Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill
[Danny William Adair] | Now Nils and Oleg are giving me the creeps. There are several issues here. First, it is not obvious that including one GPL'ed product in a zope site and then distributing that site obliges you to distribute any further source code. Only if you (embrace and) extend that specific product would the GPL hit you. Second, even if it does, remember that a zope site almost always includes source anyway. I guess the exception would be if you have binary-only python files or linked pre-compiled c-code or something like that. But it would be very hard to claim that those parts were 'infected' by a product on your site being GPL'ed. Third, you are only obligated to distribute source to parties you have already distributed the binary version to. I can't really see a customer buying a zope site from you and not expecting 'source' anyway. -Magnus (I'm not a lawyer)
Magnus Alvestad wrote:
Third, you are only obligated to distribute source to parties you have already distributed the binary version to. I can't really see a customer buying a zope site from you and not expecting 'source' anyway.
The problem is not that a client who paid for custom development will get the source. It's the fact that you have to release the source code of an enhanced GPL'ed component (and possibly stuff built with it) for everyone else, too. Another issue is that in a complex object oriented environment like Zope it's difficult to determine if you only used a GPL'ed component or "embraced and extended" it. Cheers, Nils -- nika@acm.org nika@kassube.de (preferred) 4kassube@informatik.uni-hamburg.de
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Nils Kassube wrote:
The problem is not that a client who paid for custom development will get the source. It's the fact that you have to release the source code of an enhanced GPL'ed component (and possibly stuff built with it) for everyone else, too.
*gasp* Your client will have *RIGHTS*, and won't be beholden to you? Like the right to post a code snippet of yours to this list and say "the original developer wants $9999 to debug this problem, can someone else help me?" Perish the thought! How will you ever become rich if you can't get on the "pay me to fix it, or pay someone else to start from scratch" train? Look, I'm the last person on earth to say the GPL is perfect, or is the one true license, or anything else. I've heard a number of GOOD arguments in a number of venues about why the GPL may not be the best choice in that setting. But this thread boils down to a bunch of people who want to sell a solution which includes work other than their own, receive all the money from the sale, bar the client from getting other 3rd parties to help them improve what they paid for, and further have a legal monopoly on distributing that solution to any additional people. What utter bald-faced greed and ingratitude. You are actually bemoaning the fact, on a public list, that you'll have to write things from scratch if you want to have the right set the terms of distribution on those things. You're begrudging others the right to set the terms of distribution on their things, because it impinges on your ability to make a profit. You're simply pointing out that you'll have to do more work to make your money this way. What exactly about all of that is supposed to tug at the heartstrings of people who routinely give you free code whose real dollar value easily exceeds what either of us makes in a year? Unbelievable. jim Not speaking for Cosource.com or Vistasource.com. PS I am *very* grateful for all of the amazing free software that the Zope community produces under ALL of its licenses. Thank you all, so much! The size of the gift you give is already mind boggling, so to those of you who choose the GPL, please ignore the ingrates who would ask you to make the gift even "larger" by giving up your copyleft. PPS Next time you think about comparing a world in which you had Product X, GPL'd and Product X, non-copylefted, try comparing a world in which you had Product X, GPL'd and had nothing because they won't distribute it under any terms whatsoever. It's easy to ask for even more generosity from someone when you take what you already have for granted. Try respecting the size of the gift you've already received for a bit of perspective.
Jim Hebert wrote:
Look, I'm the last person on earth to say the GPL is perfect, or is the one true license, or anything else. I've heard a number of GOOD arguments in a number of venues about why the GPL may not be the best choice in that setting.
From: http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-09-07-011-21-OS-CY-SW --cut-- LT: From your viewpoint, should the differences between your licenses and the GPL attract or deter developers? GVR: Both. It may deter GPL hardliners (but there seem to be few of these in the Python world). But it attracts developers from the proprietary world like I mentioned above. Many of these "proprietary" companies are major contributors to Python and other open source products. For example the new Unicode support and regular expression engine, as well as several existing core library modules, were contributed by people who also develop proprietary Python software --cut--
But this thread boils down to a bunch of people who want to sell a solution which includes work other than their own, receive all the money from the sale, bar the client from getting other 3rd parties to help them improve what they paid for, and further have a legal monopoly on distributing that solution to any additional people.
