decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal

User Functions



Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

GPL Version 3: Background to Adoption
Friday, June 10 2005 @ 03:14 PM EDT

It looks like GPL Version 3 may be closer on the horizon than I thought. [Update: Richard Stallman says in this interview that he has dedicated the last few months of 2005 to working on version 3.] The Free Software Foundation has released the following article by Richard Stallman and Eben Moglen, and it looks like the precursor to a first draft, which we will get to tinker with. I can't wait.

But what I see in this statement is an answer to the recent statements of some that the GPL needs to do this or that, in order to meet the needs of business. It's a reminder that serving business needs isn't the primary purpose or goal of the GPL, although everyone is glad they can benefit from GPL code. It's primary purpose is "the creation and protection of freedom." The statement reminds the world that the GPL is authored by Richard Stallman:

"Mr. Stallman remains the GPL's author, with as much right to preserve its integrity as a work representative of his intentions as any other author or creator. Under his guidance, the Free Software Foundation, which holds the copyright of the GPL, will coordinate and direct the process of its modification."

What? You thought rms was going to sell out? Puh-lease. If there is anything sure in this world, it's death, taxes and that Richard Stallman is not going to sell out.

Of course, someone in the Netherlands is saying there is an issue in that country regarding Free Software Foundation holding the copyright. However, as Stallman points out, copyright law would still apply, even if there were a problem with enforcement under Dutch law. So there still is no escape hatch for GPL violators, who continue to try to find loopholes. The story will give you a feel for just how complicated it is to come up with an international license, which in turn will help you understand why it is taking so long.


Boston, MA, USA - Thursday, June 9, 2005 - The Free Software Foundation (FSF) today released the following article by Richard M. Stallman and Eben Moglen discussing the forthcoming GPL Version 3.

GPL Version 3: Background to Adoption

by Richard Stallman and Eben Moglen

The GNU General Public License ("the GPL'') has remained unmodified, at version level 2, since 1991. This is extraordinary longevity for any widely-employed legal instrument. The durability of the GPL is even more surprising when one takes into account the differences between the free software movement at the time of version 2's release and the situation prevailing in 2005.

Richard M. Stallman, founder of the free software movement and author of the GNU GPL, released version 2 in 1991 after taking legal advice and collecting developer opinion concerning version 1 of the license, which had been in use since 1985. There was no formal public comment process and no significant interim transition period. The Free Software Foundation immediately relicensed the components of the GNU Project, which comprised the largest then-existing collection of copyleft software assets. In Finland, Linus Torvalds adopted GPL Version 2 for his operating system kernel, called Linux.

That was then, and this is now. The GPL is employed by tens of thousands of software projects around the world, of which the Free Software Foundation's GNU system is a tiny fraction. The GNU system, when combined with Linus Torvalds' Linux---which has evolved into a flexible, highly-portable, industry-leading operating system kernel---along with Samba, MySQL, and other GPL'd programs, offers superior reliability and adaptability to Microsoft's operating systems, at nominal cost. GPL'd software runs on or is embedded in devices ranging from cellphones, PDAs and home networking appliances to mainframes and supercomputing clusters. Independent software developers around the world, as well as every large corporate IT buyer and seller, and a surprisingly large proportion of individual users, interact with the GPL.

During the period since 1991, of course, there has developed a profusion of free software licenses. But not in the area covered by the GPL. The "share and share alike'' or "copyleft'' aspect of the GPL is its most important functional characteristic, and those who want to use a copyleft license for software overwhelmingly use the GPL rather than inventing their own.

Updating the GPL is therefore a very different task in 2005 than it was in 1991. The substantive reasons for revision, and the likely nature of those changes, are subject matter for another essay. At present we would like to concentrate on the institutional, procedural aspects of changing the license. Those are complicated by the fact that the GPL serves four distinct purposes.

The GPL is a Worldwide Copyright License

As a legal document, the GPL serves a purpose that most legal drafters would do anything possible to avoid: it licenses copyrighted material for modification and redistribution in every one of the world's systems of copyright law. In general, publishers don't use worldwide copyright licenses; for each system in which their works are distributed, licensing arrangements tailored to local legal requirements are used. Publishers rarely license redistribution of modified or derivative works; when they do so, those licenses are tailored to the specific setting, factual and legal. But free software requires legal arrangements that permit copyrighted works to follow arbitrary trajectories, in both geographic and genetic terms. Modified versions of free software works are distributed from hand to hand across borders in a pattern that no copyright holder could possibly trace.

