GPL news...

[Solar]

I only have that article in German, but according to that article the FSF insisted that GPL would require Linux distros (in this case, Mepis) to provide full sources for all packages - including those that were not changed from the root distro (in this case, Ubuntu).

Interesting is the point where they say that GPL v3 will explicitly require all sources for a project be provided - and not only "on demand" on some website, but alongside with the product distribution. Due to the passage "or any later version" in GPL v2, this might come as a surprise to projects.


With every news item like this, my loathing of the GPL and the FSF deepens. It started as something aimed against the big corps. In my eyes, it has turned into a bunch of control freaks who want everyone to play by their rules and supply their software pool only - just like the big corps, only less honest in their appearance. None of my work will be under GPL, ever...

[Kemp]

I personally have avoided having any of my code under GPL simply because I don't trust it. I prefer giving my code a simple notice that states in plain language what you can and can't do with it.

[Midas]

I take the view that my code is nothing special and therefore pretty much anything that I release is Public Domain (with a little definition of what I mean by that, to help countries where PD doesn't have a definition (Germany, I think, if I recall the PDCLib licence headers)).

[mystran]

I've lately converted to MIT license for anything that I would have GPL'ed a few years back. GPL is just too much trouble.

[zloba]

GPL = non-reusable code for me. It's not doing anyone a favor.

I've been on the (non)receiving end of it. That changed my opinion from "I don't care, I may even use GPL" to "no frigging way".

[Solar]

I take the view that my code is nothing special and therefore pretty much anything that I release is Public Domain (with a little definition of what I mean by that, to help countries where PD doesn't have a definition (Germany, I think, if I recall the PDCLib licence headers)).

German law doesn't have the concept of waiving your copyright, i.e. no matter what you write in the license, you're still the copyright holder. German law does know the concept of Public Domain (i.e. there's no problem for someone in Germany using PD material), you just cannot deliberately place your work into PD.

However, in PDCLib I say that "permission is granted to use, modify, and/or redistribute at will" - which effectively is very much the same as PD. People will have to trust me a bit on this, but after all, they have to trust my code too...

[Kemp]

Hmmm.... no-one attempting to defend the GPL license, I guess I'm not the only one who doesn't trust it/doesn't care about it.

[Pype.Clicker]

well, i don't "distrust" GPL. Clicker is GPL and it has the advantage i can pick stuff in linux or the Mobius if it suits my needs.

Since i don't expect Clicker to worth money, i don't care if the GPL makes it hard to earn living out of Clicker... i don't mind too much either if they state full source code of Clicker should be distributed along with a binary ISO.

Now, i have to admit i didn't took the time to think really about it and see the real implications...

Okay, buying a Linux CD and not having the kernel sources readily available (that is, you have to download them) is a pain.
On the other side, if i download a linux ISO, i want the system, and i don't mind about the sources right now: i just want the rescue CD as fast as i can. If that implies downloading 500MB of sources right now due to GPL3 then GPL3 is bad.
I also like to have both open-source and proprietary software on the same medium. Linux distros that doesn't come with MP3 player (only OGG) or GIF reader are just nonsense. If GPL3 means you can't have mpeg123 on the same medium as the Linux kernel, then GPL3 is bad, imho.

[Bob the Avenger]

Personally, I dont care for FSF or GPL, although i think initially they had a good ideal, but i think this new move will damage FSF, GPL and any software under the GPL, linux particularly so.

I don't use GPL, and would choose public domain if i choose to distribute any software I have coded. My main problem is with showing people my code, not becuase i think their going to steel or or anything like that, but because i worry that people are going to "pick holes" in it.

[Kemp]

I know the feeling, I've had enough times when I've gone back to code and thought "why did I do it like that?!" and proceeded to cut the lines of code down to a fraction of what they were, it'd be a bit embarassing to be showing other people code like that.

[Bob the Avenger]

I find its worse after you done that, and you rthink you've got good code and people proceed to pick holes in it and the like

[Solar]

Ah well... on the other hand the criticism makes you a better coder.

And if you don't open your sources, they'll pick holes in your *application*, which isn't better really.

[Bob the Avenger]

True, it motivates me (or demotivates me). But I've often found a bug report type thing when someone is using an application I've written is easier to deal with than someone critisizing my code. That could just be because my code is so bad.

[guest]

a) Distribute the Object Code in a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by the Corresponding Source distributed on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

b) Distribute the Object Code 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 any third party, for a price no more than ten times your cost of physically performing source distribution, 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; or,

c) Privately distribute the Object Code with a copy of the written offer to provide the Corresponding Source. This alternative is allowed only for occasional noncommercial distribution, and only if you received the Object Code with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above. Or,

d) Distribute the Object Code by offering access to copy it from a designated place, and offer equivalent access to copy the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place. 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 that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you have explicitly arranged with the operator of that server to keep the Corresponding Source available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements, and provided you maintain clear directions next to the Object Code saying where to find the Corresponding Source.]

GPL3 Draft at time of writing [From Section 6]
Clause D notes that as long as the source is provided side by side with the binary version, you need not force the user to download the sources. Section 3 Clause A in the GPLv2 says pretty much the same thing although in a less specific way. The problem in this case is that if Ubuntu was to just disappear overnight (unlikely, I know) then the source for those packages would be lost which isn't acceptable as far as the GPL is concerned, the complete sources of all programs must be offered [mirrored] directly by the distributor.

[Solar]

Yes, that's what the "pro" side says. As if the Ubuntu sources would "vanish" even if the server went offline. There are lots of people who have copies of the stuff...

As a side note, I really get fed up with talking to "guest" and "anonymous"...