Looks like these people displaying "utter bald-faced greed and ingratitude" by developing proprietary software based on open source products are important to Guido van Rossum. Cheers, Nils -- nika@acm.org nika@kassube.de (preferred) 4kassube@informatik.uni-hamburg.de
Hey, Nils, I've got news for you. I've written 3 separate posts now which were long and thoughtful, which quoted from the GPL, and which explained to you and the rest of the community how you could deliver a proprietary solution to a client which relied on a GPL'd object in zope. But, I've deleted all three rather than send them. Why? Because, first, I don't want to be the person who posted a cook-book recipie for circumventing the intent of someone's license. Other people on this list have alluded to how to do it, that's already plenty. Second, I find the people who stand to benefit the most from such an explanation to be overwhelmingly rude and hostile towards any suggestion that each developer have the right to select their own distribution terms, and when given the choice between pissing off some developers who release GPL'd code to help some ingrates figure out workarounds OR letting the ingrates continue to believe their utterly outrageous misinterpretations of the GPL, I'll choose the second. But to answer your post specifically, fine, Guido wants you to take his code and turn it into commercial products. So do a number of other people. Now, you need to come up with a reason for me why that means EVERYONE should conduct themselves that way. That's what's being proposed here: that no one ever write zope products and release them under the GPL. Remember, no one is saying Zope should be GPL'd. Some are saying they'd like to distribute their modules and add-ons under the GPL. So, one side of the debate says "no, no one should use the GPL for any code that will run on a zope machine" and the other says "everyone should be free to select the license that they like best for the code that they distribute." Why does this debate even occupy anyone's time? It seems such a simple question. If someone posts a module that is GPL'd either a) use it and accept that that entails or b) don't use it, re-write it, whatever. I can't understand why there's a c) adopt as some sort of Zope-Community-Law that Thy Shalt Not Copyleft Things. Again, it only makes sense if you think people will STILL write the code but just release it under the more liberal license. I submit that that's not true. If I was advocating the complete and total re-licensing of everything on zope.org under the GPL, yes, you'd have a point, Guido and others clearly are happy to let their code become parts of commercial products. But what I advocate respects their wishes, and further respects other peoples' wishes too: people with a different viewpoint. Each consultant out there can pick and choose among the code available and if they want to shun GPL'd modules, great. That's a far better way to go then telling people not to write them in the first place, thank you very much. jim On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Nils Kassube wrote:
Jim Hebert wrote:
Look, I'm the last person on earth to say the GPL is perfect, or is the one true license, or anything else. I've heard a number of GOOD arguments in a number of venues about why the GPL may not be the best choice in that setting.
From:
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-09-07-011-21-OS-CY-SW
--cut-- LT: From your viewpoint, should the differences between your licenses and the GPL attract or deter developers?
GVR: Both. It may deter GPL hardliners (but there seem to be few of these in the Python world). But it attracts developers from the proprietary world like I mentioned above. Many of these "proprietary" companies are major contributors to Python and other open source products. For example the new Unicode support and regular expression engine, as well as several existing core library modules, were contributed by people who also develop proprietary Python software --cut--
But this thread boils down to a bunch of people who want to sell a solution which includes work other than their own, receive all the money from the sale, bar the client from getting other 3rd parties to help them improve what they paid for, and further have a legal monopoly on distributing that solution to any additional people.
Looks like these people displaying "utter bald-faced greed and ingratitude" by developing proprietary software based on open source products are important to Guido van Rossum.
This is not the place to conduct a GPL-vs.-everything-else flamewar. These messages are beginning to have nothing whatsoever to do with Zope. This is a list about Zope. If the GPL stuff relates in a manner not so tangetial to Zope, fine. But this particular thread is beginning to turn into a flamewar. If you care to argue the issues underlying this, please take it to an appropriate newsgroup. ----- Original Message ----- From: <jim@cosource.com> To: <zope@zope.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 2:51 PM Subject: Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill
Hey, Nils, I've got news for you. I've written 3 separate posts now which were long and thoughtful, which quoted from the GPL, and which explained to you and the rest of the community how you could deliver a proprietary solution to a client which relied on a GPL'd object in zope.
But, I've deleted all three rather than send them. Why? Because, first, I don't want to be the person who posted a cook-book recipie for circumventing the intent of someone's license. Other people on this list have alluded to how to do it, that's already plenty. Second, I find the people who stand to benefit the most from such an explanation to be overwhelmingly rude and hostile towards any suggestion that each developer have the right to select their own distribution terms, and when given the choice between pissing off some developers who release GPL'd code to help some ingrates figure out workarounds OR letting the ingrates continue to believe their utterly outrageous misinterpretations of the GPL, I'll choose the second.
But to answer your post specifically, fine, Guido wants you to take his code and turn it into commercial products. So do a number of other people.
Now, you need to come up with a reason for me why that means EVERYONE should conduct themselves that way. That's what's being proposed here: that no one ever write zope products and release them under the GPL.