GPL version 2 performed the task of globalization relatively well, because its design was elegantly limited to a minimum set of copyright principles that signatories to the Berne Convention must offer, in one form or another, in their national legislation. But GPL2 was a license constructed by one US layman and his lawyers, largely concerned with US law. To the extent possible, and without any fundamental changes, GPL3 should ease internationalization difficulties, more fully approximating the otherwise unsought ideal of the global copyright license.

The GPL is the Code of Conduct for Free Software Distributors

Beyond the legal permission that the GPL extends to those who wish to copy, modify, and share free software, the GPL also embodies a code of industry conduct with respect to the practices by which free software is distributed. Section 3, which explains how to make source code available as required under the license, affects product packaging decisions for those who embed free software in appliances, as well as those who distribute software collections that include both free and unfree software. Section 7, which concerns the effect of licenses, judgments, and other compulsory legal interventions incompatible with the GPL on the behavior of software distributors, affects patent licensing arrangements in connection with industry standards. And so on, through a range of interactions between the requirements of the license and evolving practices in the vending of both hardware and software.

The Free Software Foundation, through its maintenance and enforcement of the GPL, has contributed to the evolution of industry behavior patterns beyond its influence as a maker of software. In revising the GPL, the Foundation is inevitably engaged in altering the rules of the road for enterprises and market participants of many different kinds, with different fundamental interests and radically different levels of market power. The process of drafting and adopting changes to the license must thus approximate standard-setting, or "best practices'' definition, as well as copyright license drafting.

The GPL is the Constitution of the Free Software Movement

The Free Software Foundation has never been reluctant to point out that its goals are primarily social and political, not technical or economic. The Foundation believes that free software---that is, software that can be freely studied, copied, modified, reused, redistributed and shared by its users---is the only ethically satisfactory form of software development, as free and open scientific research is the only ethically satisfactory context for the conduct of mathematics, physics, or biology. The Foundation, and those who support its broader work, regard free software as an essential step in a social movement for freer access to knowledge, freer access to facilities of communication, and a more deeply participatory culture, open to human beings with less regard to existing distributions of wealth and social power. The free software movement has taken advantage of the social conditions of its time to found its program on the creation of vast new wealth, through new systems of cooperation, which can in turn be shared in order to further the creation of new wealth, in a positive feedback loop.

This program is not, of course, universally shared by all the parties who benefit from the exploitation of the new wealth created by free software. The free software movement has never objected to the indirect benefits accruing to those who differ from the movement's goals: one of the powerful lessons the movement has learned from previous aspects of the long-duration Western movement for freedom of expression is the value of working with, rather than against, conventional economic interests and concerns. But the movement's own goals cannot be subordinated to the economic interests of our friends and allies in industry, let alone those who occasionally contribute solely for reasons of their own. Changes to the GPL, for whatever reason they are undertaken, must not undermine the underlying movement for freer exchange of knowledge. To the extent that the movement has identified technological or legal measures likely to be harmful to freedom, such as "trusted computing'' or a broadening of the scope of patent law, the GPL needs to address those issues from a perspective of political principle and the needs of the movement, not from primary regard for the industrial or commercial consequences.

The GPL is the Literary Work of Richard M. Stallman

Some copyright licenses are no doubt known, in the restricted circle of one firm or law office, as the achievement of a single author's acumen or insight. But it is safe to say that there is no other copyright license in the world that is so strongly identified with the achievements, and the philosophy, of a single public figure. Mr. Stallman remains the GPL's author, with as much right to preserve its integrity as a work representative of his intentions as any other author or creator. Under his guidance, the Free Software Foundation, which holds the copyright of the GPL, will coordinate and direct the process of its modification.


The GPL serves, and must continue to serve, multiple purposes. Those purposes are fundamentally diverse, and they inevitably conflict. Development of GPL version 3 has been an ongoing process within the Free Software Foundation; we, along with our colleagues, have never stopped considering possible modifications. We have consulted, formally and informally, a very broad array of participants in the free software community, from industry, the academy, and the garage. Those conversations have occurred in many countries and several languages, over almost two decades, as the technology of software development and distribution changed around us.

