Talk:GNU General Public License/Archive 3

message: I was wondering why the GPL license called the GNU GPL license and not the FSF GPL license? After all GNU is an OS and GPL is not only an OS license. If anyone has better wording for my question go ahead and reword it, I am leaving this question unsigned for this reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.48.200 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 30 October 2005
: It was written by FSF, but it was written for GNU, and it is one component of the GNU project.  I don't think anyone in FSF has ever given a reason for choosing one over the other, so any further discussion is speculation:  Maybe to emphasise the goal over the owner?  Maybe it was thought that putting an organisation's name in there would encourage other organisations to invent their own?  Maybe because the license must be able to outlive any legal entity? Gronky 01:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is meant to be a General Pubic License I would understand what you are saying if it was a GNU Public License instead... but the way I see it right now its a plot by RMS to give GNU a General Public acknowledgment, this may also be the real reason to why RMS is pushing so much to call Linux, GNU/Linux as it give GNU free advertising and gives it a bigger possibility of getting a General Public acknowledgment. Anyway I will bring this up with the FSF soon (like within a month). 220.233.48.200 08:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  A quick note on history:  When Stallman released GNU Emacs, he wrote the Emacs Public License, when he wrote GCC, he wrote the GCC Public License, when he wrote GDB, he wrote the GDB Public License.  Over time, people asked him if they could move some code from one project into another (like, from GCC to GDB).  The licenses were incompatible, so each time Stallman had to make an exception.  This was obviously inefficient, and it would become increasingly inefficient as the number of GNU packages increased, so he wrote one General license, for the public, which he would use for all the GNU packages.  (So it's not a "General Public" License, it's a General "Public License") Gronky 11:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank this clears it up a lot could this historical info be added to the article? 220.233.48.200 12:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text:  It's not the Stallman GPL, or the RMS GPL, and he hasn't tried to call the operating system Stallmanix.  Also, note that Stallman doesn't ask for the Linux kernel to be called GNU/Linux.  He only asks that operating systems which consist of the GNU system + the Linux kernel be called GNU/Linux.  And most people call the license the "GPL", not the "GNU GPL", and Stallman doesn't make a point of asking people to call it the "GNU GPL".  Also, remember that the GPL predates the Linux kernel, and the GNU project also predates the Linux kernel (by 8 years, during which Stallman, hundreds of volunteers, and the software developers hired by FSF were working to make a free software operating system available). Gronky 11:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Stallman == RMS. I never said he is doing it for personal fame, rather I meant he is doing it for the GNU project. With your second point of he is only pushing for Linux distro's that use the GNU user-land application that is exactly what I meant, sorry I didn't make it clear. And it must be called the GNU GPL as another project or company could come and make their own GPL and confustion will be made in between them. 220.233.48.200 12:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  There actually is another non-GNU GPL.  It's called the Affero GPL. -- Wonderstruck 06:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the license under GNU instead of FSF? 

message: This is hypothetical but interesting question: If a person takes a GPL'd work, modifies it, and then sells it to a third party AND (suppose he could) deletes all previously existing copies and derivates of the source and the binaries so that the buyer becomes the only owner of the orginal code under the GPL license, then would another/third person be able to force the buyer to hand out the GPL'd source code to him, if he knew about what happend between the buyer and the seller (that the buyer is the single and only owner of a previously publicly available GPL'd work)? Or to cut it short: If I owned all source code under GPL and all of the binaries, so that no one else would have any, then could anybody force/make me to hand out the source code by LAW? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.186.115.146 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 4 November 2005
: No, nothing in the GPL can force someone to distribute the software.  It can require that they distribute the source code if they distribute the binary, but even in this situation it cannot "force" the distribution of source code.  The distributor can refuse to distribute the source code, and then they're violating copyright law.  This can be taken to court, and a judge will decide the penalty (probably cash).  The copyright violator could of course offer to distribute the source code - in return for reduced damages, or as part of an out of court settlement.  None of this is specific to the GPL though. Gronky 10:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The hypothetical contains an interesting and critical error.  When 80.186.115.146 says "so that the buyer becomes the only owner of the orginal code under the GPL license", they are incorrect, and it leads to the later presumption that "I owned all source code under GPL and all of the binaries".  The owner of the code is always the copyright holder - the author or whomever the author assigns the copyright to - regardless of anything else that happens to it, including the deletion of the copyright notices by someone else.  It would be more correct to say that they are the sole possessor of the source and binaries, in which case it becomes clearer - possession in this case conveys nothing in the way of ownership.  But Gronky is correct - the GPL doesn't give anyone else the power to compel you to distribute the code, not even the copyright holder.  It only restricts your ability to distrbute the binaries without the source. RossPatterson 18:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypothetical but interesting question 