Remember, no one is saying Zope should be GPL'd. Some are saying they'd like to distribute their modules and add-ons under the GPL. So, one side of the debate says "no, no one should use the GPL for any code that will run on a zope machine" and the other says "everyone should be free to select the license that they like best for the code that they distribute."
Why does this debate even occupy anyone's time? It seems such a simple question. If someone posts a module that is GPL'd either a) use it and accept that that entails or b) don't use it, re-write it, whatever. I can't understand why there's a c) adopt as some sort of Zope-Community-Law that Thy Shalt Not Copyleft Things. Again, it only makes sense if you think people will STILL write the code but just release it under the more liberal license. I submit that that's not true.
If I was advocating the complete and total re-licensing of everything on zope.org under the GPL, yes, you'd have a point, Guido and others clearly are happy to let their code become parts of commercial products. But what I advocate respects their wishes, and further respects other peoples' wishes too: people with a different viewpoint. Each consultant out there can pick and choose among the code available and if they want to shun GPL'd modules, great. That's a far better way to go then telling people not to write them in the first place, thank you very much.
jim
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Nils Kassube wrote:
Jim Hebert wrote:
Look, I'm the last person on earth to say the GPL is perfect, or is the one true license, or anything else. I've heard a number of GOOD arguments in a number of venues about why the GPL may not be the best choice in that setting.
From:
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-09-07-011-21-OS-CY-SW
--cut-- LT: From your viewpoint, should the differences between your licenses and the GPL attract or deter developers?
GVR: Both. It may deter GPL hardliners (but there seem to be few of these in the Python world). But it attracts developers from the proprietary world like I mentioned above. Many of these "proprietary" companies are major contributors to Python and other open source products. For example the new Unicode support and regular expression engine, as well as several existing core library modules, were contributed by people who also develop proprietary Python software --cut--
But this thread boils down to a bunch of people who want to sell a solution which includes work other than their own, receive all the money from the sale, bar the client from getting other 3rd parties to help them improve what they paid for, and further have a legal monopoly on distributing that solution to any additional people.
Looks like these people displaying "utter bald-faced greed and ingratitude" by developing proprietary software based on open source products are important to Guido van Rossum.
_______________________________________________ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
----- Original Message ----- From: "Nils Kassube" <lists@kassube.de> To: "Magnus Alvestad" <magnus@websys.no>; <zope@zope.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 8:57 PM Subject: Re: [Zope] Zope and the GPL poison pill
Magnus Alvestad wrote:
Third, you are only obligated to distribute source to parties you have already distributed the binary version to. I can't really see a customer buying a zope site from you and not expecting 'source' anyway.
The problem is not that a client who paid for custom development will get the source. It's the fact that you have to release the source code of an enhanced GPL'ed component (and possibly stuff built with it) for everyone else, too.
so, your main problem here is that you take someone elses work, modify it to suit your needs under a license that *specifically* grants you those rights, and then, when you want to distribute your modifications, you find yourself in a bad position, because it will mean that you would have to give everybody else the same rights that allowed you to distribute a modification of someone elses work, in the first place? In other words, you don't mind being the "sharee", but do not wish to be the "sharer", particularely when it somes to work that others have "shared" to you? To shout bloody murder because of this is to REALLY expose one self, don't you think? To me, this is the ultimately reason to have the GPL around. It helps us ensure that all that want to profit from our work but have no interest in returning the favor will have to turn elsewhere or actually do some of the grundwork themsleves. Mind you that my english is not too good, so there might be som parts of this thread that I have not fully understood or that I may have got completely wrong; if so, fell free to enlighten me. Sincerely, /dario - -------------------------------------------------------------------- Dario Lopez-Kästen Systems Developer Chalmers Univ. of Technology dario@ita.chalmers.se ICQ will yield no hits IT Systems & Services
Dario Lopez-Ksten wrote:
and then, when you want to distribute your modifications, you find yourself in a bad position, because it will mean that you would have to give everybody else the same rights that allowed you to distribute a modification of someone elses work, in the first place?
What if I can't distribute the modifications or a web site built using GPL'ed components because I also use a commercial library in it? To quote Dave Winer: "[The GPL is] designed to create a wall between commercial development and free development. The world is not that simple. There are plenty of commercial developers who participate in open source. Python belongs in commercial products. How does that hurt Python?" I _do_ want to give something back to the community, but I do not want to be forced to give away for free every piece of code I wrote because some silly person thinks it's okay to earn money with everything else but it's morally wrong to earn money with software development. Cheers, Nils -- nika@acm.org nika@kassube.de (preferred) 4kassube@informatik.uni-hamburg.de
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Nils Kassube wrote:
To quote Dave Winer: "[The GPL is] designed to create a wall between commercial development and free development. The world is not that simple. There are plenty of commercial developers who participate in open source. Python belongs in commercial products. How does that hurt Python?"