When a GPLv3 discussion draft is released, the pace of that conversation will change, as a particular proposal becomes the centerpiece. The Foundation will, before it emits a first discussion draft, publicize the process by which it intends to gather opinion and suggestions. The Free Software Foundation recognizes that the reversioning of the GPL is a crucial moment in the evolution of the free software community, and the Foundation intends to meet its responsibilities to the makers, distributors and users of free software. In doing so, we hope to hear all relevant points of view, and to make decisions that reflect the many disparate purposes that the license must serve. Our primary concern remains, as it has been from the beginning, the creation and protection of freedom. We recognize that the best protection of freedom is a growing and vital community of the free. We will use the process of public discussion of GPL3 drafts to support and nurture the community of the free. Proprietary culture imposes both technology and license terms; free software means allowing people to understand, experiment and modify software, as well as getting involved in the discussion of license terms, so that everyone's ideas can contribute to the common good, and the development of each contributes to the development of all.

Copyright Richard Stallman and Eben Moglen, 2005. Verbatim copying of this article is permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.

About the Free Software Foundation: The Free Software Foundation, founded in 1985, is dedicated to promoting computer users' right to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute computer programs. The FSF promotes the development and use of free (as in freedom) software - particularly the GNU operating system and its GNU/Linux variants - and free documentation for free software. The FSF also helps to spread awareness of the ethical and political issues of freedom in the use of software. Their Web site, located at, is an important source of information about GNU/Linux. Donations to support their work can be made at They are headquartered in Boston, MA, USA.


GPL Version 3: Background to Adoption | 151 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Off Topic Stuff Goes Here
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 10 2005 @ 03:58 PM EDT
I guess I'll do the honors...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections Go Here
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 10 2005 @ 03:59 PM EDT

My first correction is to note that corrections should go before off-topic...
but wait, that's MY fault.


[ Reply to This | # ]

O/t, Links here, please
Authored by: jbeadle on Friday, June 10 2005 @ 04:01 PM EDT
...the non-anon thread 8-}


[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: ExcludedMiddle on Friday, June 10 2005 @ 04:08 PM EDT
These licenses are truly amazing. Do you know of ANY OTHER type of license
besides open source ones that asks people for comment on the full text before
fixing it into final form?

Just pause for a moment and consider how incredible that is.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can legal instruments be copyrighted?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 10 2005 @ 04:08 PM EDT

I noticed in one of the last paragraphs; it was pointed out that RMS notes that
he holds the copyright on the GPL.

First of all... can legal instruments such as contracts and licenses be subject
to copyright? I suppose they can, having some creativity to 'em.

Second of all... could RMS demand that nobody use the GPL as a template for a
derivative license (with different terms), even if that license were to no
longer be called the "GPL"? I suppose he could... would he?

Third... is it common for lawyers (and others) to use IP law to protect the
contracts they write from being recycled by others? I imagine that it would be
a breach of professional ethics for one lawyer to recycle a contract written by
another, with the permission of the first lawyer--even if there was no copyright
question. OTOH, that might not deter DIYers who are not subject to professional

At any rate, it struck me as interesting, even if itsn't a significant thing.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections Go Here
Authored by: StudioBob on Friday, June 10 2005 @ 04:09 PM EDT
In a non-anonymous thread. (Unless I'm not the first to notice this.)

Karma comes around
...Especially to liars and thieves.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Of course. . .
Authored by: oneandoneis2 on Friday, June 10 2005 @ 04:35 PM EDT
. . . if you were a regular donator to the FSF, you'd have received this text already, in this month's FSF Bulletin

*hint hint*

[ Reply to This | # ]

GPL Version 3: Background to Adoption
Authored by: soronlin on Friday, June 10 2005 @ 05:39 PM EDT
I'm sure they've thought about this, but...

Any public draft of GPL3 should have a clause that prevents the GPL2 language
"or any later version" from triggering. Otherwise if the worst happens
and the draft has a hole then any licencees could upgrade their GPL2 licence to
draft GPL3 and drive right through it.

