How exactly GPL protects software/code?

allend · 05-25-2014, 08:28 AM

Quote:

As stated GPL more or less gives you only an illusion of freedom and control when in reality the license prevents you from keeping secrets and forces you into submission to publish the code in full or risk violating the license. The GPL amounts more to communism in code rather than truly liberal code. Plus anyone can still clone your work, re-engineer it, and deprecate you and you don't have a choice in the matter.

Sorry, but that is not applepie to me.
I have no illusion of control when I have released code that I have written under a GPL license. I did it with full knowledge and took care to acknowledge the previous work released under GPL done by other developers that was included so that I did not have to reinvent the wheel. I do not consider that as communism in code but rather as a revelling in the liberty afforded by GPL licensed software. I have no desire to keep secrets and would welcome anybody cloning my work, re-engineering and deprecating the lousy stuff I have I written.
It was my choice to come up with a software solution and my choice to release code under the GPL. The choice comes before the release.

Quote:

At least with MIT, CDDL, and BSDL you have some level of total control of your project, even though someone can clone it, you still can enforce ownership of your codebase. You don't have to publish everything in open source, you can release binary blobs, and you can exert as much authority over your software as you see fit.

I am having difficulty reconciling that point of view with the antagonism you have displayed toward systemd. Are you advocating the idea that it is OK to release unauditable code and that it is OK to distribute code that can do what it likes without your say so? Do you accept that Poettering/Sievers as writers of code have the authority to do as they see fit?

273 · 05-25-2014, 08:34 AM

As an aside, I think equating open source with communism is at best a little wrong and at worst downright insulting. It seems Linus Torvalds sees open source as "selfish" but in a pragmatic way -- I was pleased to read this as I had thought similarly myself so it was nice to have it confirmed that open source isn't some "hippie love fest" thing or "communist idealism":
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18419231

Arkerless · 05-25-2014, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moisespedro

I mean, I was thinking about something the other day: if I am writing a code what prevents me of taking a GPL software code, copy some parts of it into my software and make it proprietary? How would someone spot that? Reverse engineering?

Law.

That's it. Fear of being sued.

How would someone spot that? Any of a number of ways. If it's done competently and no insiders squeal it could be fairly difficult to spot, of course. Historically people have mostly been caught by being very sloppy. One may suppose that it's only the sloppy ones that cannot be bothered to take the time to absorb the lessons of the code and then give them a new, perhaps improved, expression, rather than simply pasting a snippet in and checking if it causes a crash. Or one may suppose it's only the sloppy ones that get caught. Might have something to do with your opinion of plagiarism generally I suppose.

But that is the entire idea behind copyright - it's to encourage you to publish stuff by giving you some legal control over it even once it has been published and entered the public discourse.

By comparison, proprietary software in this century seems to get away with having it both ways. They claim protection under copyright law but keep their software hidden away, never published at all. Doesnt seem quite fair to me.

BTW:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ntubski

Actually, the copyright transfer agreement includes a clause that requires them to keep it open source.

The FSF is highly unlikely to require anything be 'open source' as they promote Free Software, not Open Source.

273 · 05-25-2014, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arkerless

BTW:

The FSF is highly unlikely to require anything be 'open source' as they promote Free Software, not Open Source.

So GNU isn't "open source"? What is then?

Arkerless · 05-25-2014, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 273

So GNU isn't "open source"? What is then?

https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/ht...en-Source.html

astrogeek · 05-25-2014, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arkerless

https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/ht...en-Source.html

Yes! Thank you!

And be sure to read, and consider, the article linked from that page, or click here.

No time has been more critical than the present to understand the importance of FREEDOM and FREE Software! For an example, just the past week or two, Mozilla has announced they will include DRM support in Firefox, described by some as "Open source without any of the freedom.".

Open source is a property of FREE software, but not the essential goal!

ntubski · 05-25-2014, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arkerless

The FSF is highly unlikely to require anything be 'open source' as they promote Free Software, not Open Source.

Yes you're right, here's the actual clause:

Quote:

4. FSF agrees that all distribution of the Works, or of any work “based on the Works'', or the Program as enhanced by the Works, that takes place under the control of FSF or its agents or successors, shall be on terms that explicitly and perpetually permit anyone possessing a copy of the work to which the terms apply, and possessing accurate notice of these terms, to redistribute copies of the work to anyone on the same terms. These terms shall not restrict which members of the public copies may be distributed to. These terms shall not require a member of the public to pay any royalty to FSF or to anyone else for any permitted use of the work they apply to, or to communicate with FSF or its agents or assignees in any way either when redistribution is performed or on any other occasion.

ReaperX7 · 05-26-2014, 03:26 AM

If the GPL was truly free in its licensing abilities, then why exclude the CDDL even when the BSDL, MIT, and other non-GPL licenses can do the same things as CDDL. The GPL is not a truly free and open source license if it has limitations in allowances both in public and private implementations in both binary and source form.

If the GPL was truly free and open source it would have allowed ZFS-On-Linux which is under the CDDL license long ago which is based on Illumos' OpenZFS implementation, a CDDL, yet 100% open source and free software project. The only way to include ZFS in Linux via binary prebuilt form is to violate the license of GPL, yet oddly and equally you don't violate the CDDL license. I can see no better example of the greatest flaw in GPL than that single project.

zakame · 05-26-2014, 04:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moisespedro

I mean, I was thinking about something the other day: if I am writing a code what prevents me of taking a GPL software code, copy some parts of it into my software and make it proprietary? How would someone spot that? Reverse engineering?