I have multiple levels of reaction to this. The first is that you might as well have quoted Steve Balmer or Jesse Berst. Second, this quote is out of context: Dave nearly immediately backpedaled from that statement, made during a visceral reaction to something Richard Stallman wrote. Read other places where Dave indicates that the problem he had wasn't with the GPL, it's with particular agendas which are sometimes conflated with the GPL: http://discuss.userland.com/msgReader$20575 [quoting Dave:] t's funny how points of view shift over time. When I was choosing an open source license for MacBird, I read the preamble to the GPL and was outraged at how it talked about commercial vendors. My takeaway was "poison pill". Then after you raised the issue, I went and took another look, thinking I would copy/paste the offensive sections to the DG to show what I meant, and I couldn't find them. I assume the GPL didn't change, clearly something about me did change. [end quote] Or his softening of his stance, written immediately after what you're quoting out of context: http://scriptingnews.userland.com/backissues/2000/09/11 [quoting Dave] Richard Stallman responds to a post on Scripting News re the controversy over Python licensing. We have different philosophies. I'm learning his now and working on mine, and it's true that there are things I don't agree with him on. I'd like to see commercial and open source developers work together more fluidly. He seems to agree. Reading his piece I think we could have an interesting discussion. I think we're on the same side on the important issues, believe it or not. (The big issue is patents, for now.) [end quote] Third, again, you're responding as though the discussion is about re-licensing all of Zope under the, which simply isn't what anyone has proposed. Again, one side suggests that no one ever write a zope product under the GPL, ever, that we all standardize on a more liberal license, and the other side simply says that each author should have the right to choose their own distribution terms.
I _do_ want to give something back to the community, but I do not want to be forced to give away for free every piece of code I wrote because some silly person thinks it's okay to earn money with everything else but it's morally wrong to earn money with software development.
Right. There's different viewpoints. You can write code and release it under your choice of licenses, and so can others. Further, this is inflamatory, it conflates RMS's agenda with the terms of the license. Remember that someone else's choice of that license may not be because they agree with the agenda: witness the ESR/RMS split: they both seem happy with the operational effect of the license, but aren't exactly on the same page about this issue of morals. Again, please explain a reason why you should dictate to every person who wants to write a zope module why they shouldn't get to have the license of their choice. My advocacy protects your choice, your advocacy destroys other peoples'. jim
Jim Hebert wrote:
Third, again, you're responding as though the discussion is about re-licensing all of Zope under the, which simply isn't what anyone has
I'm only pointing out what I think is a problem with using a GPL'ed component in a Zope site. My Zope-specific problem is: If I use a GPL'ed component in a complex object oriented environment like Zope, does this mean that the whole work is now subject to the GPL? work = Zope-based web site/web application use = e.g. subclassing it or method calls, etc.
proposed. Again, one side suggests that no one ever write a zope product under the GPL, ever, that we all standardize on a more liberal license,
Who did this? A strawman.
Again, please explain a reason why you should dictate to every person who wants to write a zope module why they shouldn't get to have the license of their choice. My advocacy protects your choice, your advocacy destroys other peoples'.
Sorry, but all I wrote was this: | I hope Zope product developers think twice about using the GPL. I don't dictate anything. No one here does. Get a life^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HPeace. I am not interested in a discussion about the merits of the GPL or the GNU project, I'm only interested in the practical implications of using GPL'ed Zope components. I'm sure there are people working on components who would like to share their software and don't realize that by using the GPL they make it impossible or difficult to use their code for commercial development. Cheers, Nils -- nika@acm.org nika@kassube.de (preferred) 4kassube@informatik.uni-hamburg.de
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Nils Kassube wrote:
I'm only pointing out what I think is a problem with using a GPL'ed component in a Zope site.
My Zope-specific problem is: If I use a GPL'ed component in a complex object oriented environment like Zope, does this mean that the whole work is now subject to the GPL?
Asked and answered. No. Incidentally, perhaps you meant to mention something about distribution in this question. Pre-emptively, the answer is still "No, if you are smart and careful." Which was what my previous post was alluding to.
Get a life^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HPeace.
I am not interested in a discussion about the merits of the GPL or the GNU project, I'm only interested in the practical implications of
Indeed, that became clear to me when you wrote:
[...] I do not want to be forced to give away for free every piece of code I wrote because some silly person thinks it's okay to earn money with everything else but it's morally wrong to earn money with software development.