message: I have removed the following text from the "Criticism" section of the article:
An unintended side-effect of the GPL delineating between "internal" derivative code and "external" linked libraries has been a pronounced tendency for software developed under this license to grow increasingly  monolithic.  Although this delineation purposefully curbs a "viral" licensing effect on all data which comes to interact with software licensed under the GPL, so as to permit friendly interaction with non-Free software and copyrighted data, concerns mount that this pull towards monolithic design promotes active developer resistence to  object-oriented design and runs counter to the Unix spirit of chaining single-purpose tools.</blcokquote>
My reasons for removing this are:
# No sources are cited. Weaselly claims like "concerns mount" are not a substitute for evidence.
# Counter-examples are trivial to find. For example, all of GNU's single-purpose Unix tools, as commonly used in pipelines, are under the GPL, and are not showing any tendency to grow monolithic.
The claims are also implausible. Increasing prominence of GUI applications, which are not trivial to chain together, is a more likely cause of the increase in monolithic designs than any licensing issue. Also, chaining single-purpose tools together, far from being made difficult by the GPL, is actively encouraged by the FSF as a way to avoid being required to license non-derivative code under the GPL. Implausible claims require supporting evidence all the more.
— Haeleth Talk 14:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What monolithic tendencies? 

message: Could someone fix the common law and civil law links in section 3.3 "The GPL is a license"? Right now they point to disambiguation pages. I would do it myself but I'm not exactly sure what to correctly link to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.192.236.244 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 13 December 2005
: Done, back on 24 February 2006 by Qwertyus. RossPatterson 17:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguate links 

message: I removed the following chunk from the "criticism" section:
Some critics quote a suggestion from the 1985 GNU Manifesto about a software tax as an alternative way to pay programmers for writing software:
All sorts of development can be funded with a Software Tax:
Suppose everyone who buys a computer has to pay x percent of the price as a software tax. The government gives this to an agency like the NSF to spend on software development.
But if the computer buyer makes a donation to software development himself, he can take a credit against the tax. He can donate to the project of his own choosing- often, chosen because he hopes to use the results when it is done. He can take a credit for any amount of donation up to the total tax he had to pay.
The total tax rate could be decided by a vote of the payers of the tax, weighted according to the amount they will be taxed on.
Although this scheme has never received the support it would need to become law, most developed countries have enacted a similar scheme with regards to music.  Purchases of blank media, such as blank CDs, often includes a tax which is given to the music industry.  The music industry requested this as "compensation" for lost sales due to illegal copying.
I don't see any actual criticism being put forward here.  Some critics quote this suggestion -- and then what?  I just can't see any reason the quote is mentioned.  And additionally, the quote has nothing to do with the license a programmer might choose for their work, only with how they would get paid. -- magetoo 15:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The very concept of such a thing is repugnant to most of the audience, so merely mentioning its existence is criticism.  It would be like criticising software for promoting the eating of babies.  That would be a criticism even if you don't follow up by explaining why eating babies is a bad idea. Ken Arromdee 22:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed "software tax" from criticism section 

message: Just to let you know.  The purpose of the featuring an article is both to point readers to the article and to highlight it to potential contributors. Gronky 16:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On [[Portal:Free software]], GNU GPL is current featured article 

message: So I changed the article to reflect this - 212.219.39.100 13:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wallace Lost to the FSF 

message: Defendant has infringed on the copyright of plaintiff by offering the software 'netfilter/iptables' for download and by advertising its distribution, without adhering to the license conditions of the GPL. Said actions would only be permissible if defendant had a license grant... This is independent of the questions whether the licensing conditions of the GPL have been effectively agreed upon between plaintiff and defendant or not. If the GPL were not agreed upon by the parties, defendant would notwithstanding lack the necessary rights to copy, distribute, and make the software 'netfilter/iptables' publicly available.
This ruling was important because it was the first time in the world that a court had confirmed that the GPL is a legally enforceable license.
Really?  Unless I'm reading it wrong it seems like the ruling completely glosses over whether the G.P.L. is legally enforceable.  —Casey J. Morris 23:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Legally enforceable" 

message: Im noticing that the GPL can be manipulated by the copyright holder, for example: asterisk refusing contributions, and montavista http://www.mvista.com/ restricting the distribution of there modifications, so really the GPL is not as good as it seems on the surface. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.29.157.36 (talk • contribs) 2006-05-12 04:22:32.
: How does Asterisk refusing contributions "manipulate" the GPL?  They have no obligation to accept contributions, and they cannot stop you forking their code and releasing your own version with your changes included.
: How is MontaVista restricting the distribution of their modifications to GPL'd software?  I had a poke around their site and could find nothing at all pertinent.  They even link back to Wikipedia for a definition of Open Source, which is nice.  — Haeleth Talk 12:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GPL manipulation 

message: Mornin' all.  Can we add an example scenario, using real-world software, on what rights a user has for closed source vs. GPL software?  This would make the article more friendly to the lay reader.  Monkeyman(talk) 14:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Practical Example needed 

message: Can the software be used to turn a profit? For example, use a GNU GPL grpahics program to run a Poster Making shop. Angrynight 05:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it can be used to turn a profit.  This is quite clear in the licence, and the licence is quite easy to read. Gronky 11:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The point of having the article is to explain the license to people, otherwise there 'd be nothing here other than a link to the license. Saying "read the license" is therefore insufficient. If it is not made clear anywhere in the article that a profit may be made from GPL'd software, then the article may need improvement and clarification. DewiMorgan 13:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused