These are the last odds and ends of my GPL Q&A series. I may or may not find the energy to elaborate on the patent and DRM provisions tomorrow, since those seem to have generated the most questions, but I may not- I’m completely destroyed right now, and I plan on going to a baseball game tomorrow night and having a beer instead of writing. Generally, I do not recommend writing about something at work all week, and then coming home at night and writing more, in a different voice, for a different audience, and all while trying to maintain your impartiality and mental walls on both sides. Draining.
Q: Tell us how you really feel about the ‘pragmatism v. idealism’ framing of the Linus v. FSF camps.
A: Argh. While it certainly isn’t untrue, I think it is a lot more useful to frame the camps in terms of being split by focus on rights of developers v. rights of users. Both camps get pretty irritated when they feel their real rights are being violated- plenty of members of both camps have tromped around enforcing their copyrights when they feel they need to, and both camps feel very strongly about their visions of how the world will or should be (Linus may not say ‘should’ a lot, like Richard does, but the world domination talk is most definitely a driven vision of a specific world that he likes.) And both sides are willing to compromise on methods as long as their goals are reached. (Do you really think RMS consulted with IBM and Sun on v3 just because he is a nice guy? No; he’s just a ruthless pragmatist when he wants to be.) This isn’t to say there isn’t a lot of truth there; the meme wouldn’t be so pervasive otherwise. But both parties have a lot more in common than recent coverage and discussion would have you believe.
The pragmatist/idealist framing not only isn’t terribly accurate, it isn’t very useful. It makes for an easy story for journalists, but past that what is mostly does is to encourage both sides to think of the other side as either crazy or immoral, when in fact they share a ton of common ground. (If their mechanisms and goals didn’t overlap, the fundamentally user-focused v2 wouldn’t have been so wildly successful with developers.) If the FSF spoke specifically of user rights instead of generic rights (which are easier to mischaracteriz/ridicule), and addressed developer rights as a complementary set of rights instead of something secondary, it would help bring everyone together as peers using the same language instead of frequently ridiculing each other. Similarly, if the ‘pragmatist’ camp had admitted that they too were concerned with rights- just a different, perhaps more limited set- it would have helped them get more of what they wanted (simpler language, for example) out of the FSF. Of course, it is too late now for this round, but I think both sides should work on expanding those common grounds in the future. In the meantime, the rest of us will have to sit back and watch while they snipe at each other and Microsoft has the last laugh.
Q: While you’re venting a bit, have a blast: how do you feel about the claims that the v3 is ‘political’?
A: The use of ‘political’ as a slur against v3 demonstrates an abysmal understanding of both the specific history of free software and the general history of how rights evolve.
Yes, v3 is certainly political, in the sense that it claims the existence of “rights” that are controversial, and hence whose existence (or non-existence) has to be resolved via political/social means instead of judicial/analytical means. But all of these things were also true of v2. We’ve now reached the point where even Microsoft has mostly accepted that developers have the right to share if they want, and that community development is a valid and respectable way to develop software. Given that, it is easy to forget that in 1991, the notion of sharing and openness in code was controversial, and that as recently as a few years ago Microsoft was denouncing it as unamerican. If we’d listened to those who dismissed v2 as ‘political’ (or worse) in 1991, we wouldn’t be where we are today. So dismissing anything now because it is ‘political’ (instead of actually discussing the merits, which I fully admit are arguable) would be silly.
More generally, the v2’s transition from ‘political’ to accepted right is a fairly common trend in Western political history, as rights go from non-existent to hotly politically contested to taken for granted. Again, to dismiss something as ‘political’ demonstrates a great deal of ignorance of these broad historical and political trends. A good comparison is women’s voting. We take it for granted, and don’t think of it as ‘political’ anymore- it is now a core right, very broadly accepted. But when women first proposed that they should be able to vote, the question was very much ‘political’- protest marches were held, proponents were scorned, and the process took decades to go from proposal to accepted fact. Now, of course, you could be raised and come to adulthood without ever being aware that it women ever were denied this fundamental role in our society. As it has with the attempted creation of new rights in v3, new issues have evolved from the suffrage movement, like the rights of women in the workplace and affirmative action. The historical question is not whether it is wrong to bring these issues up for being ‘political’, but rather whether in 15 years we’ll see DRM as being more like the rights of women to work (was “political” after voting rights passed, now no longer controversial) or like affirmative action (was “political”, still is in many places.) Either way, the right way to tackle the issues is on the merits- not to use political as a slur.
Q: Back up a bit to day 1 and get off your high political horse. You said GPL v2 is incompatible with GPL v3? That doesn’t make sense.
A: Stallman explains it pretty well here:
When we say that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible, it means there is no legal way to combine code under GPLv2 with code under GPLv3 in a single program. This is because both GPLv2 and GPLv3 are copyleft licenses: each of them says, “If you include code under this license in a larger program, the larger program must be under this license too.” There is no way to make them compatible. We could add a GPLv2-compatibility clause to GPLv3, but it wouldn’t do the job, because GPLv2 would need a similar clause.
Because of this clause, “compatibility” with GPL is always a one-way street- I may be able to convert BSD or APL code into GPL code, but I can’t do the reverse. GPL with itself is no different.
Q: So, uh, isn’t incompatibility bad?
A: The incompatibility does restrict your ability to cut and paste code directly from one codebase to another. But past that, it probably won’t matter much.1 Again, quoting Stallman:
Fortunately, license incompatibility only matters when you want to link, merge or combine code from two different programs into a single program. There is no problem in having GPLv3-covered and GPLv2-covered programs side by side in an operating system. For instance, the TeX license and the Apache license are incompatible with GPLv2, but that doesn’t stop us from running TeX and Apache in the same system with Linux, Bash and GCC. This is because they are all separate programs. Likewise, if Bash and GCC move to GPLv3, while Linux remains under GPLv2, there is no conflict.
Q: Talk to me more about this APL compat. Are we going to have GNU/httpd now?
A: The one-way compatibility of GPL (mentioned above) isn’t something that is ‘hidden’ when FSF talks about compatibility- it is very deliberate, very public, and very explicit. So this new compatibility means that one-way GNU forks of Apache projects are now a legal and theoretical possibility. But pragmatically, it seems unlikely- the Apache folks have well organized communities that would likely outcode any fork, and when Mozilla went dual-license, Stallman specifically recommended against such a fork. It seems unlikely he’d act differently now- the goal of this compatibility has been to increase the ability of free software communities to work together, not to split them apart.2
Q: What about the Internet and Software as a Service?
A: The FSF’s relationship to software delivered over the internet is ambiguous. v3 explicitly maintains the loophole for software whose UI is delivered over the internet, so someone3 can still do things like take GNU code, replace the terminal interface with an html interface, distribute it to the world via http, and not provide your modifications upstream. At the same time, FSF does endorse the Affero Public License, which closes that loophole. If you’re worried about that problem, you can definitely use the Affero instead of the GPL.
Exactly why the FSF hasn’t closed the loophole in the GPL and is instead offering the Affero is unclear; if I were a betting man I’d say that the FSF would prefer to use moral pressure on Google and friends, rather than legal pressure until Microsoft is no longer a threat. The phrase is ‘pick your battles.’ You can see Moglen talk a little bit on this subject here. (Be forewarned: I normally think that Eben is one of the world’s best at taking difficult concepts and expressing them orally, but this isn’t, IMHO, Eben’s most lucid talk, perhaps because so much of it may be intended to be read between the lines.)
Q: Any thing you missed or badly screwed up in the first few days?
A: The biggest was that I neglected to mention a significant downside to dual-licensing. When you dual-license, you limit the code you can copy and paste into your own code base to the set of code which shares the same license you do. So, for example, Mozilla (which is triple licensed) can only copy from code bases which share the same three licenses- that is to say, virtually none. Not only does this make it more difficult to reuse code from elsewhere, it also makes it easier for forks to occur. For example, Flock is a GPL-only fork of Mozilla. This means that when Mozilla makes fixes, Flock can take them, but not vice-versa.
I also overlooked another option, besides outright copyright assignment, for handling the ‘or later’ problem- the license allows assignment of a proxy who can decide whether or not to upgrade to future versions of the license. This allows you (for example) to assign the right to upgrade to GPL v4 to the GNOME Foundation, without having to trust them completely enough to do a copyright assignment, while still allowing the Foundation to set some coherent strategy when the next license comes out. It seems like this is something that organizations who intend on being around for the next 16 years might want to consider as a lighter weight alternative to copyright assignment or just blindly trusting in ‘or later.’
Oh, and I’m not doing the all-caps thing; that is my theme. Sorry about that; I intend to fix it at some point.
Q: parting shots for now?
A: This license is an evolution, not a revolution; a good one that lots of projects will adopt, but which won’t (quite literally) change the IT world like v2 did. The revolutions are still to come- when we figure out the licenses for things outside of copyright (like web APIs, standards, personal data, and trademark) that give us great developer benefits and improved user rights, like GPL v2 did, we’ll see explosive growth in those spaces.
- If you’ve seen an O’Reilly article arguing otherwise, ignore it- or at least go back and read the comments, particularly those from Richard Fontana. The article seriously misunderstood a lot of things. [↩]
- Note that I’ve been told that GNU has done this in some cases, like gnash, so YMMV. [↩]
- *cough*google*cough* [↩]