Once GPL3 reaches its final form, of course, the clause should be removed and
licencees will be free to use either licence at their option.

IANAL, but I do have GPL'd software out there.

[ Reply to This | # ]

One slight concern....
Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, June 10 2005 @ 06:00 PM EDT
... is that GPL 2 has stood the test of time, and apart from a few individual or corporate no-hopers (regular readers will know most of them!), no-one is daft enough to attempt to mount a serious challenge against it. Now, GPL 3 will present the enemies of FOSS with a new challenge, and may actually encourage some of the more deluded to think that they might be able to defeat it. So it may be playing into the hands of the FUDsters and their accompanying shills. At the very least it will give them something to write about.

On the other hand, if it retains the conceptual simplicity and elegance of GPL 2, in using copyright law and the Berne convention to actually guarantee freedom, which is the bit that I always find so interesting, it should prove to be as durable as its predecessor.

There is a well-known adage in engineering, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", however things that are not "broke" can still benefit from routine maintenance and occasional adjustments. GPL 2 was not "broke". Nor is my car at the moment, but it does need a new timing belt every 60,000 miles or so, otherwise it will eventually be "broke" in a very big and expensive way. So maybe some things do need renewing before they break.....

[ Reply to This | # ]

GPL Version 3: Foreshadowing Controversy?
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Friday, June 10 2005 @ 07:28 PM EDT
This article was, it appears to me, written mostly by Eben Moglen, primarily
because it refers to RMS in the third person.

I wonder if the purpose of this article is to prepare the ground for some truly
controversial clauses in GPL 3. What those are I cannot imagine. But in
pointing out the the GPL 2 is a literary product of RMS and his personal
philosophy. They may be setting up the possibility that GPL 3 will be published
regardless of some of the comments.

I can hardly wait to see what he has cooked up. While GNU projects will almost
certainly adopt GPL 3. It should be noted that other projects like Linux will
still be free to stay with GPL 2.

As an aside it would be interesting to know more about how the FSF is set up.


"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

Closed source license??
Authored by: Kybos on Friday, June 10 2005 @ 07:44 PM EDT
"Mr. Stallman remains the GPL's author, with as much right to preserve its integrity as a work representative of his intentions as any other author or creator. Under his guidance, the Free Software Foundation, which holds the copyright of the GPL, will coordinate and direct the process of its modification."
I hate to be the one to point this out but... wouldn't it make much more sense if the GPL was released under a license that allowed people to create derivative works? The only thing that would really be required is that modified versions use a different name to avoid confusion, but it strikes me as incoherent to see RMS / the FSF "close" the development of the GPL.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Going from GPL2 to GPL 3 may present a problem
Authored by: Prototrm on Friday, June 10 2005 @ 08:48 PM EDT
The upgrade in the license will be no problem where there is only one copyright
holder, but I think it will take some time, if it's possible at all, for
something like Linux to do so, where there are so many copyright holders. If I'm
not mistaken (and I,ANAL :) ), in order for Linux to use GPL3, every one of
those copyright holders will have to agree to the change. This will be
particularly important (and difficult) if GPL3 has any controversial provisions
in it.

I don't remember reading this anywhere, but if GPL3 specifically allows a mix of
GPL2 and GPL3 in the same release, it would make the transition easier in some
ways, more complicated in others. Either way, I don't envy these gentlemen their

[ Reply to This | # ]

Respect for Stallman
Authored by: llanitedave on Friday, June 10 2005 @ 09:31 PM EDT
Stallman is a radical, reactionary, rigid, intolerant, eccentric, extremist.
There, I've said it.

And the more closely I look at the issue from his perspective, the more I
agree with him. It's not about beating Windows, although that may be a
desirable side effect. It's not about commercial success, although that might
happen as well. It's not even about technological excellence, although again,
that seems to go hand in hand with the evolution of free software.

What it's about is *human* progress. Humanity cannot survive unless
humans are free to learn and grow and discover better ways of interacting
with a changing and challenging world. Stallman worships access to
knowledge. Proprietary software is the equivalent of proprietary knowledge,
and knowledge denied is ignorance preserved.