I salute you for your expertise demonstrated in avoiding discussing the merits of the GPL, the GNU project or its members, and for your laser-like ability to focus your commentary on the practical issues. I flame too, but at least I'm not a hypocrite about it. =) I give up. I don't really see how continuing to reply to a series of hypocritical alternations between personal attack and pleas to return to the topic could be productive, so this is my last post in the thread. Flame away, you can have the last word and everything. jim
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 11:29:23PM +0200, Nils Kassube wrote:
I'm only pointing out what I think is a problem with using a GPL'ed component in a Zope site.
My Zope-specific problem is: If I use a GPL'ed component in a complex object oriented environment like Zope, does this mean that the whole work is now subject to the GPL?
work = Zope-based web site/web application
No, GPL does not affect non-program parts of the work. Nor does it affect work that "uses" GPL code, i.e. that makes function calls or that makes method calls.
use = e.g. subclassing it or method calls, etc.
Yes, it would feel to me that subclassing is a derived program. You are taking a preexisting program and modifying it; your work cannot stand on its own. In spirit, this appears to be not very different from patching a program (except that the patch is done on-the-fly, rather than statically). And no, using a GPL program does not magically create a derived program. For example, using gcc as a compiler does not require that any code thus compiled be GPL. Similarly, using a method does not require that every object/method which calls/invokes to be GPL. I think you are getting hung up on "The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it" Notice that it talks about the _work_ containing the Program, not the _system_ containing the program. The system may contain GPL and non-GPL code. Again, installing gcc on a computer does not automatically force every other piece of software on the computer to be GPL (containment on a hard disk is not what this is about!). A single tar file may contain both GPL and non-GPL components (containment in a bundle is not what this clause is about!). Simile, containment in Zope is not what this clause is about. As long as what you write does not modify the GPL'ed program, either by removing, adding, or altering the GPL program itself, the license does not put any restrictions on you. Jim Penny
+-------[ jpenny@universal-fasteners.com ]---------------------- | On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 11:29:23PM +0200, Nils Kassube wrote: | > I'm only pointing out what I think is a problem with using a | > GPL'ed component in a Zope site. | > | > My Zope-specific problem is: If I use a GPL'ed component in a complex | > object oriented environment like Zope, does this mean that the whole | > work is now subject to the GPL? | > | > work = Zope-based web site/web application | | GPL and non-GPL code. Again, installing gcc on a computer | does not automatically force every other piece of software on the | computer to be GPL (containment on a hard disk is not what this is gcc is also a special case. Any and all programs compiled with gcc contain GPL'd code, and therefore should also be GPL. This requirement would obviously kill gcc stone dead. -- Totally Holistic Enterprises Internet| P:+61 7 3870 0066 | Andrew Milton The Internet (Aust) Pty Ltd | F:+61 7 3870 4477 | ACN: 082 081 472 ABN: 83 082 081 472 | M:+61 416 022 411 | Carpe Daemon PO Box 837 Indooroopilly QLD 4068 |akm@theinternet.com.au|
Magnus Alvestad wrote:
[Danny William Adair]
| Now Nils and Oleg are giving me the creeps.
There are several issues here.
First, it is not obvious that including one GPL'ed product in a zope site and then distributing that site obliges you to distribute any further source code. Only if you (embrace and) extend that specific product would the GPL hit you.
That's LGPL, GPL affects anything _linked_ to it ;(
Second, even if it does, remember that a zope site almost always includes source anyway. I guess the exception would be if you have binary-only python files or linked pre-compiled c-code or something like that. But it would be very hard to claim that those parts were 'infected' by a product on your site being GPL'ed.
LGPL would be fine, but GPL directly affects anything "linked" to/with it. As GPL has never (AFAIK) been tested in court the whole discussion may be moot, but otherways you are in muddy waters if you use GPL'd modules and don't make all your source available. It _may_ be possible to separate your site into code, content and docs, but still at least whole source code is affected, perhaps contents too, depending on how you/RMS/judge sees it.
Third, you are only obligated to distribute source to parties you have already distributed the binary version to. I can't really see a customer buying a zope site from you and not expecting 'source' anyway.
I can see only two reasons (except extortion) for not providing the code - 1. extremely bad code and 2. some really nifty invention (here a patent would serve you better anyway) ------ Hannu
participants (8)
-
Andrew Kenneth Milton -
Chris McDonough -
Dario Lopez-K�sten -
Hannu Krosing -
Jim Hebert -
jpenny＠universal-fasteners.com -
Magnus Alvestad -
Nils Kassube