack of visibility/security auditing), hence nvidia is pretty much out. That it doesn't run on such a wider base of hardware as Linux isn't deemed a issue to those that appreciate its quality just have to be more selective with hardware purchases (i.e. nvidia's loss/radeon's gain).

[nosystemdthanks]

i appreciate the additional details and insight, though its also a political difference, not just a practical one.

its a political difference im ok with, as i said, but the bsd community is also pretty harshly critical of the gpl sometimes, even writing songs that deeply mock rms.

its also possible those are "good clean fun" and no more a reflection of how they feel than a weird al parody. but honestly, id sooner believe its somewhere between the two. for the fsf, the decisions/priorities bsd makes are certainly political. but i think they are somewhat political to the bsd community as well. perhaps a little less so.