Understanding the GPL

[Lee]

Hi guys. This is a long one.
 
I am new to

[worker201]

Read this essay by demigod ESR first:
http://catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/

It will shed new light on some of those deeper issues.

The GPL basically states that if you use GPLed code in your project, you have to release the source.  So, using your cloning metaphor, if you cloned a pair of GPLed speakers and released them as your own, you would have to include the schematic diagrams from the original speakers.  The only point of the GPL is to prevent companies like Microsoft from stealing GNU code and closing the source.  The source has to stay open for modification.

It's hard to understand this from a technocratic viewpoint.  Microsoft wants to exploit you by taking your money, and giving you as little as possible in return for your money.  The GNU, in general, is composed of people who like making cool software, and want you to be able to use their cool software.  They would probably write it even if they didn't see a dime, whereas Microsoft would never do anything that it saw as completely unprofitable.  So, when you look at it without the distorting lenses of bourgeois captialism, things become much clearer.

[hm_murdock]

Something to think about... if you like the Mac, you don't need to think about the GPL much... conversely, if you like the GPL, and really go for it a lot, then it's quite possible you'll be unhappy with Apple.

[worker201]

Something to think about... if you like the Mac, you don't need to think about the GPL much... conversely, if you like the GPL, and really go for it a lot, then it's quite possible you'll be unhappy with Apple.

Want to expand on that a little bit?  I don't quite understand what you mean.  As a home Apple user and work Linux user, I'm curious as to what you are saying, and whether or not I agree.

[hm_murdock]

A lot of GPL purists don't care for Apple, therefore, if he's mainly interested in GPL software, as it seems from his question, it is something to consider. There is of course, nothing stopping him from installing Linux on his Mac.

That's also a way to alleviate the first point. If you use a Mac, you end up not thinking of GPL much. There's quite a bit of Mac-specific software, commercial and free. Much of the free stuff may be GPL'd, but in the Mac community, there's not such a big emphasis on the importance of the GPL. As a fellow Mac guy, I'm sure you've seen that.

[worker201]

It's not really so much that Apple people don't care about the GPL.  It's more like Apple people don't care about licenses.  Whereas on the Linux platform they are very serious about exactly what license each bit of software has.

The truth is that I barely understand the GPL, because it is legal mumbo-jumbo.  What really matters is the independent and generous spirit behind it.  Spending too much time thinking about the license itself is counter-productive, not only to your own enjoyment, but to the strength of the community as well.  All this LGPL and MPL crap gets in the way of what open source is really about.

[hm_murdock]

Which is precisely what I mean. Apple folks don't mull over what kind of software license a particular proggy carries.

[Orethrius]

If I may address one of those issues, the misconception enters practice that open-source means zero profit.  This is simply not true; the distributor can, for instance, sell the end-product binary.  The sole provision is that the "builder" of said product must provide the blueprints they used to arrive at this end-product.  Now, any one of several methods can still be used to ensure that the source is only seen by purchasers of the binary, but the sole legal method under the GPL is to allow anyone to "observe the schematics" so to speak.  If this is unacceptable, nobody is under pressure to continue to use the GPL (despite what Stallman thinks), and may switch to BSD or other similar propietary or partially-propietary licences at any point in time.

[Kintaro]

I think switching licences eliminates the purpose of the licence and if it is not illegal it should be.

[Orethrius]

I think switching licences eliminates the purpose of the licence and if it is not illegal it should be.

How so?  I don't see the problem in switching licences later down the road, so long as the prior editions remain under the prior licence.  If you retroactively change the licence, that should certainly be (and as "trial ex post facto" comes to mind, likely is) illegal.

[Kintaro]

So if Microsoft would get the Linux Kernel and just "switch" it to the M$ EULA, that would be okay?

[Orethrius]

So if Microsoft would get the Linux Kernel and just "switch" it to the M$ EULA, that would be okay?

Ah, but again you're assuming retroactive application.  Were they to do that, I'd petition my congressman to place open bounties on the BSA.  I'd likely get the requisite number of signatures, too, if I phrased the byline as "Preventative Measures to Stem the Spread of a Toxilogically Biohazardous Viral Body" or something on that order.  No, IF Microsoft were to get the Linux kernel and "switch" it to their End User Legal Annulment, and actually NOT be total bastards by violating the original licence in favour of their new one, progress would continue to be made on the prior edition of the kernel.  This is the benefit of a "forked" model.  However this is all merely rhetoric, as letting Microsoft play with the Linux kernel is like letting a five-year-old play with nuclear weaponry.  It's really cool for the half a second before they screw it up so badly that it kills them and vaporises the entire block.  

[piratePenguin]

Microsoft can't relicence Linux unless they own the copyright over it.
They'd have to buy off a fuck load of developers.

[Jenda]

They can't relicense the kernel, because it is protected by the GPL! The GPL strictly forbids change of licence on derivative works!

[toadlife]

Read this essay by demigod ESR first:
http://catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/

It will shed new light on some of those deeper issues.

The Cathedral and the Bazaar isn't really about the GPL, it's about the Open Source process and how it can be much more powerfull than the closed source process. There is more to Open Source than the GPL license. In fact many in the Open Source software coomunity like to point out that 'the "open source" software community and the "free software" community are very different things. But, yeah TCATB it is good reading for someone new to the whole open source idea.

If you're going to point him to one ESR rant, you might as well point him too one of ESR's more current rants.

ESR Interview - We don't need the GPL any more.