See http://choosealicense.com/ , next.

Alien Bob · 05-26-2014, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReaperX7

If the GPL was truly free in its licensing abilities, then why exclude the CDDL even when the BSDL, MIT, and other non-GPL licenses can do the same things as CDDL. The GPL is not a truly free and open source license if it has limitations in allowances both in public and private implementations in both binary and source form.

If the GPL was truly free and open source it would have allowed ZFS-On-Linux which is under the CDDL license long ago which is based on Illumos' OpenZFS implementation, a CDDL, yet 100% open source and free software project. The only way to include ZFS in Linux via binary prebuilt form is to violate the license of GPL, yet oddly and equally you don't violate the CDDL license. I can see no better example of the greatest flaw in GPL than that single project.

I think you don't use the same concept of "free" as the GPL uses.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html and http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html . Essentially (quoting a single paragraph in these long texts), "In the GNU project, our aim is to give all users the freedom to redistribute and change GNU software. If middlemen could strip off the freedom, we might have many users, but those users would not have freedom. So instead of putting GNU software in the public domain, we “copyleft” it. Copyleft says that anyone who redistributes the software, with or without changes, must pass along the freedom to further copy and change it. Copyleft guarantees that every user has freedom.".

This actually poses limits on how to deal with free software ,correct. That is the difference between public domain and Copyleft.

Eric

dunric · 05-26-2014, 06:56 AM

Some links to the topic:

Lawsuit against Cisco
Kiss Technology "stole" MPlayer's code
Kiss Technology response
GPL violations project

briselec · 05-26-2014, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kikinovak

GPL licence

My neighbour makes a delicious apple pie. I ask her for the recipe. She gladly gives it to me. I try it out at home. Eventually I call her back to share some improvements, like adding cinnamon to the recipe. Everybody's happy.

BSD licence

My neighbour makes a delicious apple pie. I ask her for the recipe. She gladly gives it to me. I try it out at home. Eventually I find an improvement to her initial recipe. I decide to start a company called "Apple", specialized in apple-pie-plus-cinnamon. I hire a bunch of lawyers to prevent my neighbour from selling apple pies on my territory.

This is my understanding so far of the major difference between the 2.

This is a good example of what can happen when you share your life's work without any restrictions
http://www.vqronline.org/reporting-a.../linux-lettuce

jpollard · 05-27-2014, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReaperX7

Depends on how much you also release as open code and proprietary code. Think binary blob. Nvidia more or less uses a BSD like license with their drivers, but they release a portition of the core of their drivers as binary only so unless you completely reverse engineer it, they still control the code.

As stated GPL more or less gives you only an illusion of freedom and control when in reality the license prevents you from keeping secrets and forces you into submission to publish the code in full or risk violating the license. The GPL amounts more to communism in code rather than truly liberal code. Plus anyone can still clone your work, re-engineer it, and deprecate you and you don't have a choice in the matter.

No different from the MIT, CDDL, and BSDL...

Quote:

At least with MIT, CDDL, and BSDL you have some level of total control of your project, even though someone can clone it, you still can enforce ownership of your codebase. You don't have to publish everything in open source, you can release binary blobs, and you can exert as much authority over your software as you see fit.

You have no more control over the code than with the GPL. They can hide it, make it proprietary, change it and do anything else to it they want....

And you can't sue because the licenses do allow the code to be made proprietary.

jtsn · 05-28-2014, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReaperX7

At least with MIT, CDDL, and BSDL you have some level of total control of your project, even though someone can clone it, you still can enforce ownership of your codebase. You don't have to publish everything in open source, you can release binary blobs, and you can exert as much authority over your software as you see fit.

The FSF knows this "issue" and their method to keep control over their projects is to not accept GPL submissions. "GPL only for others, for not us." Instead they acquire exclusive copyright on all code contributions.

That is why you find numerous copyright notices inside BSDL code all over the place, because BSD contributors keep their rights, while the contributors to FSF projects don't have any rights on their code, they give them up just like Microsoft employees.

It should be noted, that the most prominent GPL project - the Linux kernel - is an exception from this, because it is not a FSF project.

qweasd · 05-28-2014, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtsn

The FSF knows this "issue" and their method to keep control over their projects is to not accept GPL submissions. "GPL only for others, for not us." Instead they acquire exclusive copyright on all code contributions.

You seem to be conflating the licensing restrictions with copyright assignment. Since FSF releases almost everything (or everything?) under some version of GPL, and their own copyright assignment contracts forbid misappropriation, it is hard to see what you mean by "GPL only for others, for not us."

Quote:

That is why you find numerous copyright notices inside BSDL code all over the place, because BSD contributors keep their rights, while the contributors to FSF projects don't have any rights on their code, they give them up just like Microsoft employees.

It should be noted, that the most prominent GPL project - the Linux kernel - is an exception from this, because it is not a FSF project.

It is not clear what you mean by the rights of BSD contributors. Sure, they keep the copyrights on their own tiny contributions, but where does that leave the project? Shouldn't the BSD or Linux developers be able to change the license of their entire project upon some kind of consensus? Well, unlike FSF-affiliated developers, they cannot, because they can no longer contact every copyright holder. My point is, copyright assignment contracts with FSF are a subtle matter. They take away some freedoms, but they deliver others.

In a perfect world, everything would be as good as BSD-licensed. But we live in a world where an oppressive copyright law is strangling all forms of expression, and GPL is a clever hack of that very nasty law. This is the real reason to use it and a proper way to understand its effects.