Where I disagree with Stallman is in the details of the implementation of this
philosophy -- just as perfect freedom must be limited by laws, contracts, and
agrrements, or else we are doomed to "the tragedy of the commons",
to knowledge must be restricted under limited circumstance, both in order to
prevent it getting into the wrong hands, to protect the privacy of individuals,

and to encourage and reward those who are engaged in the generation of
new knowledge. For that reason, I don't agree that proprietary software is
unethical in all cases -- there is room in this world for both free and
proprietary software. However, this disagreement is really a minor one. The
bottom line is, RMS is right about freedom, and his cause is a worthy one. It's

a point of view we're unaccustomed to respecting -- but that's not Stallman's
failing, it's ours.

Of course we need to communicate -- that goes without saying!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stallman and the domino effect
Authored by: belzecue on Friday, June 10 2005 @ 10:25 PM EDT
Forewarned is forearmed, methinks...

"... it is safe to say that there is no other copyright license in the
world that is so strongly identified with the achievements, and the philosophy,
of a single public figure. Mr. Stallman remains the GPL's author, with as much
right to preserve its integrity as a work representative of his intentions as
any other author or creator. Under his guidance, the Free Software Foundation,
which holds the copyright of the GPL, will coordinate and direct the process of
its modification."

Certainly this will get the attention of MS and the FUDders, and they will
launch the inevitable coordinated attack on RMS.

Surely opportunities to drive off Linux uptakers don't come better than this.
We have:

* a public figure who polarizes opinions -- love him or hate him or know not of

* a public figure who has shown that he *can* be goaded into acting extremely

* a chokepoint (the GPL) for proxy control of Linux -- RMS has every right to
remind the world that the GPL is by and large his. But doing so reminds MS that
RMS is the domino that stands in front of the GPL itself. Phasers set to kill,

How to counter the coming blizzard of criticism? The Big Picture, perhaps.
Focus on all the positives RMS has achieved -- and be fair here, even if you
take issue with the man himself. Focus on the *change* he has driven over the
past decade. Who of us here will be able to look back on our lives and see that
we changed the world in some way or another? RMS will. Darl McBride will, but
for all the wrong reasons.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can't wait to see how V3 GPL defines "distribtion"
Authored by: ossworks on Saturday, June 11 2005 @ 12:16 AM EDT
When the initial version of the GPL was written twenty-some years ago
"distribution" meant to physically hand a 9-track tape reel over to
someone else. But technology has evolved in ways that were not anticipated by
the original GPL language. For example, very large scale integrated circuits
(VLSI) the size of your thumbnail and containing a computer system with its
firmware operating system was not foreseen 20 years ago. The Internet, or large
extended multi-national corporations using OSS were not foreseen. And now,
looming on the horizon, we have the armed services of various countries actively
considering the use of GPL'd software in their secret, world-wide operations.

The Free Software Foundation (FSF) is considering, in version three of the GPL,
extending the definition of "distribution" to restrict some forms of
private use. These extentions include: GPL'd software theft, public interactions
with the Program, the use of GPL'd software among divisions of large companies,
as well as the use of GPL'd software in embedded system firmware.

For example, The GNU GPL FAQ StolenCopy says:

"...the thief probably does have the right to make copies and redistribute
them under the GPL, but if he is imprisoned for stealing the CD he may have to
wait until his release before doing so..."

It appears that this opinion ignores volumes of case law giving the victim
rights that trump the criminal's GPL right to distribute stolen confidential
information much less trade secrets.

In another example that considers public web access to the running of a GPL'd
Program, The GNU GPL FAQ UnreleasedMods says:

"However, putting the program on a server machine for the public to talk to
is hardly "private" use..."

This suggests that the FSF wants to further narrow the GPL "no restrictions
on Program output" clause to allow a statement that says, in effect, that
if the public interacts with the GPL'd Program over a network, it would meet the
"distribution" definition.

A third example considers using non-distributed code within an enterprise. The
GNU GPL FAQ InternalDistribution says:

"In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is

Again, common sense suggests that this opinion ignores the fact that a
contractor is typically working under a non-disclosure agreement that prevents
the distribution of the GPL'd software regardless of the contractor's physical
location. Even if a non-disclosure agreement had not been signed, it's clear the
contractor is the employee of the entity holding the GPL; and it's clear that
the software contains confidential information that the company would not want
distributed nor has the company given the employee permission to distribute the
software. It appears that all of these factors would override the physical
location of where the contracting is performed to be the defining element in
"distribution" of the Program.

Finally, there are also cases where companies have embedded GPL'd software into
appliance firmware, inaccessible by the user. In situations where the firmware
was cracked and GPL'd code was revealed, the FSF believes this represents
distribution of the GPL'd code.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: First-Round Voting in 2005 Readers' Choice Awards
Authored by: belzecue on Saturday, June 11 2005 @ 12:33 PM EDT
Best Linux Web Site: Groklaw nominated. Linuxgram not nominated ;-)

Info here.

Email ballot form here.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can't wait to see how V3 GPL defines "derivation"
Authored by: soronlin on Saturday, June 11 2005 @ 12:48 PM EDT
(Yes, this comment is derivative of a/the previous one.)

When the GPL was written derivation was very simple. The only complicating issue
was static and dynamic libraries, and dynamic libraries were only just

Now there are vastly more complex issues. HTTP, COM, .NET, SOAP, CORBA and so on
all allow one program to use the capabilities of another without being linked to
it, or even on the same machine. The technology is so advanced that the user
will assume that they are talking to one program although there may in fact be

The general consensus is that the programs must communicate using a generic
published protocol; if the protocol can only be used to allow the GPL program to
communicate with a single closed source program then the closed source program
is derivative of the GPL program. But this is not a line that can be inferred
with any certainty from the black letter of the GPL, or even (in my view) from
the published GPL FAQ.

I have no idea how to word a clause to tie derivation down even now, let alone
for the next twenty years. I am very interested to see how the FSF do it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The potential problem in The Netherlands
Authored by: cricketjeff on Sunday, June 12 2005 @ 07:05 AM EDT
Is, I feel, considerably overstated. Imagine the scenario: the Open Software
Stealing Corporation of Amsterdam is sued by Peter Gpldeveloper of Rotterdam.
Council for the OSSCoA says to the Judge "We do not recognise the right of
Mr Gpldeveloper to bring this suit, Our clients looked at the software and saw
it was GPL software which is copyright the FSF." Council for PG replies
"So you deliberately took the code and didn't bother to ask the people who
you say own the code for permission?"
Council for OSSCoA "B****r! didn't think of that..."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Gates/Balmer would *LOVE* a "use" clause
Authored by: Walter Dnes on Sunday, June 12 2005 @ 11:21 PM EDT
...and the BSD community would grow explosively. Remember all the MS FUD about
how Open Source was a viral cancer? Stallman could make it all come true with a
use clause. It would be absolutely stupid and suicidal for Open Source.

Here are a few "edge-case" questions for the lawyers to think

1) Server programs that talk directly to your browser over the net would be
covered. So I write a very simple server program for Company X. It opens two
- one takes user's stdout and pipes it to stdin of Company X's
- the other pipe takes the program's stdout and pipes it to user over the

RMS comes along and says "show me the code" for the program that talks
to the user. I show him the small two-pipe program. RMS walks off in a huff,
and re-writes the use clause to be super-viral, and apply to any chain of
umpteen middle-ware layers. Steve Ballmer dances with delight.

2) Company X's super-duper-secret-derived-program is modified to read/write
stdin/stdout or a file, instead of TCP/IP. Company X buys a webserver with a
honking big ram drive. Super-duper-secret-derived-program writes to disk (i.e.
ram drive), and the output is immediately sent to end-user and deleted from the
ram drive immediately thereafter. Ditto for inbound data. Now what does RMS
do? Does he modify the use clause to apply to *EVERY GPL PROGRAM THAT READS

This is the path to madness. GPL would be just like SCOX, who claim that
programs compiled with their compiler are their property (Autozone case).

[ Reply to This | # ]

GPL Version 3: Background to Adoption
Authored by: erehwon on Sunday, June 12 2005 @ 11:46 PM EDT
Top level canonical threads *should not* be posted as anonymous comments.

Your slavering enthusiasm for first post chops is not conducive to good order.

Sign in, or do not begin canonical threads.

Eez beeg trahble for Moose and Skvirrel! (Boris)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )